Thank you for the citation. Now please explain why we need to be beholden to dudes who thought black people constituted 3/5ths of a person.
The Republican party freed the slaves, not the Democrat party.
There is no such thing as the Democrat Party. Never has been. Which you know. Which you continue to say on purpose. Just like you used to before.
And she isn't even talking about freeing the slaves (though that argument is also nonsense). She is talking about the Founders like Jefferson and Washington.
Thank you for the citation. Now please explain why we need to be beholden to dudes who thought black people constituted 3/5ths of a person.
The Republican party freed the slaves, not the Democrat party.
That's irrelevant. We're talking about the founding fathers. Also, the Republican party of today is one of the most racist anti-Black institutions in the US, and is very much not the same party that "freed the slaves."
Thank you for the citation. Now please explain why we need to be beholden to dudes who thought black people constituted 3/5ths of a person.
You need to be beholden to the Constitution just as you need to be beholden to the law.
The constitution doesn't seem to say that the federal government can't do these things. "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." That seems to be a blank check.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -10th Amendment.
So Obama and Hillary were against gay marriage. They've changed their position. Trump claimed to be for LGBT rights and is now against it pretty clearly.
Ok great now that we have that out of the way.... Most people would say Obama and Hillary are on the right side of history these days and Trump isn't. Take for example the North Carolina bathroom bills that were so unpopular they lost the governors race as a direct repudiation to those type of policies as well as many conventions and events being cancelled and hundreds of millions of dollars lost.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -10th Amendment.
So Obama and Hillary were against gay marriage. They've changed their position.
Not really sure, considering wikileaks, DOMA and Hillary, ironically it is the democrat party that signed into legislation against Gay marriage during the Clinton years On the Federal Level.
So Obama and Hillary were against gay marriage. They've changed their position.
Not really sure, considering wikileaks, DOMA and Hillary, ironically it is the democrat party that signed into legislation against Gay marriage during the Clinton years.
Okay so Bill Clinton signed DOMA, but who actually passed it in the legislature? Huh, it was passed with a veto proof majority, which suggests bipartisan support. But also, the Republicans had control of both the house and the senate, and DOMA was introduced by a Republican.
So, laying all blame at the Democrats' feet is simply not true.
So Obama and Hillary were against gay marriage. They've changed their position.
Not really sure, considering wikileaks, DOMA and Hillary, ironically it is the democrat party that signed into legislation against Gay marriage during the Clinton years On the Federal Level.
How many times do we have to ADMIT that Hillary (and Bill) and Obama were all against it at one time, and now are full-blown supporters of LGBT rights?? How is this admission not enough to stop you from pointing out the same thing?? They changed in the exact manner the country did. DOMA was also passed with a veto-proof majority in 1996 by the Republican Congress. So EVEN IF Bill Clinton had vetoed the bill (which he should have, which is a mark against him) it STILL would have been overridden and put into law by the Newt Gingrich led House of Representatives.
Yes the Clinton administration signed into law federal legislation against Gay marriage, this is precisely why you want checks and balances against what the Federal Government can do and delineate it to the States.
Yes the Clinton administration signed into law federal legislation against Gay marriage, this is precisely why you want checks and balances against what the Federal Government can do and delineate it to the States.
No, you don't want either. I don't want Alabama or Mississippi to outlaw gay marriage and I don't want the Federal government to do so. And now (because there are THREE branches of government), neither of them can. Because the Supreme Court said so. The only thing that can roll back the clock on gay marriage now is if a right-wing Supreme Court overturns the precedent.
What you are ok with is actual people like @BelleSorciere conceivably suffering or not being able to live their life to the fullest because you want to stick to the letter of the law in regards to some Federalist wankery written before there was indoor plumbing and electricity.
And yet i am the one that is raising the concern over the problem of the possibility of a Federal Government oppressing LBGT and why we should therefore delineate the authority on these things to the States as a safeguard.
You downplay this, when it actually did in fact come to pass, under a Democrat administration, signed by Bill Clinton, supported by Hillary Clinton, through Congress of both parties, it is one of the worse oppressive actions against the community precisely because of this.
