Gay marriage was an issue pushed on to the agenda by the left.
I assume when you say "pushed", you mean the gays trying to get married.
To an extent, but I mostly mean the judges and local officials who went along. They are the people pushing to change the situation, they are the people who decided to make it an issue at this time.
Maybe the judges "went along" as you put it because there is no legal reason to prevent gay marriages.
Once that happened the right responded.
Why did the right respond? Are they the moral authority on these issues?
They have every bit as much right to fight for their agendas and opinions. If its ok for those who support gay marriage to campaign for it at this time then its also ok for those who are against it to campaign against it now.
You say the right has a right to fight for their agenda. I understand that concept but the right has a habit of fighting for things that dramatically effect the behaviors of others which have little bearing on their own lives.
Frankly, why doesn't the right mind its own business?
Really.......and out of the left's "push" came the right's effort to implement a constitutional amendment. That just happened out of thin air without pre thought.....interesting.
That statement doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't really understand what you are trying to say.
What I am saying is that in the matter of weeks the right went from objecting to gay marriage to starting legislation in order to establish a constitutional amendment. That'a big step in a short period of time. How do we know it wasn't premeditated?
The left decided to push for a change, the right decided to oppose this change. Since the left started to effect actual change the right started to make its response more then just verbal and tried to pass laws and constitutional amendments.
I find that an extreme response to something that doesn't effect the complainants at all. And their response is a bit unusual....since I believe this constitutional amendment would have been the first to restrict the freedoms of Americans rather than expand them.
The above paragraph is a simplification because its not a 100% left/right issue, but most of the supporters of massive and quick change in this area are on the left and most of those seeking to stop it are on the right.
"Massive and quick change"? Maybe in your part of the country but in the West, gays have been pushing for the right to marry for years.
Personally I don't have a problem with states choosing to allow "domestic partnerships". I have a little problem with legally calling those partnerships marriages. I have a lot of problems with state judges possibly ramming a major social and legal change down the throat of a country esp. when the majority of the country does not support this change at this time.
They may not be "ramming it down" your throat for the hell of it. It may be that the law allows gay marriage whether the majority agrees or does not agree. If so, it will not be the first time in this country that the majority do not agree with what the law allows. Its why we have judges!
Hitler didn't start out killing. He began by placing restrictions on the people he considered objectionable.
To maintain the status quo in regard to gay marriage is not placing a restriction on anyone, except perhaps judges who would change things.
Huh? It restricts gays from the rights enjoyed by straight people. There is a definite restriction.
And Hitler's thugs did start out killing. Then later a whole series of draconian laws where past, then people where made in to slaves, and then the systematic killing or "objectionable" or "undesirable" people began, none of which is anything like what Bush, or the Republican party is doing at this time, or have done in the past, or shows any sign of doing in the future.
In the late twenties, they did not start by killing; that came much later. In the beginning, they simply restricted their lives in a number of ways....both violently and non violently. To the Germans credit, some tried to some him but it was too little too late.
ted |
