Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

The murderer served about 10 years in prison prior for other crimes. It's too early to determine where he got his gun but... kind of reinforces my belief that we should have background checks.

 

Except that the man didn't follow New York law already. While New York doesn't (or at least didn't under the older law, I don't know about the new law passed this year) require a background check for private party sales, it does require that all handgun owners have a permit and all handguns are registered to a specific permit. A private party sale under that law would require the buyer to get a bill of sale from the seller, go to the police to have the handgun added to his permit, return to the seller to take possession of the gun, and then the seller would go to the police to have the gun removed from his permit.

However, based on the shooter's criminal past, he would have been ineligible for a pistol permit in New York State (let alone in New York City, where the rules are even tighter). A mandatory background check would have done nothing to stop this incident because the guy already didn't follow existing law. All it would do is provide one more charge to pile onto him after he's caught and charged.

How, then, does this incident reinforce your belief that we need universal background checks, if universal background checks wouldn't have made any difference?

 

The Equal Marriage Bill debate is the most frustrating, annoying thing I've ever witnessed in the House of Commons. Tories against the bill purposely muddying the water with ridiculous anecdotes and their own homophobia.

 

Have they pulled the beastality and pedophillia cards yet?

 

Sir Gerald Howarth started going off on one about "aggressive homosexuals", who or whatever they might be...

 

The Tories make me ashamed to be British but the current group of objectors make me even more ashamed.

Surely these dinosaurs should be worm food by now!

 

Joy. Sounds like fun times. /sarcasm

 

You must remember that a lot of these parliamentary types went to schools like Eton.

 

I'd have thought that would make them more open to homosexuality, personally...

 

http://eveningharold.com/2013/05/20...after-realising-it-will-improve-house-prices/

 

There is probably very little care factor for the views of an Australian ex Prime Minister, but our ex PM Kevin Rudd has recently come out publicly in support of same sex marriage in Australia, despite his previous opposition. This is what he has to say about his change of mind -

http://www.kevinruddmp.com/

I agree with all of this.

 

So Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were threatening to walk away from immigration talks if Democrats included the amendment to allow same-sex couples to apply for a green card. Luckily, they'll be allowed to bring it up on the Senate floor (which will cause McConnell to filibuster).

Do these people have any decency?

 

Rhetorical question. But correct answer.

 

no but you see wedding photographers,

 

And threatened friends.

 

Just heard on the news. Apparently the Boy Scouts have just voted to allow openly gay scouts. The ban on Scout leaders and adults is however still in place.

 

Lisa Murkowski (Republican Senator from Alaska) now supports gay marriage:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/republican-senator-made-best-pro-172411790.html
(that makes 3 Republican Senators, the others are Rob Portman of Ohio and Mark Kirk of Illinois... 51 Democratic Senators also support it)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced her support for gay marriage this morning and her full statement on why is well worth a read. ​

The statement is forceful, arguing that marriage equality is needed to protect personal freedom and stop the government from overreaching. ​

This is the key paragraph (emphasis added):​

First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes. I believe that, as Americans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission? If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans – our true north – it is less government and more freedom. We don’t want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don’t need it in our families.​

...
Yet despite signing up and volunteering to give themselves fully to these four adorable children, our government does not meet this family halfway and allow them to be legally recognized as spouses. After their years of sleepless nights, after-school pickups and birthday cakes, if one of them gets sick or injured and needs critical care, the other would not be allowed to visit them in the emergency room – and the children could possibly be taken away from the healthy partner. They do not get considered for household health care benefit coverage like spouses nationwide. This first-class Alaskan family still lives a second-class existence.​

Murkowski goes on to say that allowing gays into marriage will make it a stronger institution that does more to promote family stability. That's a common refrain from Republicans who support gay marriage, and a relatively safe way to argue for gay marriage without declaring war on social conservatism.​

But in making the "liberty" argument, and saying we don't need the government in families, Murkowski is making a much bolder argument, and going for a big break with social conservatives. Murkowski is siding with those who argue that marriage should be an institution that exists for the benefit of individuals, to be used to form the kinds of families they see fit.​

Social conservatives tend to argue that marriage is a civic institution that should be used to promote the formation of a specific kind of family. That is, they think we do need the government in our families.​

I think Murkowski's individualist approach is right. But it's going to be a major point of contention between her and social conservatives in the Republican party.​

 

Yeah, well she ran and won as a write-in candidate for her seat, so I doubt she really cares what the Republican party by and large thinks at this point.

 

It's a logical conclusion if you believe in "small government" not being an "aspects of government I happen to like" sort of deal.

 

http://americablog.com/2013/06/the-...ogan-in-the-history-of-american-politics.html

Between this and the 2M4M campaign, I'm beginning to think that God actually is speaking to these people then just sitting back and laughing his a$$ off.

 

The US 9th Circut just lifted the stay on same sex marriage licenses it put into affect pending the Supreme Court outcome. Same Sex marriage is once again legal and California has begun issuing licences to same sex couples again.

 

The Striking down of Sec. 3 of DOMA may already be having a ripple effect legally as a Michigan judge has blocked a 2011 law banning public employers from offering benefits to same - sex partners

Also Burt and Ernie have been outed by the New Yorker.