No... ...she wants to leave it to the states to decide. That's not the same thing. You're putting words in her mouth because she had the temerity to have her own opinion. The nerve of that woman, right?
I don't think it should be left to any state, or any government, anywhere, at any level, for any reason. I don't agree with Ms. Cheney; but I'm apparently in a minority who doesn't think it's necessary to distort her position just because I don't agree with it. She didn't say anything about banning anything for anybody; she simply engaged in what is apparently the equivalent of ethnic cleansing, matricide, and tearing the tags off mattresses all rolled into one by having a politically incorrect opinion.
If you support the right of the state to ban something, then you are supporting that thing being banned.
She didn't say anything about banning anything? Even if I take that statement to be true, that's nothing more than a garamet-level weasel because the effect would be the same.
I didn't read this whole thread, I'll admit. But, I usually think TR is one of the more sane republicans available nowadays (if he can be branded). I think the title itself was more for thread clicks than anything and he doesn't really have anything against gay marriage. I could be wrong, but I don't think he fits into any of those camps..
That's a fancy way of saying that because she's not ravenously munching rugs herself, she's herding her sister into the gas chamber. I'm not buyin' that. That woman has a right to hold a dissenting opinion.
For all we know, she is ravenously munching rugs, but sees it as a sexual deviance, not a call for marriage equality. Be that as it may, Bailey is absolutely correct. If you favor states having the authority to ban an activity, you support the banning of that activity.
You sure you want to stick with that? Because that means you support a lot of villainous shit you've claimed you don't support, as well. Or you can untangle yourself a bit and acknowledge that someone can support states' rights on principle while not supporting every single state's every single legislative effort.
I can certainly stick with it. If we hold that something should be universal, we can't support the notion that some can opt out. State's rights on behalf of slavery? No. State's rights on behalf of gender discrimination? No. State's rights on behalf of building codes? Sure.
Agreed. I was really just because he has a tendency not to participate all that much in his own threads (the OP and one other post our of 100 here, for example), and I'd like to know more about what he thinks and why.
I too, would like to see TR participate more. Even though I might not agree with his view of economic policy, one thing I seem to agree with him quite a bit on is social issues. Showing me that the left and right, if you so narrowly want to define people, can still find common ground in what seems to be such a hyper partisan atmosphere nowadays. It really disgusts me lately that compromise is such an ugly word for so many people and politicians.
Back when this thread was made, I did it as a tongue in cheek to a thread that was called,"One more thing to piss off the the.Homophobics." On gay marriage, I'm fine with it so long as churches aren't forced to perform them. Otherwise, have at it. On my list of things to care about it's at or near the bottom,hence why I rarely comment on the matter.
Well, you sure got Castle bending over backwards to defend a bigot and the status quo... not all that surprising a result, but the form is excellent.
What I'm defending is free thought and free speech, you moron. And, by the same token, that's what you're attacking. Free speech. Free thought. For everyone, including -- no, especially -- for those who disagree with the currently accepted trend.
equality before the law isn't a "trend". Freedom of speech doesn't change the fact that you are supporting bigotry. You can say what you like, I'll call it for what it is... That's also freedom of speech.
so you think equal treatment is a PC fad? is that what i'm getting? yes, you're supporting Liz Cheney's right to advocate for the suppression of other peoples' civil rights.
If that's what you're getting, you're choosing to get a distortion of what I said instead of what I actually said. Except since she's advocating leaving it up to the states, it's equally accurate to say that she's advocating for the right of the states to support marriage equality. See, here's what I'm getting: you're afraid that if the question is left to the states, the states won't decide that question the way they should. And maybe they won't -- but maybe they will. Cheney is saying, "Roll the dice." You're saying, "Force people to conform" -- and "force people to conform" is, ironically, what you're supposedly against here. At least Cheney's position on this isn't self-contradictory.
Oklahoma recently decided to get rid of all marriage benefits for the state national guard simply because they didn't want to follow the Pentagon's order to extend marriage equality to gay people. That's an excellent example of why we need a national directive and why basic civil rights must not be left up to individual states. No one should have their basic civil rights put up for a vote.
Hard to say that isn't equal treatment, though, since they're screwing all the marrieds equally. Of course, by extending certain benefits to marrieds but not to singles, they were screwing singles. Sounds like Oklahoma opted for full equality by not giving special benefits to anybody at all.
OK's problem is that the Pentagon requires them to provide marriage benefits so they're now out of compliance with military regulations and directives. They will lose in court on this one. Plus it is just sad that their hatred and bigotry is such that they'd rather strip benefits from most of the state's national guard (and risk the state getting sued to force them to comply with Federal law) just so they can grandstand to show how much they hate "those people". That's a very narrow minded and ultimately self destructive move on the part of some very bigoted state officials.
Yeah, you're wrong about that. She is saying that it's not something important enough to protect us from the passions of the mob. That might not be an overt endorsement of restricting marriage rights, but in leaving it to the mob, she's saying the right doesn't matter to her. Defacto endorsement of the mob's position.
No, only active endorsement of a position is endorsement of a position. Saying that someone de facto supports a position just because they're not taking an active stand one way or the other is as good as saying, "She isn't conforming to the opinion I want her to hold, so I'm just gonna make her out to be the villain until she does." It's not easy to have a lot of sympathy for those who oppose homophobia when they use the same rhetorical strategies the homophobes do. "Either you're with us or you're against us"? Whatever, Dubya.
Ope, Latin! Billions of little garamets are coursing through your blood a we speak. You have days to live.
