ad_facebook
ad_email_468

10 responses to “Republican field splinters on anti-gay marriage pledge”

  1. TW

    Good. If the Republican party wants to have any chance in hell in contending in US politics, they need to step away from the hard-line Evangelical movement, accept the fact that the founding fathers were a mixture of atheists, deists, and otherwise, and focus their primary efforts at reducing government interference in the private lives of citizens.

    Actually, Republicans need to step away from everything they’ve been doing recently. It’s hard to tell the difference between the two parties in the last ten years or so. A more libertarian Republican party would do wonders for their constituency seeing as how Democrats gain support through appealing to social issues to detract from their expansion of government on a regular basis, and an agreement on social “morality laws” would allow for a more open-minded debate concerning real issues, like how to save the country from collapse.

  2. Brian C.

    I may be crazy, but these guys are whacked out of their gourds!

  3. s.b

    What’s “bizarre” about the pledge?! Marriage between men and women has been very common in the past centuries. The highly artificial “gay” concept has been invented in the 20th century, and IMO has no real meaning whatsoever.

  4. Red

    @s.b, gays have been around since the very beginning. They just haven’t started seriously coming out until the 20th century when they began to challenge the unfounded prejudice against them. It is hardly ‘artificial’, especially when you consider the VERY REAL discrimination of gays and the constant abuse and harassment they’ve suffered over the centuries.

  5. MinnesotaMike

    Adam was the first gay. God formed Adam just as men are built today (including penis) but Eve was an afterthought.

  6. BobN

    This pledge is not anti-gay-marriage. It is anti-gay-relationship rights and anti-gay rights in general. The goal is not to protect marriage but to deny legal recognition OF ANY KIND to same-sex couples. That puts it at odds with even a majority of Republican voters.

  7. Jon John

    Straights are valuable in that they produce more homosexuals.

  8. Erkhyan

    @ s.b.

    There are a lot of concepts that were “unnatural and artificial” in the Western World before the twentieth century. Among them, voting rights for women, child labor laws, and in the United States, racial equality. Now, if you want to stick to traditions, we might have to stop respecting these…

  9. paul

    What the hell is sb doing writing such homophobic trash on a gay-friendly web site? The only thing “artificial” is sb’s intelligence.

  10. daniel

    The founding fathers were NOT atheists; that is complete bs. Most of them were judeochristian affiliated and the rest were judeochristian approving, with the sole exception being thomas paine, who was indeed a deist. You pro homo people also fail to realize that marriage is not a creation of the state nor is its definition open to democratic interpretation given that the first amendment prevents the govt from interfering with faith.

Leave a Reply

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

A Closer Look

Why some think the dissent cries ‘wolf’ over Supreme Court marriage decision

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 decision striking down state bans against same-sex marriage has been touted as “probably the strongest manifesto in favor of marriage” and pilloried as “a threat to American democracy.” The huff and puff will soon die down, and here’s a look at the legal bricks that will remain standing and why some might think the dissent is crying “wolf.”

» more


Breaking News

“Justice that arrives like a thunderbolt”: On same-sex marriage “the fight is over”

June 26 has been solidified as the historic date for LGBT history in the United States. It is the day in 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not enforce laws prohibiting same-sex adults from having intimate relations. It is the day in 2013 when a Supreme Court procedural ruling enabled same-sex couples to marry […]

» more


Supreme Court: States must license and recognize licenses of marriages for same-sex couples

In a widely expected yet stunning victory for LGBT people nationally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 26) that state bans on marriage for same-sex couples are unconstitutional. The decision requires states to both issue marriage licenses to couples and to recognize marriage licenses obtained in other states by same-sex couples.

» more


Supreme Court upholds health insurance subsidies critical to people with HIV

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision, upheld the right of the federal government to provide health care insurance subsidies to people with low income in states that have chosen not to participate in the Affordable Care Act by setting up insurance “exchanges.”

The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is a big political victory for the Obama administration and a big relief for people with low incomes, including many people with HIV.

» more


Abercrombie case: LGBT and evangelicals on the same side

It is a rare occasion when LGBT legal activists find themselves on the same side of a case as the conservative Christian Legal Society and the National Association of Evangelicals. It is also rare to find LGBT legal activists on the same side as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and his fondness for hewing to the original explicit language of a law.

But so it was with EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch June 1, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot escape federal law’s requirement to accommodate a job applicant’s religious practices by claiming the applicant never told the employer about his or her religious practices.

» more


Roberts’ questions stole the spotlight; will they steal the show on marriage?

Most legal observers who watched or listened to the oral arguments from April 28 in Obergefell v. Hodges, an appeal seeking to strike down bans on same-sex marriages in four states, focused on the likelihood that Justice Anthony Kennedy will vote with the court’s four liberal wing justices and find the bans unconstitutional. But a few, like University of California School of Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, believe the vote could even be 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John Roberts on board.

» more