Senators Introduce Bill That Would Pu...

Senators Introduce Bill That Would Put DC Marriage Equality On Hold

There are 196 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Feb 3, 2010, titled Senators Introduce Bill That Would Put DC Marriage Equality On Hold. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

Nine senators have agreed to introduce a bill, similar to one introduced last month in the House by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), which would forbid The District of Columbia from allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in the city until the issue is decided through a voter referendum or initiative.

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

First Prev
of 10
Next Last
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#186 Feb 7, 2010
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
On gay issues, he and his administration were far from moderate anything.
Actually, under Ronald Reagan's administration, gay people COULD serve openly in the military. This didn't change until Clinton signed DADT into law. Clinton COULD have vetoed it. Why didn't he ? Because Clinton SUPPORTED discrimination against gay people.

And Ronald Reagan personally campaigned AGAINST Proposition 6 (the Briggs Initiative), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_Initiativ... , whci would have prevented gay people, or anyone who advocated for Equal Rights for gay people, from working in the public schools.

Ronald Reagan did MORE to fight for gay rights than any President in history.

Why do so many people think the opposite ?!

Democrat Clinton signed the FIRST, and SECOND, FEDERAL LAWS specifically barring Equal Rights for gay people. He COULD have vetoed them. Why didn't he ?

So why do so many people mistakenly think that Clinton supported Equal Rights for gay people, when his actions as President clearly demonstrate the opposite ?!

As far as Reagan's and Clinton's record on Equal Rights for gay people is concerned, you, and most others, have it a$$-backwards.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#187 Feb 7, 2010
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been a Libertarian for more than 30 years.
(And Brooklyn-born by the Grace Of God.:))
So, a Yankee's fan? or maybe at one time a Dodger fan:)

I have I guess no true party affiliation because both parties just really piss me off.......I would really love to see a new party come in and make changes:)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#188 Feb 7, 2010
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, under Ronald Reagan's administration, gay people COULD serve openly in the military. This didn't change until Clinton signed DADT into law. Clinton COULD have vetoed it. Why didn't he ? Because Clinton SUPPORTED discrimination against gay people.
And Ronald Reagan personally campaigned AGAINST Proposition 6 (the Briggs Initiative), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_Initiativ... , whci would have prevented gay people, or anyone who advocated for Equal Rights for gay people, from working in the public schools.
Ronald Reagan did MORE to fight for gay rights than any President in history.
Why do so many people think the opposite ?!
Democrat Clinton signed the FIRST, and SECOND, FEDERAL LAWS specifically barring Equal Rights for gay people. He COULD have vetoed them. Why didn't he ?
So why do so many people mistakenly think that Clinton supported Equal Rights for gay people, when his actions as President clearly demonstrate the opposite ?!
As far as Reagan's and Clinton's record on Equal Rights for gay people is concerned, you, and most others, have it a$$-backwards.
What have YOU been smoking ?!?!?!?

The UCMJ barred gay people from serving at all.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#189 Feb 7, 2010
Rose T-H wrote:
<quoted text>
So, a Yankee's fan? or maybe at one time a Dodger fan:)
I have I guess no true party affiliation because both parties just really piss me off.......I would really love to see a new party come in and make changes:)
I am similarly undeclared. I vote persons and issues, not parties. It tends to get my vote canelled-out a lot, but oh well. I'm expatriating soon.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#190 Feb 7, 2010
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I am similarly undeclared. I vote persons and issues, not parties. It tends to get my vote canelled-out a lot, but oh well. I'm expatriating soon.
I tend to go with the lesser of the two evils:)

I have been happy with the candidates for the last couple of elections.

I am hoping for something in 2012.....but I already know the one side

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#191 Feb 7, 2010
Rose T-H wrote:
<quoted text>
I tend to go with the lesser of the two evils:)
I have been happy with the candidates for the last couple of elections.
I am hoping for something in 2012.....but I already know the one side
"...the lesser of two weevils..." ?
rjl

Bronx, NY

#192 Feb 7, 2010
Here is another serious matter that has not received much media attention;



May God bless and have mercy on us.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#193 Feb 7, 2010
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
A matter of opinion on which I am fairly certain we are in opposing camps.
On that, we can agree. Why? Notice that you avoided the entire first part of the post? Goes to the character of the acsused.(That would be you.) But I know how much you think you have any integrity so as a public service, I'll post it again, giving you one more opportunity to redeem yourself.

