Previous 0 - 8
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Definition of Words

rebcon Wrote: May 13, 2012 3:08 PM
The equality I am speaking of is equal protection under the law. You seem to be speaking about something entirely different. The Constitution doesn't guarantee that any marriage, gay or straight, will be happy or successful. But it does guarantee and require that those relationships be treated equally under the law.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Definition of Words

rebcon Wrote: May 13, 2012 3:00 PM
I read the article. The argument you and Mr. Hunter advance is, from a consitutional law perspective, wrong. I am a Consitutional law attorney. So instead of me reading the article and getting back to you, why don't you go to law school, spend a couple decades working in this complex field of study, and get back to me. You are out of your depth, and if you think its cutesy to say to a gay person - "You're not discriminated against, you can marry a woman just like any other man", you are not only stupid, but mean. It is about equality. I stand for it. You don't.
Obama never earned th title bigot because he always supported equal right for gays, even if he preferred to call it something else. If you don't at least support civil unions, you are a bigot. Own your ugliness. Don't try to paint yourself and the President as having the same position. You never have.
Doug, you're a tool. Here's reality: I am married. My husband and I are both men - masculine men. Neither one of us is "the female"; we are both men. Our daughter doesn't have a mother; she has two dads. You don't buy us gifts on mothers day, because we are not mothers. If you wish to, you may buy us gifts on father's day because we are both fathers. There, it's that simple. It is not complex. Unless you are a tool. Oh, wait.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Definition of Words

rebcon Wrote: May 13, 2012 2:47 PM
You are either for equality or you are not. It's that simple. Equality is a fundmental Amercian value. If you are not for it, your conception of what America is and means is not right.
Lynching is mob action to kill someone outside of the rule of law. The closest thing to a lynching in this case was the physically violent mob action Romney orchestrated and carried out against Laubner. Have you no shame? A gay kid in 1965 was afraid to tell his family he was bullied because he was gay? That is hard to believe? That makes you think it did not happen, even though four perpetrators - the people who were there and did it and are ashamed of it and were Romney's friends separately describe it in detail? What you are really saying is "I don't care about the truth."
Romney isn't disputing that he did it. The other participants have vivid memories and much shame over what they did. It happened, and it went beyond casual teen cruelty. It was a vicious criminal assault against a nonconsenting and scared younger and vulnerable student. It matters. And more importantly, how Mr. Romney has dealt with it now matters. Yesterday, he had a chance to show his quality. He should have acknowledged his memory fo the facts, his particfipation, and his shame, and used it as a springboard for a Presidential discussion about bullying. He could have acted like a man and a leader. He chose lies and minimization. That is an insight into his character which is very relevant to his ability to lead this nation.
In response to:

To Bigotry No Sanction

rebcon Wrote: May 11, 2012 8:03 AM
You are either for equality under the law - a truly American principle - or you are not. I am an American, and true to the values my nation was founded on. I stand for equality.
diana west is a nut bar birther
Previous 0 - 8