The 14th Amendment addresses privileges and immunities; not just "rights."

Marriage clearly falls under this umbrella.

2/21/2010 3:51:19 PM

yes, which is why people are allowed to marry whoever they want. that does NOT mean they get state acknowledgment.

^^ is a bit absurd, to say the least.

2/21/2010 4:04:14 PM

but it's a pretty decent parallel. why do some get that state recognition and others do not?

and it's not just acknowledgment. there are also priviliges associated with it. tax breaks, implied legal rights with your spouse, etc.

[Edited on February 21, 2010 at 4:07 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2010 4:06:30 PM

You're wasting your time. aaronburro gets the issue, he understands why it's so offensive, he understands that gays are being denied the same right, but he's going to play dumb all the same.

I can imagine him championing segregation in the 60s. Separate, but equal!!

2/21/2010 4:14:55 PM

it's NOT a decent parallel, as there are actually laws that prevent discrimination on the basis of race when it comes to attending a public school.

and all of the benefits you mentioned can be acquired without state-sanctioned marriage. again, benefits, not rights.

^ but you are perfectly OK with dems who call anyone with a religious belief a "backwoods redneck." you are just as offensive, and you don't see a problem with it.

2/21/2010 4:30:34 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/20/gingrichs-warning/?fbid=CeukDESvFZn

Quote :

"(CNN) - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich warned the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference Saturday that the left is "antithetical to the survival of America." "I believe we are now in a struggle over whether or not we are going to save America," Gingrich said. "I believe the radical left is a secular, socialist machine so dedicated to values destructive of America that if it is allowed to remain in power…that machine is antithetical to the survival of America as a prosperous healthy country. ""

He's figured it out, democrats secretly want to destroy America because they're all socialists, and far too secular for government work.

2/21/2010 4:30:59 PM

^^so you can get a marriage tax break in a same-sex marriage?

and you're harping on the whole "well there are laws about it now, so it's different" line again?

what is your end-state again? what do you want to happen with marriage? is the current state acceptable to you?

[Edited on February 21, 2010 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2010 4:31:28 PM

Quote :

"is the current state acceptable to you?"

He'll probably sidestep that question by saying something useless like "Well, the current law is the law so it doesn't matter what I think about it."

. . .

2/21/2010 5:01:49 PM

nah, that's some merbig shit right there.

I don't give a fuck either way about gay marriage. But I'm not going to act like they don't have the right to marry, when they very much do.

it's not lame to reference a law when you bring up an absurd example that is covered by law to try and raise a point about something that is not covered by law.

2/21/2010 5:07:28 PM

and blacks had the right to marry too, as long as the other person was black.

2/21/2010 5:21:40 PM

there's a difference. as I've already stated. i don't expect you to notice that, though

2/21/2010 5:47:20 PM

Quote :

"it's not lame to reference a law when you bring up an absurd example that is covered by law to try and raise a point about something that is not covered by law."

i'm arguing that it should be covered by law. and i don't know what you're arguing.

2/21/2010 5:49:15 PM

no, you said people were being denied their rights. which they aren't.

2/21/2010 5:50:18 PM

isn't this just semantics?

what do you actually think should happen? it seems you're just arguing to argue here.

2/21/2010 5:54:17 PM

Quote :

"there's a difference. as I've already stated. i don't expect you to notice that, though"

And what massive difference is that?

2/21/2010 5:57:57 PM

i've already said that I don't care what happens. You said someone is being denied his rights. I showed he isn't.

^ if you can't read what is already on the previous page, then I'm certainly not going to regurgitate it for you

2/21/2010 5:59:52 PM

so if i used the phrase "equal protection and privileges under the law" you'd agree with me?

2/21/2010 6:02:47 PM

aaronburro is the master of distinctions without merit.

2/21/2010 6:09:00 PM

absolutely not, as they are still free to access marriage. gov't acceptance is NOT a right, or even a privilege.

2/21/2010 6:10:34 PM

Burro never answered the question about the marriage tax break.

2/21/2010 6:19:10 PM

it doesn't matter. it's not a right, for one. its not even a privilege, as was already mentioned. thus, it is irrelevant.

2/21/2010 6:21:23 PM

it is an inequity in the law. do you think that inequity is justified?

and yes a tax break is a privilege by most definitions.

[Edited on February 21, 2010 at 6:23 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2010 6:22:18 PM

^^I hope you realize it is still illegal in many states to engage in homosexual behavior. If that ain't equal rights, I don't know what is.

[Edited on February 21, 2010 at 6:28 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2010 6:23:15 PM

eh. not really. federal precedent has more or less invalidated those laws. if they were enforced, the laws would be revoked with a quickness.

2/21/2010 6:24:14 PM

That fact that refutes all my claims? Eh. Doesn't matter.


And by the way, would anyone care to defend the quote from above?

Quote :

"I believe we are now in a struggle over whether or not we are going to save America," Gingrich said. "I believe the radical left is a secular, socialist machine so dedicated to values destructive of America that if it is allowed to remain in power…that machine is antithetical to the survival of America as a prosperous healthy country."

