Wyoming Representative Sponsoring Mar...

Wyoming Representative Sponsoring Marriage Equality Bill

There are 35 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Jan 24, 2013, titled Wyoming Representative Sponsoring Marriage Equality Bill. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

The next stop in the marriage equality train appears to be Wyoming. Representative Cathy Connolly of Laramie is sponsoring House Bill 169. It would “redefine marriage as a civil contract between ‘two natural persons’”, as the National Organization for Marriage’s panic stricken missives states.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#22 Jan 25, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
By redistricting. They can't win otherwise. They simply don't have a majority. This is why they carry excess baggage like fundies and Tea- Bagers.
They're certainly a majority in their districts. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in Congress.

LOL

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23 Jan 25, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
They're certainly a majority in their districts. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in Congress.
LOL
... but not in their states. So much for the will of the people huh?

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#24 Jan 25, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
... but not in their states. So much for the will of the people huh?
If you're sole claim is that somehow gerrymandering alone has rendered Democrats in the minority in every district they don't hold, that's simply not true. Furthermore, You CANNOT "take the politics out of politics." Gerrymandering IS politics. You cannot take gerrymandering out of politics any more than yu can take politicians out of politics. It's the nature of the beast.

And God only knows that DEMOCRATS would NEVER resort to gerrymandering ! Heaven forbid ! They're much too innocent and sweet and pure to ever do such a thing !

Also, NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution does it say that "the majority shall rule". In fact it's structured quite the opposite, with the Senate disproportionately favoring the small states, a single judge able to overturn an Act of Congress, and the President issuing orders.

And it's clear that the Founders, who WROTE the U.S. Constitution NEVER intended for women to be able to vote, nor black Americans, nor Native Americans, nor people who did not own land. They CERTAINLY didn't believe in allowing the average American to be able to vote. So where does this "themajority shall rule" myth come from ?

(Elect me King, and I shall rule with an Iron Sceptre. But ALWAYS be Fair. And Balanced.:))

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25 Jan 25, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're sole claim is that somehow gerrymandering alone has rendered Democrats in the minority in every district they don't hold, that's simply not true. Furthermore, You CANNOT "take the politics out of politics." Gerrymandering IS politics. You cannot take gerrymandering out of politics any more than yu can take politicians out of politics. It's the nature of the beast.
And God only knows that DEMOCRATS would NEVER resort to gerrymandering ! Heaven forbid ! They're much too innocent and sweet and pure to ever do such a thing !
Also, NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution does it say that "the majority shall rule". In fact it's structured quite the opposite, with the Senate disproportionately favoring the small states, a single judge able to overturn an Act of Congress, and the President issuing orders.
And it's clear that the Founders, who WROTE the U.S. Constitution NEVER intended for women to be able to vote, nor black Americans, nor Native Americans, nor people who did not own land. They CERTAINLY didn't believe in allowing the average American to be able to vote. So where does this "themajority shall rule" myth come from ?
(Elect me King, and I shall rule with an Iron Sceptre. But ALWAYS be Fair. And Balanced.:))
The fact is, Republicans fail to represent any of my interests or your interests either.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#26 Jan 25, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is, Republicans fail to represent any of my interests or your interests either.
I disagree.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27 Jan 25, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree.
Show me one thing the Republicans have done for you or me in the last ten years.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#28 Jan 25, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me one thing the Republicans have done for you or me in the last ten years.
LOWERED MY TAXES from "confiscatory" to just "onerours" !:)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#29 Jan 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
By redistricting. They can't win otherwise. They simply don't have a majority. This is why they carry excess baggage like fundies and Tea- Bagers.
And now the GOPasaurs want to change how electoral votes are awarded, but ONLY in states won by Obama.

Gee, I wonder why they aren't pushing that change in Texas or any of the other "red states"?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#30 Jan 26, 2013
"Equality of all. In their inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all members of the human race are equal." - Wyoming Constitution

Time to live up to the requirements of the state and federal constitutions.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31 Jan 26, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
LOWERED MY TAXES from "confiscatory" to just "onerours" !:)
False. Republicans did no such thing. In fact they did the opposite by wreak-less defense spending for a useless war which we will all pay for with increased taxes sooner or later.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#32 Jan 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
False. Republicans did no such thing. In fact they did the opposite by wreak-less defense spending for a useless war which we will all pay for with increased taxes sooner or later.
And which war was "useless" ?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#33 Jan 26, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
And which war was "useless" ?
Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#34 Jan 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Iraq and Afghanistan.
LOL

Both were eminently justified, and BOTH were authorized by Congress and\or the U.N.

Afghanistan COULD HAVE avoided an invasion if The Taliban had handed over Bin Laden as demanded. But they refused to do so.

And saddam, one of the GREATEST mass murderers of the 20TH Century, SHOULD HAVE BEEN overthrown more than a decade ago.

And ALL of the military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq are VOLUNTEERS. If they wanted to volunteer, then tthat's certainly their right to do so and I applaud them from doing so.

I take it that you also believe that since Japan attacked us in World War II, and not Germany, that we should NOT have gone to war against Hitler, which caused hundreds of thousands of Americans their lives.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#35 Jan 26, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Both were eminently justified, and BOTH were authorized by Congress and\or the U.N.
Afghanistan COULD HAVE avoided an invasion if The Taliban had handed over Bin Laden as demanded. But they refused to do so.
And saddam, one of the GREATEST mass murderers of the 20TH Century, SHOULD HAVE BEEN overthrown more than a decade ago.
And ALL of the military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq are VOLUNTEERS. If they wanted to volunteer, then tthat's certainly their right to do so and I applaud them from doing so.
I take it that you also believe that since Japan attacked us in World War II, and not Germany, that we should NOT have gone to war against Hitler, which caused hundreds of thousands of Americans their lives.
Congress doesn't make the war justifiable. What would justify a war might be if it makes economic sense or if we were to gain something from the expenditure. What did we gain from either war Einstein? WWII is irrelevant but justifiable in terms of what was gained.

Leaving Saddam in place would have been much more advantageous than removing him.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#36 Jan 26, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Both were eminently justified, and BOTH were authorized by Congress and\or the U.N.
Afghanistan COULD HAVE avoided an invasion if The Taliban had handed over Bin Laden as demanded. But they refused to do so.
And saddam, one of the GREATEST mass murderers of the 20TH Century, SHOULD HAVE BEEN overthrown more than a decade ago.
And ALL of the military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq are VOLUNTEERS. If they wanted to volunteer, then tthat's certainly their right to do so and I applaud them from doing so.
I take it that you also believe that since Japan attacked us in World War II, and not Germany, that we should NOT have gone to war against Hitler, which caused hundreds of thousands of Americans their lives.
Justifiable? How?

Invading Iraq had nothing to do with getting Bin Laden.

Saddam had nothing to do with us. We lost vast sums of money and got a shit-load of people killed for nothing.

Volunteers still get paid with tax-payer money. What did we get for our expenditure?

WWII is a red herring. Don't even go there.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 8 min who cares 11,928
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 13 min woodtick57 1,058
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 26 min Brian_G 36,266
News Gay marriage victory at Supreme Court triggerin... 39 min The Rainbow Kid 3
News Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 1 hr Lenny 2,126
News 'Gay sex causes earthquakes' says conservative ... 2 hr President Trump 8
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 2 hr June VanDerMark 10,351
More from around the web