Gay love

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by spence

Didn't Southern Baptists form the Klan?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No.

[spence]

Originally Posted by basswipe

No.

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by spence

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure.

[Piscator]

[QUOTE=spence;938224]Didn't Southern Baptists form the Klan?

QUOTE]

The historian Elaine Frantz Parsons describes the membership:

Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Same sex marriage laws have been approved via legislation in Vermont, the District of Columbia, Washington (pending) and Maine where it was delayed.

Yes, in other states it's been through the courts but remember it's only judicial activism when you don't agree

-spence

wrong...it's judicial activism when you legislate from the bench circumventing the voters and/or their representatives as you've pointed out...doesn't have anything to do with agreeing or disagreeing, it has to do with respect for the law and understanding the limits and proper role of your office......

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, you're hardly in a position here to question anyone else's facts.

I agree Obama did this to get votes. That was his intent. But I think it's a boneheaded move that will cost him more votes than it gets him. Obama already had a lock on the gay vote. IMHO opinion,supporting gay marriage hurts him with independents, as gay marriage has been almost universally rejected.

[PaulS]

Bump to keep this at the top!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you're hardly in a position here to question anyone else's facts.

Based on your continued use of the word I really don't know what a fact means to you.

I agree Obama did this to get votes. That was his intent. But I think it's a boneheaded move that will cost him more votes than it gets him. Obama already had a lock on the gay vote. IMHO opinion,supporting gay marriage hurts him with independents, as gay marriage has been almost universally rejected.

The gay vote has nothing to do with this.

The objective is to position Obama as forward leaning and in contrast to Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters.

I'd wager this is part of a larger strategy and we'll see more ideas similar to this in the future.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Based on your continued use of the word I really don't know what a fact means to you.


The gay vote has nothing to do with this.

The objective is to position Obama as forward leaning and in contrast to Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters.

I'd wager this is part of a larger strategy and we'll see more ideas similar to this in the future.

-spence

"I really don't know what a fact means to you."

Then let me elucidate...it means the truth. For example, you kept saying that in ME, the gay marriage law was signed, but the legislature chose to delay implementation. I posted a link to show that your statement was factually incorrect. The public voted to strike down the law.

"Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters."

You're claiming that opposition to gay marriage is dated by independent voters. OK. North Carolina is not a state of hard-line conservatives, it's not Tea Party Central. Yet just this week, the voters in NC overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage.

So you're saying that vote that just happened a few days ago, no longer reflects the political tone in that state? That vote is antiquated already? If they took another vote today, the results would be different? That's what you're saying?

Jamie: voters in NC rejected gay marriage this week.

Spence: That's old news, that position is now dated by independents.

Spence, I get that you really, really hope independent voters are swooning about how forward-thinking and enlightened Obama is. I understand you really, really want that to be the case. But that hope does not trump the reality of what happened in NC a few days ago.

That's the difference between us. I agree with you that gays should be able to marry. Unlike you, I recognize the reality that most people (or at least most people who vote) don't feel that way. I react to reality, you base your existence on what you wish reality looked like.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Then let me elucidate...it means the truth.

You're claiming that opposition to gay marriage is dated by independent voters. OK. North Carolina is not a state of hard-line conservatives, it's not Tea Party Central. Yet just this week, the voters in NC overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage.

To clarify, since we are dealing in facts, NC, had already rejected same-sex marriage with a law... This was to make an amendment so it couldn't be struck down by a judge.

end of fact, begin opinion

I do think there is a huge influence of the money for the 'pro-(straight) marriage' side and more passionate turn-out for the anti-gay marriage side than the pro, but this may not explain all of the 20% gap in NC. I would like to know the breakdown of party affiliation and voter turn-out in NC, but I don't have time to look right now.

Something changes between the Gallup and other polls and voter turn-out though...

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Then let me elucidate...

elucidate - e·lu·ci·date - Make (something) clear; explain: "work that will help to elucidate this matter"; "they would not elucidate further".