To me such a legislation is horrific, i treat it as horrific and never want the Federal Government to have the possibility to do this again, but in your eyes this makes me the bad guy.
Also i thought such posting was 'against the rules' but it seems that the rules are applied inconsistently here.
This discussion has been extraordinarily revealing, the rank partisan hypocrisy is amazing.
What you are ok with is actual people like @BelleSorciere conceivably suffering or not being able to live their life to the fullest because you want to stick to the letter of the law in regards to some Federalist wankery written before there was indoor plumbing and electricity.
And yet i am the one that is raising the concern over the problem of the possibility of a Federal Government oppressing LBGT and why we should therefore delineate the authority on these things to the States as a safeguard.
You downplay this, when it actually did in fact come to pass, under a Democrat administration, signed by Bill Clinton, supported by Hillary Clinton, through Congress of both parties.
To me such a legislation is horrific, i treat it as horrific and never want the Federal Government to have the possibility to do this again, but in your eyes this makes me the bad guy.
Also i thought such posting was 'against the rules' but it seems that the rules are applied inconsistently here. This discussion has been extraordinarily revealing.
Your entire reentry into this thread has been revealing. Which started with you purposefully smearing me at least half a dozen times, and then engaging in the EXACT behavior your falsely accused me of throughout the entire day. So let's just get it out in the open here, and if I get flagged or banned, whatever. You purposefully sought to besmirch my contributions to this thread the past year by accusing me of spamming, which, on an internet forum, is a capital offense. I happen to proof-read and spell-check every single post I have made for a year (which is WAY more than I can say for you, who has essentially copied and pasted the same argument for the last hour running). I believe you did it on purpose in a direct attempt to neutralize or diminish my posts, and I believe this because you attacked the moderator and then proceeded to attack me in post after post with pre-meditated accusations of something I wasn't even REMOTELY guilty of. And this has to be done at this point, because of your "request" that all discussion of the President of the United States be relegated to a totally separate topic for reasons beyond understanding. So, to be quite frank, I don't really much care if you are offended, because you clearly came back into this thread yesterday with the express purpose of hurling nonsense allegations to get me out of the way. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. But I am the one who is going to say it, because if the punishment comes down, it should be on me. And if that happens, so be it. Because I'm not putting up with this anymore.
What you are ok with is actual people like @BelleSorciere conceivably suffering or not being able to live their life to the fullest because you want to stick to the letter of the law in regards to some Federalist wankery written before there was indoor plumbing and electricity.
And yet i am the one that is raising the concern over the problem of the possibility of a Federal Government oppressing LBGT and why we should therefore delineate the authority on these things to the States as a safeguard.
You downplay this, when it actually did in fact come to pass, under a Democrat administration, signed by Bill Clinton, supported by Hillary Clinton, through Congress of both parties.
To me such a legislation is horrific, i treat it as horrific and never want the Federal Government to have the possibility to do this again, but in your eyes this makes me the bad guy.
Also i thought such posting was 'against the rules' but it seems that the rules are applied inconsistently here.
This discussion has been extraordinarily revealing, the rank partisan hypocrisy is amazing.
The federal government already oppresses LGBT people, using powers that you say it doesn't have. You say you're against the federal government oppressing LGBT people, but when I posted that article about what Trump's administration has been doing to contribute to that oppression, you accused me of having a moral agenda. So what was that about partisan hypocrisy again? It seems to me if you really were against such things, you would have had a very different response to that article.
Yes the Clinton administration signed into law federal legislation against Gay marriage, this is precisely why you want checks and balances against what the Federal Government can do and delineate it to the States.
It was a veto-proof majority, Clinton basically didn't have a choice. As jjstraja34 said, he should have vetoed it, but if he did it would have become law anyway. Hammering on how it was a Democratic president who signed it into law ignores the fact that there were republican majorities in the house and the senate, which means Republicans have as much, if not more, responsibility for passing DOMA.
But yes, for a long time the Democratic party was pretty homophobic. Fortunately they're improving (although they're far from great at this point, they're doing much better than the Republican party).
