Posted on 03/15/2024 8:36:53 AM PDT by fwdude
I read a Lifesitenews article on this, and it said Generation Z support for same-sex mirage has decreased significantly.
“What “civil partnership laws?” Most states didn’t pass those either.”
New Jersey, California, Nevada, Colorado and Illinois had either a “civil partnership” law or a “domestic partnership” law. Others were considering them when the “gay marriage” case headed to the SCOTUS.
The legal “stumbling block” to them was the wrong headed Clinton DOMA (”Defense of Marriage Act”). That act made federal recognition of civil partnerships or domestic partnerships no allowed.
Conservatives should have admitted that and preferring to not legalize “gay marriage” and get the very concept of marriage changed, Conservtaives should have agreed to repeal Clinton’s DOMA law, and allow federal recognition of civil partnerships. Had the DOMA law been repealed, there would have been no legal reason to pursue “gay marriage” at the SCOTUS, because federal law would not be standing in the way of recognizing civil partnerships at the federal level.
There ar commercials on tv that gratuitously feature a flamer that are repulsive to listen to and look at. We’re seeing into the gay world way more than we want to and it’s disgusting.
DOMA wasn’t wrong-headed at all. It expressed what everyone knew was marriage all along, forever.
Legally recognized “domestic arrangements” are just “marriage by another name.” There would not have been a single benefit extended to “domestic partners” which are not extended to married couples. It would have been exploited to the extreme until it WAS eventually officially “marriage,” probably much sooner than if we didn’t have DOMA.
“Legally recognized “domestic arrangements” are just “marriage by another name.”
No, they weren’t. If that were the case, the LGBT legal activists would have pursued the repeal of DOMA, to satisfy federal recognition of civil partnerships, but they didn’t. They wanted to demand legally and socially the very redefintion of marriage, rejecting the legal substitute of civil partnerships.
What was and was not considered “equal” consideration, between civil partneraships and marriage varied between the states that had civil partnership laws. There are very few federal benefits or rights that extend to spouses outside of federal entitlement programs, which are about financial considerations. Extending them to civil parterships would not have changed the social and societal definition of marriage.
They simply are the same, or would be deemed so.
Good, Maybe this will convince some Republicans to quit supporting it too, and expose who really has it as a “core belief.” All should be called out in the meantime.
That’s normal also.
If you disagree they always have a label to slap on you.
Antivaxer (Covid)
Putin puppet (Ukraine)
Racists (DIE narrative, affirmative action)
Reckless and irresponsible (ignoring social distancing rules)
Unpatriotic (Patriot Act)
Sexist / misogynist (not supporting every feminist idea)
Homophobic (not supporting every LGBTQIA idea)
Science denier / climate change denier. (Questioning climate change)
And many more...
It’s a form of a personal attack. It’s a way to exert pressure to conform by attack you without actually creating an argument.
But... Here’s a little truth I learned. When people have no rational argument, when they know their position is unsupported by physical evidence, a timeline, empirical measures or witness testimony, they resort to fallacies like this even if it’s a group of people or so called experts.
That’s within the margin of error...
hardly good news.
But maybe it really is a good trend for a change.
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.