From a former Speaker of the House who is still a major player in his party.

Can anyone argue that this was an accurate or responsible thing to say?

[Edited on February 21, 2010 at 6:28 PM. Reason : ]

2/21/2010 6:25:42 PM

(i'm not burro)

2/21/2010 6:27:03 PM

Quote :

"eh. not really. federal precedent has more or less invalidated those laws. if they were enforced, the laws would be revoked with a quickness."

not really.

2/21/2010 6:28:19 PM

^^ That was directed at Burro's response to the tax question.

2/21/2010 6:29:20 PM

^^explain

[Edited on February 21, 2010 at 6:30 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2010 6:29:42 PM

Quote :

"it is an inequity in the law. do you think that inequity is justified?"

there are plenty of inequities in the law. why is this one any different?

Quote :

"and yes a tax break is a privilege by most definitions."

not at all.

2/21/2010 6:29:52 PM

Quote :

"there are plenty of inequities in the law. why is this one any different?"

hey look, bryan's answering another question with a question! how new and insightful. of course he doesn't answer the actual question.

[Edited on February 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2010 6:31:41 PM

Quote :

"^^explain"

Lawrence v. Texas only applies to sexual privacy.

2/21/2010 6:34:25 PM

what laws are you referring to then?

2/21/2010 6:36:15 PM

i have no need to answer the question. the law gives plenty of things that are "unequal." This one is no different

2/21/2010 6:40:09 PM

Crimes against Nature laws are still valid so long as the act does not happen within the privacy of the home. Once engaged inside the home they then become subject to sexual privacy protections.

2/21/2010 6:41:29 PM

^^

The answer is so obvious that I won't waste my time providing an answer.

Instead I'll waste my time defending myself for not giving the answer.

2/21/2010 6:44:59 PM

and I would say ^^ is bullshit. if two people want to bwn down in a hotel room, that's their business.

^ not at all. he said there was inequity, yet the law makes it in many places. why is this time any different? The law is not depriving anyone of their rights. so there is nothing wrong going on

[Edited on February 21, 2010 at 6:46 PM. Reason : ]

2/21/2010 6:45:22 PM

Quote :

"the law gives plenty of things that are "unequal.""

And they all suck.

2/21/2010 6:57:38 PM

^^why do you put forth such effort to defend this inequity?

2/21/2010 7:08:41 PM

I'm really not, as if you can't tell

2/21/2010 7:27:49 PM

Quote :

""I believe the radical left is a secular, socialist machine so dedicated to values destructive of America that if it is allowed to remain in power…that machine is antithetical to the survival of America as a prosperous healthy country.""

I'll buy that, but with the caveat that the radical right is a theocratic, fascist machine so dedicated to values destructive of the Classical Liberal / Enlightenment legacy of America, yadda yadda yadda. . .

2/21/2010 10:08:56 PM

2/22/2010 1:35:17 AM

Yea I'm sure that kind of macho platitude bumper sticker is going to persuade gay men to change their sexual orientation.




Wow. Even Ann Coulter said "teabagger" was the "gayest thing I've heard on CNN since Anderson Cooper."

[Edited on February 22, 2010 at 7:45 AM. Reason : image!=img ]

2/22/2010 7:44:48 AM

PROUD TO BE A TEABAGGER!

2/22/2010 9:24:15 PM

=




This has been GrumpyGOP trying to post like marko, with unexplained photographs of obscure references.

2/22/2010 11:21:44 PM

Quote :

"It’s interesting, that’s for sure. He did so terribly in the primaries, we’ll see how he does if he makes another run."

I think right now, his odds aren't terrible, and by 2012, they'll be looking pretty good. If Ron Paul runs, or someone like him (Gary Johnson, maybe), I'll do anything I can to help them get elected. We really don't have until 2016 to sort this shit out...I don't even know if we have until 2012. We need huge, sweeping changes to how government is operating, and quickly. It seems like people are finally waking up to this reality.

2/22/2010 11:25:33 PM

Well we might be able to get rid of term limits, then we could have barack for a few more terms, if that doesn't work then we could always get his wife to run, but I'm not too worried about it destroyer.

2/22/2010 11:40:33 PM

Quote :

"Good ol' conservative values: ... GAY JOKES LOL"

Jokes on them this year. GOProud, a very similar organization to the Log Cabin Republicans, is participating in CPAC this year. In response the Family Research Council, the Concerned Women for America, the Media Research Center, and the Heritage Foundation have all dropped out because that group is being allowed to particpate.

Their straw poll always gets lots of attention, especially as we get this close to presidential election season... maybe all the hard core social conservatives pulling out will this event focusing more on economic conditions?

[Edited on January 7, 2011 at 7:41 PM. Reason : .]

1/7/2011 7:40:08 PM

I see Ron Paul winning big in the straw poll.

1/8/2011 11:46:57 AM

Latest addition to people who wont participate:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/21/demint-to-skip-cpac/

Quote :

"(CNN) – Republican South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint is opting out of an appearance at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), making him the latest Republican to the criticize what some have seen as a pro-gay tilt to the prominent conference."

1/21/2011 11:50:07 PM