- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
How about we visit it now?
I'm trying to get some who support gay marriage to see the hypocritical nature of using "human rights" as an argument to allow gay marriage.
You use that argument you cannot deny any human couple or group the same "right"
To deny the people a right to vote when they ask?
My apologies you are correct. (see it can be done. Wish you would try it when you are mistaken)
Only one problem though. There is no marriage section so it doesn't apply.
Every individual shall have an equal opportunity to participate fully in the economic, cultural and intellectual life of the District and to have an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of life, including, but not limited to, in employment, in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement, in educational institutions, in public service, and in housing and commercial space accommodations.
Because it exposes the hypocritical nature of your argument using the "human rights" defense.
I'm trying to get some who support gay marriage to see the hypocritical nature of using "human rights" as an argument to allow gay marriage.
You use that argument you cannot deny any human couple or group the same "right"
Then explain how they didn't circumvent the people when they denied a vote on this very issue?
A more accurate thread title would be, "DC City Council votes to impose gay marriage" - given that most DC citizens are opposed to it.
The article states Congress is reluctant to interfere with it, but I am not sure it can pass a referendum should it get that far.
Still, it is a sign of the times regarding legislation.
Of course they are, they're imposing their beliefs that gay marriage should be legal.Unless they are passing a law that everyone has to get gay married, no, they are not imposing anything on anyone.
Unless they are passing a law that everyone has to get gay married, no, they are not imposing anything on anyone.
Of course they are, they're imposing their beliefs that gay marriage should be legal.
How would Congress interfere with it? in your opinion.
Of course they are, they're imposing their beliefs that gay marriage should be legal.
A more accurate thread title would be, "DC City Council votes to impose gay marriage" - given that most DC citizens are opposed to it.
The federal Congress has final word on all laws in Washington, DC.
We the people ELECTED our City Council to represent us. Why should the people have to approve every single thing that our representatives pass? How is it "circumventing the people" for elected representatives to pass laws? If the people are that pissed about it, they can vote the City Council out of office next time they're up for election.
Will the policies leave with them?
:lol: i know that, I meant exactly how they would. The same way the 'interfered' with the Gun Ban?
See that's the tricky thing about this. What the federal congress does with this is going to signal whether the opposition attacks full force in an attempt to get a full on ban across the board by means of federal law or the advocates redouble their efforts state to state to overturn state DOMAs.
It's sort of a litmus test as to where the issue is. That's why all eyes are on this right now.
From the perspective of the majority, they're imposing gay marriage.Depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, it looks as though they are blocking the anti-gm crowd from imposing their moral disapproval upon gays.
Has to do more with how the laws were interepreted -- and that was indeed 1man/1woman.Depends on how their marriage laws were worded prior to this. If there was not mention of 1 man or 1 woman, they imposed nothing.
Even if true, there is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution.Either way, mob rule voting away the rights of others is still prohibited by our Constitution.
From the perspective of the majority, they're imposing gay marriage.
Has to do more with how the laws were interepreted -- and that was indeed 1man/1woman.
Even if true, there is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution.
I'm sure Bonney Fwank is thrilled......
From the perspective of the majority, they're imposing gay marriage.
Even if true, there is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution.
I'm sure Bonney Fwank is thrilled......
From the perspective of the majority, they're imposing gay marriage.
Has to do more with how the laws were interepreted -- and that was indeed 1man/1woman.
Even if true, there is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?