Posted on 08/21/2014 6:09:57 PM PDT by BurningOak
Nashville mayor Karl Dean went one step further in his support for same-sex marriage Thursday. He has officially joined the group Mayors for the Freedom to Marry — the first mayor in Tennessee to do so.
Dean signed a marriage equality statement that says allowing same-sex couples to marry is good for everyone. In a press release, Dean said he wants Nashville to respect “individual dignity.”
“Embracing and celebrating our growing diversity makes our city stronger,” he wrote. “Nashville needs to continue in that direction, and it’s my hope that joining this effort will help us do that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nashvillepublicradio.org ...
The headline is giving me a mental picture that I don’t really want to see.
Evil is running deep and wide across the land.
Always makes one wonder when a local doosh politician feels it is ‘incumbent’ upon them to take a stand on an issue that doesn’t affect them or their constituency.
I think it is another politician death dance.
It’s just easier for these people to give in, to turn away from what they know is right, and join the ever-growing crowd of queer-praisers. Approval from mankind is what they value most.
What a gutless, cowering, pervert-enabler.
Unnngh!
It’s not just a regional problem. America is in rapid moral and cultural disintegration everywhere, embracing degeneracy and evil across the board.
Indeed, I am just amazed at the speed of this thing. It has only been 10 years since the whole thing began.
Is he a Democrat?
How does embracing diversity (meaning embrace of homosexuality) make a city stronger?
Chances of having this scumsucker recalled?
the cancer of liberalism is metastisizing.
The percentage isn’t even as high as that.
According to Wikipedia he’s “known to be” a Democrat.
bump
He’s a Democrat. Repubs don’t do that well in Nashville government, for some reason.
The Dims run this town. It gets better in the burbs to the south.
I’d vote to recall, but I’m outside of Nashville.
So a fair-minded reading of the definition of `diversity’ (”many different forms, types and ideas”) that I provided arguably forces a conclusion that homosexuals are not required for diversity in that they comprise a statistically minute portion of the populace, at least when compared to the amount of their whinging and foot-stamping.
As mentioned in related threads, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about things like marriage means that such issues are state power issues, the feds having only the power to regulate the effect of one state's marriage in another state via the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, Section 1 of Article IV.
In fact, note that regardless that activist judges and the corrupt media want everybody to think that the Supreme Court repealed DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA, based on Congress's Section 1 power referenced above, is evidently still in effect.
DOMA, Section 2: Powers reserved to the statesNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Also note that the Constitution's silence about gay marriage means that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights. So the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gay agenda issues, as long as such laws do not unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.