McCain was a soldier, too. Can't say that I ever saw liberals trying to smear him. Nope, never, ever, ever.
And I've never seen liberal "boo" a "common" soldier. Never, ever, ever. Except during all those anti-war demonstrations, including the ones as recently as Iraq and Afghanistan...
But we know that's not why this guy was booed.
Yes and we all know Jerry was handled with kid gloves and no one ever tried to smear him. That's politics. It is abhorrent in any instance. Anti-war demonstrations are quite distinct from attacks on soldiers. Anyone who attacks the soldiers is misguided to say the least. It is possible to be against the military and not the soldiers. When a soldier gets up to argue a case for the military the line gets blurred and it is difficult to separate the two. Not sure if there is an answer to that situation.
I did not know you had added clairvoyance to your repertoire. Impressive that you are able to read the minds of people who were not shown, only heard on that video, and through reading a few articles. Quick. What am I thinking?
Gays already have the same rights as anyone else. As stated, they're just not deserving of super-rights, preferential rights, however you want to word it.
What too many gay activists and supporters forget is that marriage is a religious institution first and foremost, and predates *any* constitution or government.
No they do not. Licenses are issued by the state to which gays pay taxes. They are entitled to have access to these legal contracts just as any other resident of that state. You can keep claiming that things are equal and they gays are seeking preferential treatment if that helps you live with your homophobia but it does not make it true.
Marriage stopped being solely a religious institution the second religion sought to have the states protect the institution and have the states issue licenses. The license is a legal contract. Nothing more. I got married with a JP. He signed the contract and it was binding. The only time marriage is religious is if it occurs in a religious institution. Should that marriage occur without a license that marriage has no legal standing anywhere except the institution that performed the marriage. These are two completely separate actions that happen to have the same name.
Like it or not, "gay marriage" is a contradiction of terms under most religious doctrines, and the nice part about separation of church and state is that government cannot interfere or re-interpret religious doctrine. If they choose to recognize the institution, that's one thing. But redefining it is a more of a violation of the First Amendment than it is anything else.
I do not care about any religious doctrines regarding marriage since I am only referring to the legal contract marriage. Religious institutions have no say regarding contract law. It's funny how religion says government cannot interfere with them yet they fund and protest every single initiative to allow gay marriage even though not a single one of the initiatives ha anything in them that applies to any religious institution. They are free to conduct business as they all ways have without being hindered. There is no violation of the 1st, as it does not even apply. The only thing being redefined is the legal contract marriage. Religious institutions are free to do as they choose.
States decide what they recognize for legal purposes. Many grant recognition of civil unions and/or domestic partnerships on an equal basis to that of marriage.
Many? Really? How do you define many? There are 50 states in the US. Did you even bother to look up how may states allow civil unions? Seven. That is less than 15%. Delaware will start in 2012 bring the total to 16%. Six states allow gay marriage (3 of which are included in the above 8 that allow civil unions). That brings our total up too 22%. Not sure that qualifies as "many" but what ever.
Aside from that the differences between civil unions and legal contract marriage are vast. The most important of which are Federal recognition (taxes for example), Social Security and portability. For more you can read
here or
here. According to the GAO there are 1,138 laws on the books pertaining to marriage. Some are important some are not.
Once again, gays are not asking for special rights, just the same rights everyone else gets when entering into a legal contract marriage.
It doesn't affect me at all if a gay couple has survivor benefits, power of attorney, etc. on the same basis my wife and I do. It doesn't affect me if they can adopt children, although I do have concerns over single-sex parenting (be it from a single parent or two parents of the same gender) and how it affects the children is another issue for another time... Kids need to have male/female influences at different times in their lives. Totally different debate.
And yet you bring it up.
I guess if you were not a black person civil rights issues would not be of a concern? If you were not a woman I guess woman's rights would not be a concern. Native American? Are you human? Do human rights concern you? As an American you ought to be concerned with everyone's rights, not just those that concern you. I am pretty sure that mentality is not what made America great. It is that mentality that is divinding this country and bring it down in my opinion.
And it doesn't affect me if polygamy is reinstated as a legal practice. It already is in other countries. There are definite issues with some of the sects with regard to unsupported children, welfare abuse, and under-age sex, but as "Big Love" showed, there are also responsible polygamists out there who practice their religious beliefs quietly and out of sight. That wasn't just the creation of a couple script writers.
?
Frankly, I'm sick of people trying to co-opt the religious institution of marriage into their own definition, some of whom do so for no other reason but to promote (and force?) acceptance of their lifestyle.
What other term would you have them use? Separate but equal has been struck down. Same concept applies here in my opinion. As I have already shown, civil unions are not even close to being equal to marriage so that is not an option unless the status of civil unions are completely over hauled and all states are required to honor them and civil unions are given the EXACT same benefits as marriage in EVERY state. The separate but equal law was struck down in Brown V BoE.
Why they are doing it is not really relevant. They are tax payers and are entitled to all the benifits and head aches that are offered to everyone else. That you make no mention of the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce and that Vegas among others has turned marriage into a 5&10 convenience pretty much shoots your indignation at gays co-opting marriage out of the water. Straights have done more to trivialize marriage more than gays ever could.
So until the government gets out of the legal contract marriage business and overhauls the Civil union contracts I do not see that in your future.