Not going to lie, had to look that one up.............

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Then let me elucidate...it means the truth. For example, you kept saying that in ME, the gay marriage law was signed, but the legislature chose to delay implementation. I posted a link to show that your statement was factually incorrect. The public voted to strike down the law.

It was signed into law, the implementation was delayed and then it was struck down.

Your initial question asked if same sex marriage was ever approved via legislation rather than by the courts. I gave several examples of which Maine was one. Had your question been "are there any states today that have legislative approved measures" the answer would have not included Maine.

In the context of your question my response was factual.

You're claiming that opposition to gay marriage is dated by independent voters. OK. North Carolina is not a state of hard-line conservatives, it's not Tea Party Central. Yet just this week, the voters in NC overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage.

Yes, it's a swing state but also one with a large black population and deep Baptist roots.

So you're saying that vote that just happened a few days ago, no longer reflects the political tone in that state? That vote is antiquated already? If they took another vote today, the results would be different? That's what you're saying?

No, but if you look at trends I think the vote is running against the current of public opinion which is moving in the other direction as a Nation.

The constitutional bans on same sex marriage (and even civil unions in NC) are really only going to slow down the inevitable.

Obama said it very well when he announced his position. His daughters have friends with gay parents, why should they be treated differently than anyone else?

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Quite frankly, all branches of government should be out of marriage. Regardless if you support or oppose gay marriage, far too many legislative resources are being allocated to something that is the least of our national problems.

Instead of this "social" issue, let's require our elected officials to get focused on *political* issues such as our still struggling economy, a GDP that's floundering like a 12lb bluefish that just jumped in your kayak, an ever-looming catastrophe sewn into a bed of national debt... these are thing things that actually will affect every man, woman and child in this country in the near term.

[Piscator]

Would Gay Marriage generate more money or less for the Government (Fed and or local)?
Would there be more tax $$’s lost/gained (different way to file taxes (married jointly) etc.)
Would “common law” marriage apply to same sex couples after a certain time frame in some states?
Can they get divorced?
If divorced, does alimony / child support apply?
Do they take the others name?

Would you send a card addressed to Mr. & Mr. Smith or Mrs. & Mrs. Smith?
Would a dude buy a hope chest for another dude?
Would one groom have bridesmaids and the other have grooms men?

[spence]

Yep, this pretty much says it all.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Yes sir, it's paying dividends for Obama already...

Mitt Romney leads Barack Obama by seven points in new national poll - NYPOST.com

Before anyone claims that Scott Rasmussen is biased, let's remember he correctly predicted the Obama rout in 2008.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Yep, this pretty much says it all.

-spence

That's a riot. Blacks hate it, they really really hate it, when bleeding heart liberals make this comparison. Blacks don't like it when you say "we let you peopl eget married, so we should let them".

[Fly Rod]

who cares if there is marriage between man and man or woman and woman in todays world... I do not believe in it...so what...this is the 21st century

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's a riot. Blacks hate it, they really really hate it, when bleeding heart liberals make this comparison. Blacks don't like it when you say "we let you peopl eget married, so we should let them".

Regardless of if they like it or not, they're still not the majority effected. So, for the liberals, it's better to piss off the minority voting block and solidify support from the gay community. Let's face it, the minority vote isn't swinging to the GOP any time soon.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The gay vote has nothing to do with this.

-spence

of course not....absolutely nothing....

Obama for America | 2012 | Store | LGBT for Obama - Collections

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

of course not....absolutely nothing....

Obama for America | 2012 | Store | LGBT for Obama - Collections

Nope.

-spence

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

of course not....absolutely nothing....

Obama for America | 2012 | Store | LGBT for Obama - Collections

...which was also around in 2008

but lets not let facts get in the way of whining.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Regardless of if they like it or not, they're still not the majority effected. So, for the liberals, it's better to piss off the minority voting block and solidify support from the gay community. Let's face it, the minority vote isn't swinging to the GOP any time soon.

Johnny, I agree 100% that Obama's support of gay marriage isn't costing him any black votes. I was responding to Spence's claim (a common liberal claim) that gay marriage is analogous to civil rights for blacks. That's funny for 2 reasons. First, it was the Democrats who were opposed to Civil Rights for blacks. Second, blacks get deeply offended when liberal whites compare them, in this case, to homosexuals. If liberals cared as much about keeping blacks happy as they claim, they would stop making this comparison. Blacks really hate it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

First, it was the Democrats who were opposed to Civil Rights for blacks.

You should really expand on this thought...I could use a good laugh.

Please do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You should really expand on this thought...I could use a good laugh.

Please do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure. But it won't make you laugh.

I would have assumed you knew a tiny bit of factual history. Now we all know different. Another case of Spence ideology trumping facts.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight."

Can you read Spence? The efforts to block the Civil Rights Act were led by Al Gore Sr, and Robert Byrd. Democrats. D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S. That same Robert Byrd who the d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t-s made president of the Senate, thus third in line for the presidency. Swell, isn't it?

In the heydey of Southern segregation, the vast majority of governors in those states were Democrats.

Fast forward a few years. Arkansas Gov Oral Faubus (a Democrat) was ordered by President Eisenhower (a Republican) to let black kids attend school. Gov Faubus ( a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t) ordered the National Guard to stop the black kids from going to school. President Eisenhower sent troops from the 101st airborne to ensure those kids got to school. Read the story of the "Little Rock Nine".

George Wallace, governor of Alabama, ran for President. Big-time segregationist. And a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t.

Lester Maddox. Governor of Georgia. Big-time segregationist who endorsed George Wallace when Wallace ran for President. Maddox was a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t.

Spence, you have shown here that you literally have no ability to process facts unless those facts fit your ideology.

Until now, i have never heard anyone, ever, deny that Democrats were primarily responsible for southern segregation. You are blinded, completely, by ideology. If Obama said that 2 plus 2 was 7, you would not have the wherewithal to disagree.

Are you laughing Spence? Are you? I'm not.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You should really expand on this thought...I could use a good laugh.

Please do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not done with you yet.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From that link just above...when the Civil Rights Bill passed the Senate, the vote was 73-27. Of the 27 who were opposed, 21 were democrats, 6 were republicans.

The vote in the house was 289-126. Of the 126 reps who opposed, 91 were democrats, 31 were republicans.

Spence, based on what you said, I'm not sure if you can read or count. I'll make it simple. When I said that Democrats were primarily responsible for opposing the passage of the Civil Rights Act? I was 100% correct, you were 100% wrong.

Snack on that.

Here's a very important question Spence...do you still dispute my contention that the Democrats were primarily responsible for opposing Civil Rights legislation? Please respond directly...

You said you could use a good laugh. So, are you laughing? Or are you as embarassed as you should be?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Are you laughing Spence? Are you? I'm not.

-spence

[Karl F]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Johnny, I agree 100% that Obama's support of gay marriage isn't costing him any black votes. I was responding to Spence's claim (a common liberal claim) that gay marriage is analogous to civil rights for blacks. That's funny for 2 reasons. First, it was the Democrats who were opposed to Civil Rights for blacks. Second, blacks get deeply offended when liberal whites compare them, in this case, to homosexuals. If liberals cared as much about keeping blacks happy as they claim, they would stop making this comparison. Blacks really hate it.

Rewriting questions about marriage equality - Video on msnbc.com


guess he didn't get the memo

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

-spence

Really. That's how you respond to irrefutable fact thats that show that you're completely ignorant aon a vital part of our recent history? You say mu numbers are B.S.? Do you have different numbers showing that Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act?

Whatever floats your boat, Spence. I guess you better laugh as much as you can between now and November. You won't be laughing much after that.

[spence]

Son is pitching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device