It is ok for liberals to do that. That is my big issue with liberalism. I will admit and have no doubt the fact most gays align with liberals has not helped my opinion of their "rights"
I feel sorry for them too. They are voting out of self-defense. Just like Hispanics. Catholic Hispanics should be in the bag for the GOP, but the GOP has gone off the rails and lost them.
NOPE and that is why the founders insured putting it in there.
Did you vote for Obama?
Do you believe people should be able to stay in the country if they break in instead of deported?
I too did not know the term mud shark. Disgrace to race or coal burner.
I personally would still love my child if they were gay or a coal burner. I may not support their decisions, but they are your child. My child would stand the most chance of being disowned for being a liberal as I view them as enemies of the state and I believe our founders would as well.
Think about this:
If Obama's mama hadn't been impregnated by a black feller, he might not have grown up to be president. Maybe she knew something back then the rest of the world didn't....
Since what I say is true then it has no bearing on RKBA.
Maybe because gay people have no other choice but to support liberals because it's the only party that sees them as actual human beings and is the party in favor of gay marriage. Why would they align with the GOP when the GOP treats them as 2nd class citizens? It's no different than people who vote republican solely on 2A issues despite disagreeing with just about everything else the GOP stands for.
I know a lot of gay people in OKC who own guns, are very conservative and some are even very religious. You wouldn't even know they were gay unless they told you. Some of them have served in the military and some are still in active duty or in the Guard/Reserves. Some are even registered Republicans and believe in limited government and the 2nd Amendment. Guess who they begrudgingly vote 90% of the time despite having more conservative values?
Democrat...
Why? because the #1 issue for them is to be treated equally under the law like everyone else and if they know a candidate is for gay marriage and gay rights, it weighs very heavily for them. So much so that it sometimes trumps their more conservative views in government.
This is also an issue with the non gay, more Libertarian leaning voters I know, many of whom may either be registered Democrats or Republicans. Not all Libertarians are fanatical gun owners and although they believe in the 2A, equal treatment of all people and freedom trumps all. Even these people will make the sacrifice in their other values and will vote for a Democratic/Liberal candidate even at the risk of the candidate being anti 2A or being the opposite in belief in the role of government. Why? Because for some of these people, equality is more important than anything and weighs heavily in their voting decisions.
Over half the people I know who are registered Democrat are so only because they see the GOP as the anti-freedom party that they view as progressively becoming more like Christian Diet Cola version of the Taliban.
You missed the point. The RKBA is an individual right. Marriage is not an individual thing, therefore, cannot be a right. To embrace marriage as a right, it would have to be a collective right, only able to be exercised by more than one person. Ergo, to exercise the RKBA, it would have to be, or could be called, a collective right by the proponents of the anti-individual-militia-only right to keep and bear arms.
Veggie has made some good points in this discussion, but is making the mistake of referring to marriage as a right. It is not. Marriage is a privilege that we have the freedom to exercise within the bounds of the law.
Look at marriage in its proper context as a privilege, and this becomes much simpler. The definition of "marriage" is the legal contract by which a man and a woman become wife and husband. Whatever these same sex couples wish to engage in is going to need a name of its own and its own caveats in the tax code. The alteration of the meaning of words is one of the tactics the left uses to bastardize the Constitution when they can't get their way. In this case, they wish to alter the definition of 'marriage' to legitimize their abhorrent behavior, demand that legitimized aberration be applied to the tax code, so they may jump all over the equal protection clause as their vehicle to that end.
Woody
Enter your email address to join: