Posted on 07/04/2015 10:19:30 AM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands
For many opponents of same-sex marriage, the fight has just started.
While supporters of marriage equality celebrate the supreme court’s historic decision in Obergefell v Hodges, advocates for traditional marriage have redoubled their efforts to influence policymakers. But the fight takes place in an unfamiliar political landscape, one where gay marriage has become the law of the land and one of the traditional benchmarks of the social conservative cause has been rendered meaningless.
No matter how ardently Republican candidates for president in 2016 proclaim that they believe marriage is between one man and one woman, the supreme court has ruled differently. So the issue for social-conservative voters is what to do now and how to tell whether candidates are sincere on the issue, and determined to fight it, or just “checking a box” with an intent to leave it alone.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Gotta a CDC link? Here's a link to the Gallup poll.
Here's an old CDC link from 07/15/2014. Claims 2.3%.
At any rate, the queers are getting a completely outsized reaction to their disgusting perversions.
Was what the court did constitutional? And where is the outrage from the black church?
I will look it up. Numbers came from a conference I attended. You are right either way we r taking less than 10 million queers in a country of 320 million or so.
That figure from the Gallup poll included all four groups - male homosexual ("gay"), female homosexual (lesbian), bisexual (which can be subdivided into female and male bisexuals), and transgender. Female bisexuals far outnumber true lesbians, as many so-called lesbians have had failed relationships with men. I would think that the inclusion of bisexuals in this mishmash greatly increases the reported percentage. The real percentage of true homosexuals in the general population is much lower than the 3.8% reported, and they are overwhelmingly males.
It's good to see some demonstrators out in front of the SCOTUS bullding to protest the decision.
All because the SCOTUS ruled doesn't mean that we can't change things around. As the Princeton professor quoted in the posted article said, the Dred Scott decision was abhorrent for American society as a whole, but it was completely turned on its head less than a decade later because enough decent people would not let it stand.
Exactly my point. Thank you for the post. People are wide awake and angry about this decision. This was necessary. Candidates have been forced to state an actual position and to think this won't be a major issue in the Presidential campaign is ridiculous.
The fight over homosexual "marriage" is not over. In point of fact, it's just beginning.
Private employers can fire employees for saying anything that they feel reflects poorly on the business. The constitution doesn't let us say anything we want without consequences. It only assures that the government has to let us say it.
The Volestead act was overturned eventually too.
Let us hope Common Sense hasn’t been totally submerged by propaganda.
That was not a SCOTUS decision, though. It had no direct connection to the SCOTUS at all It was a matter of a new Constitutional Amendment (21st) repealing an older Constitutional Amendment (18th). That was the only time in the history of the Constitution that one Amendment directly repealed a previous one.
True.
CDC? Is that the Centers for Disease Control? If so, I'm kind of surprised, because in a politically correct administration, you wouldn't expect any connection between an agency which concerns itself with disease and an enumeration of homosexuals. The fact is of course, that there is a strong connection between the practice of male homosexuality and the incidence of just about every sexually transmitted disease known to mankind.
Still wondering if that 1.8% number is for males only, or for both males AND females.
If they’re hawking that 3.8% figure, you know darn well it’s less. They’re not going to go with a number that is one person short of the absolute maximum they can claim.
To me this means they’ve padded the numbers to even get there.
Out of 100 people, I don’t think there are more than 2 that are homosexuals.
I don’t break down the different categories. To me these groups are all homosexuals if they’re into these types of activity.
I realize if they aren’t sexually attracted to people of the same sex, I’m technically wrong. My guiding point here is that I want none of these people around any kids I know.
They’re simply outside the scope of “normal people”. That’s good enough reason for me to categorize them in the same group. If they don’t like that, they can conform to normal lifestyles.
Thanks for the ping!
“As the Princeton professor quoted in the posted article said, the Dred Scott decision was abhorrent for American society as a whole, but it was completely turned on its head less than a decade later because enough decent people would not let it stand.”
The problem now is there’s less “Americans” and more “world citizens” who are here to suck off the whore host body this country’s been bastardized into, mostly by judicial activism and liberal social engineering.
As long as they get their checks, cell phones and cable TV, they won’t do anything to upset “their stuff”.
Bump.
Thank you.
I agree that the importation of "world citizens" to suck off the host body is a big problem, but I don't see these "world citizens" as necessarily an impediment to Americans fighting against "gay marriage." Why would a recently arrived immigrant be a defender of "gay marriage", unless perhaps he himself is a homosexual and wishes to take advantage of this newly found "right"? "Gay marriage" isn't a part of the experience of the vast majority recent immigrants or invaders.
I 100% include corrupted natives in my definition of “world citizens”.
If anything, they’re worst than the imports; they knowingly and willingly soil their country of origin.
Obergefell will open all religious organizations to being sued into bankruptcy. If the churches dissolve and we are back to “house churches,” the owners of those houses will be sued into bankruptcy as their houses are zoned out of existence by the Federal Government which the court gave universal zoning authority with another of the new Decisions.
Civil Disobedience will be the watchword very soon and violence will follow.
I’m against this ruling, the problem is you can’t have 50 states with 50 different sets of laws. That is were it became a Federal issue I believe.
Do I accept it NO! it’s against my CHRISTIAN beliefs.
Civil unions would have worked. We have enough laws on the books in the states to ensure ‘they’ have all the same rights to cover inheritance, joint ownership, hospital visits, Power Of Attorney’s, Wills etc that gives them just as much protection as a heterosexual marriage does.
Look on the 1 good side they are now subject to state DIVORCE LAWS, and at the rate they change partners it will get very costly.
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.