Your mother did those same things, but will she parade around with the same 'permanent mark'? Kind of odd and degrading don't you think even without the issue of sexual orientation.
Olson starts off with this --- "what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights." I was expecting an scholarly explanation... what he provided was bunch of junk. No case law saying why sexual orientation should be protected as a minor class. No explanation about constitutional standards of review. No explanation why would should change the definition to include gays but not include plural marriages. I have no problems with Gay Republicans. I have problems with fake conservatives and fake republicans acting saying that being pposed to gay marriage is a knee jerk reaction. A real conservative has 2 choices. 1. Get govt out of the marriage business or 2. Or conserve traditional values. A libertarian probably selects no 1. "Neo Con-artists closet Socialists swing to radical gays on this one.
what do you call someone who is phobic about homophobes? You are posting too soon after your last post. Try again in a few minutes. We have the timer set to a ridiculous high number cause we cant believe any human can post more than once every three minutes so you must be a bot trying to crash our pitiful board.
So, why does it matter if an RNC chairman was gay? Shouldn't that make you suppor the RNC? Shouldn't you support politicians or anyone else being open and honest about their sexual orientation, not having to hide it? Why would you choose to post this unless you thought it was pejorative?
According to you, it shouldn't matter what someone's sexual orientation is. I guess that only applies if they are democrats??? LOL!!! Speaking of hypocrites... ROFLMAO
Ahhh, I see... Sooo.. since one or two members of a party have a certain opinion, then all members of a party have that same opinion? I guess we can then conclude that the democratic party is a racist organization since they had Byrd, the longest running term in congress, who was a former KKK leader until he died not long ago. So since dems were the ones who voted against civil rights, since dems are the ones who wanted slavery to remain, and since dems are the ones who keep the KKK veterans as Senators, they must be a racist party according to your logic. Thanks for clearing that up!!! LOL!!!
One or two? Texas GOP is running on an Anti Gay Platform, not good enough for ya? And the examples I posted are just few of the handful, there is a lot more you know. And you are talking about Dixiecrats b/w who after the CRA passed turned Republican and thats why the South votes Republican now, I am sure you dont want to bring this up. "While the Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than Republicans, within each region (i.e., Southern vs Non-Southern), the Democrats voted FOR the CRA at a higher rate than Republicans (the discrepancy being that the South didn't have many Republican Congressmen and Senators). To show a comparison: Southern Democratic Senators: 5% approval Southern Republican Senators: 0% approval Southern Democratic Congressmen: 7% approval Southern Republican Congressmen: 0% approval Northern Democratic Senators: 98% approval Northern Republican Senators: 84% approval Northern Democratic Congressmen: 94% approval Northern Republican Congressmen: 85% approval"