The Oregon Court of Appeals has formally asked the state’s highest court to decide whether Republican state senators who carried out a record-setting GOP walkout this year can run for
Umm, they were elected to do their jobs, and opted instead to leave. Why would anyone ever vote them into a position of responsibility, ever again. They made their choice, and that choice was to play stupid games. What part of this is unclear?
edit: Let’s keep in mind that these walkouts occurred 3 years in a row. The constitutional amendment, approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2022, barring re-election after 10 or more unexcused absences, came directly in response to GOP elected officials walking out in '19,'20, and '21. This wasn’t one person, one time, “oops I’m sorry, won’t happen again”; it was to prevent a votes from happening. You say you don’t like stupid games, but your politically aligned representatives were doing just that. smh.
“There were nine Oregon Republicans and an independent who clocked at least 10 absences during this year’s legislative session in order to block Democratic bills covering abortion, transgender health care and gun rights. The walkout prevented a quorum, holding up bills in the Democrat-led Senate for six weeks.” That is not not doing their jobs.
People will vote for them because we are partisan. I am not overly partisan. I vote Republican but you need to do your job. It’s that simple. Even if the law wasn’t in place, I would mot vote for them for refusing to do their job.
It’s kinda dumb to vote for someone, just because they claim a party affiliation, when they have already demonstrated that they won’t do their job. smh.
You disagree with what stance? The GOP national party platform from 2016 and 2020 (it’s the same platform on pages 31-32 as enumerated on the bottom of the page) states an opposition to LGBT+ marriage. This is not a matter of opinion it is 100% factual to say the GOP opposes equal rights. Marriage rights provide a TON of other rights most importantly the right to decide who gets you stuff.
This is not a matter of anyone having “extra” rights under the law. The only people with “extra” rights would be straight people under the GOP’s platform.
It is not additional rights. Straight people can marry and gay people can marry that’s equal rights. Saying that gay people cannot marry creates unequal rights between the groups.
The fact that marriage traditionally meant X does not change the fact that marriage legally confers a set of rights to the new couple. Denying LGBT+ people access to those rights means that straight people have MORE rights.
The GOP does not support equal rights and that should be a good reason for everyone to oppose them.
It’s not an additional right because before 2015 LGBT+ people were denied rights straight people have.
You will be surprised to learn legally being able to decide who your next of kin is and the ability to have the person you chose male life decisions is an important right that is ONLY gained through marriage.
It isn’t an additional right when a group gets access to rights that another group already has that they were previously denied due to bigotry.
Denying gay people the right to marry means that straight people enjoy legal rights that gay people do not. That’s straight people having extra rights.
Supporting the GOP supports unequal rights for Americans and that’s ignoring the overt issues of supporting fascists.
At one point, property ownership was defined as a white male possessing something, and voting was defined as something only male citizens could do. Do you also feel neither of those were Equal Rights issues?
This is doublethink. I’ve typed out several replies so far and deleted each one because I don’t think there’s anything that anyone can say to help you realize your logical fallacy. You said yourself that you won’t change your opinion, which means you’ve shut your mind down and are willing to reject any information in order to maintain a position. That’s no way to go through life, but it’s your life to live. Hopefully some day it becomes clear to you.
Just because something was defined hundreds of years ago doesn’t mean it should stay that way forever, and it shouldn’t
So just because something was “defined” that means it should never change? Voting used to be defined as only white men voting. By your logic, we shouldn’t have changed that. Same for women having their own bank account or credit cards, everyone wearing seatbelts, smoking areas, etc.
But yes, the reason why marriage is unequal with gays is because of the benefits that come with being married. There’s no other way for gay couples to have those benefits unless they’re legally married. You might not be homophobic, but you’re absolutely wrong
This is why you’re getting downvoted. People traditionally owned other people, too. “Traditional” is not necessarily “equal”.
Can a man marry me? Can a woman marry me? If the answer to both questions isn’t exactly the same, that is an explicit failure of the 14th Amendment Equal Protections clause. Just like “Can I own a white person? Can I own a black person?” Asymmetric rights are the purest example of unequal treatment. It’s no different than when a Republican president told the world that Freedom of Religion is Freedom of Christian Religions and that Pagan Religions deserve no rights. (I wonder if you know which president did that)
Be honest if you oppose equal protections, but don’t bend yourself into a pretzel to pretend persecuting homosexuals is something other than it is.
I’m not a child, so I don’t care about downvotes. It just shows my viewpoint is accurate.
I get you may live for an upvote but I live in the real world where success isn’t measured by a click by others.
I do not know which president said that and that is wrong as the 1st amendment guarantees religious rights. I’m not religious but I’m not anti-theist.
I don’t oppose equal protections. You’re bending yourself into a pretzel trying to make it fit the scenario. It’s why the 14th amendment is poorly written. It’s the escape clause for when someone can’t figure something out.
I’m not a child, so I don’t care about downvotes. It just shows my viewpoint is accurate.
You say you’re not a child, but then made clear that you enjoy getting downvotes because you think downvotes mean you’re right. Which are you?
I do not know which president said that and that is wrong as the 1st amendment guarantees religious rights. I’m not religious but I’m not anti-theist.
For the record, it was George W Bush. He was pushing, and making noise, that Wiccans should not be allowed access to a Wiccan Minister, and those who died should not be allowed Wiccan symbolism on their graves or Wiccan burial traditions because he felt “Wicca isn’t a real religion”. Same shit as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. Same shit as not allowing gay marriage in the first place.
“Traditionally” in the US, Religious Rights were NOT symmetrically guaranteed. You most certainly could be alienated for holding a fringe religion. Just look at the history of Mormonism if you must.
Quite literally, things like gay marriage is the heart and soul of why the Equal Protection Clause was added after the Civil War. That Americans were too regressive to stop gay marriage immediately (or sexism wrt voting, but that’s in the Amendment as the one equal protection not being granted) is a statement against the People, not the Clause.
I don’t oppose equal protections
But you don’t see how gay marriage isn’t about Equal Protection. And you ignored the part of my point where it is categorically similar to women’s suffrage and slavery.
You’re bending yourself into a pretzel trying to make it fit the scenario
You really “no U” doesn’t work here, or anywhere. I’m not bending anything into pretzels. You don’t even have a counter except to reject my points and openly attack the 14th Amendment.
It’s why the 14th amendment is poorly written
This is a hot take, and one you had better substantiate. The text of the 14th Amendment is absolutely clear, and was written by people who made the intentions of the 14th Amendment just as clear. **Any ** failure to understand the 14th Amendment in text or intent by lawmakers or Justices is done in bad faith. Or as an aforementioned famous Republican said of the Constitution “It’s just a piece of paper”.
Umm, they were elected to do their jobs, and opted instead to leave. Why would anyone ever vote them into a position of responsibility, ever again. They made their choice, and that choice was to play stupid games. What part of this is unclear?
edit: Let’s keep in mind that these walkouts occurred 3 years in a row. The constitutional amendment, approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2022, barring re-election after 10 or more unexcused absences, came directly in response to GOP elected officials walking out in '19,'20, and '21. This wasn’t one person, one time, “oops I’m sorry, won’t happen again”; it was to prevent a votes from happening. You say you don’t like stupid games, but your politically aligned representatives were doing just that. smh.
“There were nine Oregon Republicans and an independent who clocked at least 10 absences during this year’s legislative session in order to block Democratic bills covering abortion, transgender health care and gun rights. The walkout prevented a quorum, holding up bills in the Democrat-led Senate for six weeks.” That is not not doing their jobs.
People will vote for them because we are partisan. I am not overly partisan. I vote Republican but you need to do your job. It’s that simple. Even if the law wasn’t in place, I would mot vote for them for refusing to do their job.
It’s kinda dumb to vote for someone, just because they claim a party affiliation, when they have already demonstrated that they won’t do their job. smh.
Please don’t vote republican. The national party has since 2016 maintained as a major party plank that all Americans should not have equal rights.
I disagree with that stance. Equal rights means equal. It doesn’t mean one group has more than the other.
Democrats are pushing the idea that not all pigs are the same and I don’t agree with that.
You disagree with what stance? The GOP national party platform from 2016 and 2020 (it’s the same platform on pages 31-32 as enumerated on the bottom of the page) states an opposition to LGBT+ marriage. This is not a matter of opinion it is 100% factual to say the GOP opposes equal rights. Marriage rights provide a TON of other rights most importantly the right to decide who gets you stuff.
This is not a matter of anyone having “extra” rights under the law. The only people with “extra” rights would be straight people under the GOP’s platform.
No it’s additional rights. Traditionally marriage was a between a man and a woman. That’s how it’s worked for thousands of years.
I’m not opposed to gay marriage but it’s an additional right.
It is not additional rights. Straight people can marry and gay people can marry that’s equal rights. Saying that gay people cannot marry creates unequal rights between the groups.
The fact that marriage traditionally meant X does not change the fact that marriage legally confers a set of rights to the new couple. Denying LGBT+ people access to those rights means that straight people have MORE rights.
