Where is the National Guard?

[Mallus]

Homosexuals have always had equal marriage rights.

Not to marry the people they wanted to. Did this really require clarification?

They never wanted equal marriage rights, they wanted to redefine marriage to suit them.

Is your marriage redefined? Mine isn't. None of the married straight couples I know have suffered any deleterious redefinition of their marriages. Show me how this whole 'redefinition' thing is more than empty (and painfully abstract) rhetoric. If you're claiming that extending marriage rights has harmed you, explain how.

America as a whole rejected "homosexual marriage" over and over, until the leftists managed to go over their heads and cheat it in via the courts.

America used to reject interracial marriage. My marriage would have been illegal in California (& several other states) until, I believe, 1947. Care to explain how that's good, just, freedom-loving American sort-of thing?

edit: and another thing... look, if that's the kind of American you want, where property rights trump human rights and any old shopkeeper can say 'get out Jew!' to a man whose prayer shawl they don't like the cut of, so be it. That's not the America I was raised in, nor the America I believe in. If you believe differently, I'll see you at the polls.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not to marry the people they wanted to. Did this really require clarification?


Is your marriage redefined? Mine isn't. None of the married straight couples I know have suffered any deleterious redefinition of their marriages. Show me how this whole 'redefinition' thing is more than empty (and painfully abstract) rhetoric. If you're claiming that extending marriage rights has harmed you, explain how.


America used to reject interracial marriage. My marriage would have been illegal in California (& several other states) until, I believe, 1947. Care to explain how that's good, just, freedom-loving American sort-of thing?

edit: and another thing... look, if that's the kind of American you want, where property rights trump human rights and any old shopkeeper can say 'get out Jew!' to a man whose prayer shawl they don't like the cut of, so be it. That's not the America I was raised in, nor the America I believe in. If you believe differently, I'll see you at the polls.

No kidding. and it's more recent than the 40s. Loving vs. Virgina was in 1967. The same arguments againts gay marriage were made back then. Literally the same arguments.

 

[Mallus]

No kidding. and it's more recent than the 40s. Loving vs. Virgina was in 1967. The same arguments againts gay marriage were made back then. Literally the same arguments.

I'm 1/2 Asian/Pacific Islander. I think the last US anti-miscegenation laws that would have applied to me were gone before Loving vs. Virginia. Because, of course, the US just had to have discriminatory laws against Black people on the books just a wee bit longer... to make it clear how grudgingly we accepted Black equality.

 

[Umbran]

America as a whole rejected "homosexual marriage" over and over, until the leftists managed to go over their heads and cheat it in via the courts.

At the time the courts finally decided the issue, the majority of Americans were in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. Only about 40% of Americans were against it.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

So, it wasn't so much that anyone cheated it in via the courts, as it was the courts enacted the will of the people more quickly than the legislature could (largely because much of that legislature is overly-beholden to that 39%)

 

[Kramodlog]

Ya'll Qaeda can come and go as they wish. http://gawker.com/cops-oregon-militia-idiots-are-free-to-come-and-go-as-1751644940

 

[Ryujin]

At the time the courts finally decided the issue, the majority of Americans were in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. Only about 40% of Americans were against it.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

So, it wasn't so much that anyone cheated it in via the courts, as it was the courts enacted the will of the people more quickly than the legislature could (largely because much of that legislature is overly-beholden to that 39%)

I would take it a step further and say that sometimes the courts, or legislators, must act to support the very principles that a nation espouses, but that The People might only give lip service to.

 

[Umbran]

I would take it a step further and say that sometimes the courts, or legislators, must act to support the very principles that a nation espouses, but that The People might only give lip service to.

There are times when any branch of the government must act to protect a minority from the majority, yes. In this case, it was to protect a minority from the stubborn discrimination of a group that had finally become another minority...

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

There are times when any branch of the government must act to protect a minority from the majority, yes. In this case, it was to protect a minority from the stubborn discrimination of a group that had finally become another minority...

I'm not a historian, or even the smartest girl in the room most of the time. I know in school there was a movie they used to show around the time of learning about the constitution. It was a musical comedy about the writing, and during the votes one of the reps says something like "I am here to do what is right even if the people tell me otherwise" it was more profound though... I wish I new the name of the movie or the character/historical figure I would google it.

 

[nightwind1]

I'm not a historian, or even the smartest girl in the room most of the time. I know in school there was a movie they used to show around the time of learning about the constitution. It was a musical comedy about the writing, and during the votes one of the reps says something like "I am here to do what is right even if the people tell me otherwise" it was more profound though... I wish I new the name of the movie or the character/historical figure I would google it.

That would be "1776". A great musical.

I played Colonel Thomas McKean onstage for a run of it with a local theater company.

 

[Eltab]

Just to dredge up the 'definition of terrorism' discussion from earlier:

There is currently no definition of 'terrorism' in International Law. (Because too many actors want an 'except clause' for their pet cat's-paw groups.)
But a working definition could be: a Terrorist is a person who commits acts by land, sea, or air, that would be Piracy if they were committed at sea / against a ship.

The book "The World for Ransom" goes into more detail.

Now you can say you learned something useful on the Internet today.