What you are ok with is actual people like @BelleSorciere conceivably suffering or not being able to live their life to the fullest because you want to stick to the letter of the law in regards to some Federalist wankery written before there was indoor plumbing and electricity.
And yet i am the one that is raising the concern over the problem of the possibility of a Federal Government oppressing LBGT and why we should therefore delineate the authority on these things to the States as a safeguard.
You downplay this, when it actually did in fact come to pass, under a Democrat administration, signed by Bill Clinton, supported by Hillary Clinton, through Congress of both parties, it is one of the worse oppressive actions against the community precisely because of this.
To me such a legislation is horrific, i treat it as horrific and never want the Federal Government to have the possibility to do this again, but in your eyes this makes me the bad guy.
Also i thought such posting was 'against the rules' but it seems that the rules are applied inconsistently here.
This discussion has been extraordinarily revealing, the rank partisan hypocrisy is amazing.
LGBT protections are not appropriate to trust the states to get it right. Look at North Carolina and other states that have tried to emulate their policies.
It's the same as slavery. The civil war was fought over states rights - to own slaves. The southern states wanted to own slaves. The only solution that freed them was from the Federal government. That was a good thing right?
And as @jjstraka34 has kindly mentioned to you, it's the democratic party not the democrat party. It sounds like you are misinformed or are trying to troll when you call it that.
You seem to be intentionally misrepresenting positions as well. As I mentioned, Clinton and Obama have at various times been against gay marriage but are now for it and have been for years. During the campaign, Trump claimed to be for gay rights but now has come down clearly against them. If you want to discuss how he's still the champion of gay rights he claimed to be that would be a plausible course of discussion, as it is it seems like you are "clutching pearls" as it's known rather than defend his record or addressing points about these current positions.
By the way Bill Clinton apologized for his position publicly and has been a staunch supporter of LGBT rights since then. As jjstraka mentioned, he had little choice in the matter due to the Republican congress passing the legistlation with a veto-proof majority.
President's don't pass laws, congress does. It's in the Constitution. Come on, this isn't personal stuff. Let's talk turkey (issues).
I really don't understand how support for classing homosexuality as illegal can be equated with a past opposition to gay marriage.
Even Clinton's past opposition was not intended to prevent LGBT rights, however. There was a significant body of opinion in the UK in favor of civil partnerships, but against gay marriage. That was largely due to religious concerns that the institution of marriage was defined as between a man and woman and that should not be changed. Other than fringe groups though, no-one was suggesting there should be any difference between the legal rights of a marriage and civil partnership.
Things moved on over time though and the majority of people in the UK accepted the idea that banning gay marriage, even if an alternative institution gave identical legal rights, was still a form of unwelcome discrimination and that we should seek to treat all members of society equally where possible. I think there have been similar changes in the US, though opposition still seems stronger there (possibly due to the far greater influence of religious groups in US politics). Clinton's 'conversion' to gay marriage is part of that general change in mind-set, but given the continuing opposition to gay marriage it seems clear to me that her support is actually a clear endorsement of gay rights and not just some sort of political manoeuvreing.
The federal government already oppresses LGBT people, using powers that you say it doesn't have. You say you're against the federal government oppressing LGBT people, but when I posted that article about what Trump's administration has been doing to contribute to that oppression, you accused me of having a moral agenda. So what was that about partisan hypocrisy again? It seems to me if you really were against such things, you would have had a very different response to that article.
Your article considers that leaving such issues down to the states where the Federal Government has no jurisdiction is in fact wrong, and yet such an action, which is proper according to the Constitution and Founding Fathers, would have prevented DOMA, one of the worst legislations against the LGBT community, by a Democratic administration.
It was a veto-proof majority, Clinton basically didn't have a choice. As jjstraja34 said, he should have vetoed it, but if he did it would have become law anyway. Hammering on how it was a Democratic president who signed it into law ignores the fact that there were republican majorities in the house and the senate, which means Republicans have as much, if not more, responsibility for passing DOMA.
Clinton has a choice, Furthermore they voiced support of it then. They neither really campaigned against it, actually publicly campaigned for it, and many Democrat Senators voted for it with the Republicans.
if you want to excuse it because of politics then fine.
But you sure can't criticize Trump now, and it makes the extreme 'holding the Republican party's actions under the fire' to be pretty partisan if one starts downplaying, literally, one of the times a Federal Government tried to sign into Federal law something against the LGBT community.
“President Clinton has evolved on this issue just like every American has evolved,” said Chad Griffin, who heads the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s most prominent gay rights organization.
For nearly 17 years since, that middle-of-the-night moment has haunted Mr. Clinton, the source of tension with friends, advisers and gay rights supporters. He tried to explain, defend and justify. He asked for understanding. Then he inched away from it bit by bit. Finally this month, he disavowed the Defense of Marriage Act entirely, urging that the law be overturned by the Supreme Court, which takes up the matter on Wednesday on the second of two days of arguments devoted to same-sex marriage issues.
Let's also not forget during Clinton's Presidency he instituted "Don't Ask Don't Tell" which was a first step that was the official United States policy on military service by gays, bisexuals, and lesbians. Prior to that, if you were discovered with that you were discharged. After that if you were discovered you were discharged but they couldn't ASK you about it. So you could serve as long as you didn't volunteer it. It was a first step.
And this discussion started with you implying that Roy Moore thinking homosexuality should be illegal in 2017 is the same thing as opposing gay marriage in 1996. Which you haven't even bothered to address. So, again, another chance. Are opposing gay marriage and thinking gay people should be JAILED for having homosexual relations even in same solar system as each other??
Your article considers that leaving such issues down to the states where the Federal Government has no jurisdiction is in fact wrong, and yet such an action, which is proper according to the Constitution and Founding Fathers, would have prevented DOMA, one of the worst legislations against the LGBT community, by a Democratic administration.
Clearly, to you actual lived oppression is less important than someone's opinion on the internet. Again, you say you're against it, but your arguments somehow keep defending it. I mean is it just accidental? Do you just prioritize the needs and rights of flesh and blood human beings below your ideological commitment to "the federal government can't do anything?"
At this point, I simply don't believe you when you say you're against anything like DOMA passing again. When shown what the Trump administration is doing right now, you accused me of having a moral agenda, and didn't acknowledge that it documented how the Trump administration has been attacking LGBT people. I see where your priorities are.
It was a veto-proof majority, Clinton basically didn't have a choice. As jjstraja34 said, he should have vetoed it, but if he did it would have become law anyway. Hammering on how it was a Democratic president who signed it into law ignores the fact that there were republican majorities in the house and the senate, which means Republicans have as much, if not more, responsibility for passing DOMA.
Clinton has a choice, Furthermore they voiced support of it then.
if you want to excuse it because of politics then fine.
But you sure can't criticize Trump now.
I didn't excuse it.
Like I said, Clinton didn't veto it and that's on him. The fact is that it was passed by a majority Republican congress means that the Republican party was just as responsible as the Democratic party.
And I can damned well criticize Trump any time I like.
Comments
And she isn't even talking about freeing the slaves (though that argument is also nonsense). She is talking about the Founders like Jefferson and Washington.
Not really.
-10th Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers
The founding fathers explicitly wrote and wanted the Government to have well defined and limited powers.
As for gay marriage, I don't see any real justification for a state to outlaw it.
Ok great now that we have that out of the way.... Most people would say Obama and Hillary are on the right side of history these days and Trump isn't. Take for example the North Carolina bathroom bills that were so unpopular they lost the governors race as a direct repudiation to those type of policies as well as many conventions and events being cancelled and hundreds of millions of dollars lost.
So, laying all blame at the Democrats' feet is simply not true.
You want to talk about how apparently i Don't care about the LGBT and want BelleSorciere
to suffer And yet i am the one that is raising the concern over the problem of the possibility of a Federal Government oppressing LBGT and why we should therefore delineate the authority on these things to the States as a safeguard.
You downplay this, when it actually did in fact come to pass, under a Democrat administration, signed by Bill Clinton, supported by Hillary Clinton, through Congress of both parties, it is one of the worse oppressive actions against the community precisely because of this.
To me such a legislation is horrific, i treat it as horrific and never want the Federal Government to have the possibility to do this again, but in your eyes this makes me the bad guy.