"So, let's see what may be drawn from that statement... uh... you have to make things up because you don't agree with what I've really written. So you lie. You're deficient in cognative skills and reading comprehension so you have to fabricate fictions to fit your prejudice... you have to distort the substance to inadequate try to insult a poster who doesn't care about your lame attempt at insults, given your demonstrated hypocrisy."

There ya go. Try, try again.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#194 Feb 7, 2010
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
...Ronald Reagan did MORE to fight for gay rights than any President in history....
Daniel does MORE to demonstrate he is delusional that any poster on this forum.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#195 Feb 8, 2010
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Daniel does MORE to demonstrate he is delusional that any poster on this forum.
I can almost agree with him sometimes, but then he seems to just wander off in his head somewhere. lolol

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#196 Feb 8, 2010
BS-

Not interested.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#197 Feb 8, 2010
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Ralph ... uh ...that is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
The "Preamble" in fact lays out the mandate of the U.S. Constitution, and the criterion for all subsequent and dependent legislations and decisions. It does so with six mandates to which all else is subordinate.
Just to review:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to (1)form a more perfect Union,(2)establish Justice,(3)insure domestic Tranquility,(4)provide for the common defence,(5)promote the general Welfare, and (6)secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
(parenthetical numerals are mine)
You are correct. Sorry, but I was a little out of it. Had to go to emergency room Friday night. Just got back this morning. I am catching up. Actually, I probably won't post for a couple of more days. However, I am still interested in his intrepretation of the ruling.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#198 Feb 8, 2010
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
I support the recent SCOTUS ruling. The First Amendment does NOT have an exception for corporations, anymore than it contains exceptions for various religions or types of publications.
A corportaion is a legal construct defing the association of particular persons or groups of people. A single individual mmay legally become a corporation. The reason for doing this in many cases is to legally limit liablity. One, two, or any amount of people may form a corporation. Since the corporation is made of people, then why should their First Amendment righgts be legally limited ?
As far as foreign corporations or other forein entities are concerned, I think you CAN constitutionally limit their free speech rights, because by definition, they ARE FOREIGN and thus not covered by the U.S. Constitution's protections.
Is that not a logical argument ?
I disagree with you, but I am not really up to the discussion right now. Maybe later. Thanks for your answer, though.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#199 Feb 8, 2010
snyper wrote:
BS-
Not interested.
I don't believe you.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#200 Feb 8, 2010
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct. Sorry, but I was a little out of it. Had to go to emergency room Friday night. Just got back this morning. I am catching up. Actually, I probably won't post for a couple of more days. However, I am still interested in his intrepretation of the ruling.
I hope everything is going to be all right.

Don't worry about missing anything. This dead horse hasn't got much hide left to it. lol

Get well.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#201 Feb 8, 2010
Tipper wrote:
<quoted text>
While you often try to make good points, all the quotation marks for emphasis make your writing almost unreadable.
(said in a friendly way) I am genuinely confused; I use asterisks for emphasis.
Tipper wrote:
You also seem to love writing 100 words, when 10 might do. If you can't make your points without these tactics, perhaps you should reconsider posting until you have mnore clarity of thought.
I would agree except for something I noticed early on these boards.

People *don't* read a lot of what's written here. I write for whoever wants to read it. I think you make good points here *if this were for a grade*, for instance; if these were *essays for paid publication*, for instance; and so on and so on.

I dislike saying this, but ... I don't put that much effort into it, hahaha. I write what I write and I leave it. Come to think of it, if people were responding to my POSTS MORE, I might make those efforts. I often make them on an individual basis for posters with whom I've become friendly.

More than that, I would not want to say here. I understand that *all you've ever seen me write* is what I write here, but, uhhh -- I'll let your judgment stand, keep silent about it, and simply say, although it might come off mysteriously,

There's a difference between editing one's words and simply posting them.
Tipper wrote:
Just a suggestion, from someone who often agrees with you.
Thank you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
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.

Senator Roger Wicker Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mississippi holds on to state flag with Confede... Aug '17 Birdzilla 48
News Prominent voices call for change to Mississippi... (Aug '15) Jul '17 UAW 8
News Our Opinion: Fate of Arc impacts communities ac... Apr '17 Growing Pains 5
News CVB exhibit honors Lane Chapel Quintet Apr '17 CVB 3
News Travels keep members of Congress out of state (Feb '17) Mar '17 Rod Knox 12
News National, local leaders stand by Trump at rally (Oct '16) Oct '16 Together No Way 26
News Lisa Murkowski Cruises to Primary Victory (Aug '16) Aug '16 He Named Me Black... 2
More from around the web