The GOP does not support equal rights and that should be a good reason for everyone to oppose them.
Up until recently marriage was defined as a man and woman. As such it’s an additional right.
You’re not going to change my opinion on the topic. While I’m fine with gay marriage. It’s not an equal right issue as it’s an additional right.
Deny gay marriage is not giving straight couples more rights. It’s giving them the right to marriage which was defined as a man and a woman.
It’s not an additional right because before 2015 LGBT+ people were denied rights straight people have.
You will be surprised to learn legally being able to decide who your next of kin is and the ability to have the person you chose male life decisions is an important right that is ONLY gained through marriage.
It isn’t an additional right when a group gets access to rights that another group already has that they were previously denied due to bigotry.
Denying gay people the right to marry means that straight people enjoy legal rights that gay people do not. That’s straight people having extra rights.
Supporting the GOP supports unequal rights for Americans and that’s ignoring the overt issues of supporting fascists.
At one point, property ownership was defined as a white male possessing something, and voting was defined as something only male citizens could do. Do you also feel neither of those were Equal Rights issues?
This is doublethink. I’ve typed out several replies so far and deleted each one because I don’t think there’s anything that anyone can say to help you realize your logical fallacy. You said yourself that you won’t change your opinion, which means you’ve shut your mind down and are willing to reject any information in order to maintain a position. That’s no way to go through life, but it’s your life to live. Hopefully some day it becomes clear to you.
Just because something was defined hundreds of years ago doesn’t mean it should stay that way forever, and it shouldn’t
So just because something was “defined” that means it should never change? Voting used to be defined as only white men voting. By your logic, we shouldn’t have changed that. Same for women having their own bank account or credit cards, everyone wearing seatbelts, smoking areas, etc.
But yes, the reason why marriage is unequal with gays is because of the benefits that come with being married. There’s no other way for gay couples to have those benefits unless they’re legally married. You might not be homophobic, but you’re absolutely wrong
This is why you’re getting downvoted. People traditionally owned other people, too. “Traditional” is not necessarily “equal”.
Can a man marry me? Can a woman marry me? If the answer to both questions isn’t exactly the same, that is an explicit failure of the 14th Amendment Equal Protections clause. Just like “Can I own a white person? Can I own a black person?” Asymmetric rights are the purest example of unequal treatment. It’s no different than when a Republican president told the world that Freedom of Religion is Freedom of Christian Religions and that Pagan Religions deserve no rights. (I wonder if you know which president did that)
Be honest if you oppose equal protections, but don’t bend yourself into a pretzel to pretend persecuting homosexuals is something other than it is.
I’m not a child, so I don’t care about downvotes. It just shows my viewpoint is accurate.
I get you may live for an upvote but I live in the real world where success isn’t measured by a click by others.
I do not know which president said that and that is wrong as the 1st amendment guarantees religious rights. I’m not religious but I’m not anti-theist.
I don’t oppose equal protections. You’re bending yourself into a pretzel trying to make it fit the scenario. It’s why the 14th amendment is poorly written. It’s the escape clause for when someone can’t figure something out.
You say you’re not a child, but then made clear that you enjoy getting downvotes because you think downvotes mean you’re right. Which are you?
For the record, it was George W Bush. He was pushing, and making noise, that Wiccans should not be allowed access to a Wiccan Minister, and those who died should not be allowed Wiccan symbolism on their graves or Wiccan burial traditions because he felt “Wicca isn’t a real religion”. Same shit as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. Same shit as not allowing gay marriage in the first place.
“Traditionally” in the US, Religious Rights were NOT symmetrically guaranteed. You most certainly could be alienated for holding a fringe religion. Just look at the history of Mormonism if you must.
Quite literally, things like gay marriage is the heart and soul of why the Equal Protection Clause was added after the Civil War. That Americans were too regressive to stop gay marriage immediately (or sexism wrt voting, but that’s in the Amendment as the one equal protection not being granted) is a statement against the People, not the Clause.
But you don’t see how gay marriage isn’t about Equal Protection. And you ignored the part of my point where it is categorically similar to women’s suffrage and slavery.
You really “no U” doesn’t work here, or anywhere. I’m not bending anything into pretzels. You don’t even have a counter except to reject my points and openly attack the 14th Amendment.
This is a hot take, and one you had better substantiate. The text of the 14th Amendment is absolutely clear, and was written by people who made the intentions of the 14th Amendment just as clear. **Any ** failure to understand the 14th Amendment in text or intent by lawmakers or Justices is done in bad faith. Or as an aforementioned famous Republican said of the Constitution “It’s just a piece of paper”.