Also i thought such posting was 'against the rules' but it seems that the rules are applied inconsistently here.
This discussion has been extraordinarily revealing, the rank partisan hypocrisy is amazing.
It's the same as slavery. The civil war was fought over states rights - to own slaves. The southern states wanted to own slaves. The only solution that freed them was from the Federal government. That was a good thing right?
And as @jjstraka34 has kindly mentioned to you, it's the democratic party not the democrat party. It sounds like you are misinformed or are trying to troll when you call it that.
You seem to be intentionally misrepresenting positions as well. As I mentioned, Clinton and Obama have at various times been against gay marriage but are now for it and have been for years. During the campaign, Trump claimed to be for gay rights but now has come down clearly against them. If you want to discuss how he's still the champion of gay rights he claimed to be that would be a plausible course of discussion, as it is it seems like you are "clutching pearls" as it's known rather than defend his record or addressing points about these current positions.
By the way Bill Clinton apologized for his position publicly and has been a staunch supporter of LGBT rights since then. As jjstraka mentioned, he had little choice in the matter due to the Republican congress passing the legistlation with a veto-proof majority.
President's don't pass laws, congress does. It's in the Constitution. Come on, this isn't personal stuff. Let's talk turkey (issues).
Even Clinton's past opposition was not intended to prevent LGBT rights, however. There was a significant body of opinion in the UK in favor of civil partnerships, but against gay marriage. That was largely due to religious concerns that the institution of marriage was defined as between a man and woman and that should not be changed. Other than fringe groups though, no-one was suggesting there should be any difference between the legal rights of a marriage and civil partnership.
Things moved on over time though and the majority of people in the UK accepted the idea that banning gay marriage, even if an alternative institution gave identical legal rights, was still a form of unwelcome discrimination and that we should seek to treat all members of society equally where possible. I think there have been similar changes in the US, though opposition still seems stronger there (possibly due to the far greater influence of religious groups in US politics). Clinton's 'conversion' to gay marriage is part of that general change in mind-set, but given the continuing opposition to gay marriage it seems clear to me that her support is actually a clear endorsement of gay rights and not just some sort of political manoeuvreing.
Clinton has a choice, Furthermore they voiced support of it then.
They neither really campaigned against it, actually publicly campaigned for it, and many Democrat Senators voted for it with the Republicans.
if you want to excuse it because of politics then fine.
But you sure can't criticize Trump now, and it makes the extreme 'holding the Republican party's actions under the fire' to be pretty partisan if one starts downplaying, literally, one of the times a Federal Government tried to sign into Federal law something against the LGBT community.
MARCH 25, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/us/politics/bill-clintons-decision-and-regret-on-defense-of-marriage-act.html
“President Clinton has evolved on this issue just like every American has evolved,” said Chad Griffin, who heads the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s most prominent gay rights organization.
For nearly 17 years since, that middle-of-the-night moment has haunted Mr. Clinton, the source of tension with friends, advisers and gay rights supporters. He tried to explain, defend and justify. He asked for understanding. Then he inched away from it bit by bit. Finally this month, he disavowed the Defense of Marriage Act entirely, urging that the law be overturned by the Supreme Court, which takes up the matter on Wednesday on the second of two days of arguments devoted to same-sex marriage issues.
Let's also not forget during Clinton's Presidency he instituted "Don't Ask Don't Tell" which was a first step that was the official United States policy on military service by gays, bisexuals, and lesbians. Prior to that, if you were discovered with that you were discharged. After that if you were discovered you were discharged but they couldn't ASK you about it. So you could serve as long as you didn't volunteer it. It was a first step.
At this point, I simply don't believe you when you say you're against anything like DOMA passing again. When shown what the Trump administration is doing right now, you accused me of having a moral agenda, and didn't acknowledge that it documented how the Trump administration has been attacking LGBT people. I see where your priorities are. I didn't excuse it.
Like I said, Clinton didn't veto it and that's on him. The fact is that it was passed by a majority Republican congress means that the Republican party was just as responsible as the Democratic party.
And I can damned well criticize Trump any time I like.