Yes. I consider myself a better advocate for “gay rights” than Ted Kennedy, because I believe strongly in our individual rights that are granted by our Creator, and strongly support the bill of rights which is supposed to constrain government from interfering with our God-given rights.
Ted Kennedy is a proponent of taking away the rights of nearly everybody, including gay people.
Romney’s position on gay rights in the last election was not one of his selling points, but he opposed gay marriage and supported DOMA which meant at a federal level he was going to be OK.
I oppose gay marriage because rights are for individuals, not groups, and every gay person has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as I do.
Values, morals, standards, tradition, character, all are there for a reason. The reason is without them you have chaos. Which is exactly what our culture is becoming.
All of the above are also what keep people honest, decent, and caring about other people as opposed to selfishness. NOT LAWS!
That is all we need to say about these stupid anti-civil groups. Any pol who approves in any way shape or form, lacks all the above, and therefore cannot be trusted to make deciaion for Americans and their families.
Gay “marriage” is an interesting topic from a federalist, or states’s rights perspective. I could entertain the notion of gay marriage for MA if that decision were restricted to MA and any other state making that choice. But as I understand it, a gay marriage in one state must be recognized in another. That is an incomplete federalism.
If it’s O.K. for MA to legislate that a man carry marry a man, then it should be O.K. for Texas to legislate that such men will be thrown in jail. If that were the case, it would be unwise for such men to travel to Texas. But that is the nature of federalism. Each state gets to make its own laws. There remains a legitimate way to overide state laws - a constitutional amendment.