Jimmy Carter: States should be allowed to not marry gay couples

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Oct 26, 2014 11:44 PM GMT
    Jimmy Carter: States should be allowed to not marry gay couples

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/10/26/jimmy-carter-states-should-be-allowed-to-not-marry-gay-couples/

  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 26, 2014 11:57 PM GMT
    Clearly wrong. The state has no right to interfere with equality. They tried that before a few times, and always failed in the end.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 12:08 AM GMT
    This is horrible. I never would have thought in this day and age that he'd say such a thing. Hugely disappointing. Immediately upon hearing him say that it should be okay for a state to discriminate against us, I can no longer respect him as I once did.

    I hate to say this but hopefully he is in the early stage of dementia, because I would hate to believe this is his thinking in full faculty. And I actually wonder that because in the interview he said that bit about the state right after he said the same for his church. So I wonder if a brain cell didn't connect or failed to disconnect which caused him to fail to discern between those two thoughts. That might just be my wishful thinking.

    Hopefully he will apologize and quickly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 12:26 AM GMT
    He's a Dixiecrat at heart.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 1:22 AM GMT



    lol, good grief, how fiercely worded! What strong no-ifs-ands-or- buts-about-it language! Gasp, everyone!

    “I’m kind of inclined to let the states decide individually.”


    Wow, how definite, what fiery determination! (NOT)
    It's happening like it did in Canada. Once you get a majority of States (a large one), your Supreme court will make a ruling that the Fed will follow.




    He continued: “I don’t think that the government ought to ever have the right to tell a church to marry people if the church doesn’t want to."

    In this he's quite right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 1:46 AM GMT
    meninlove said


    lol, good grief, how fiercely worded! What strong no-ifs-ands-or- buts-about-it language! Gasp, everyone!

    “I’m kind of inclined to let the states decide individually.”


    Wow, how definite, what fiery determination! (NOT)
    It's happening like it did in Canada. Once you get a majority of States (a large one), your Supreme court will make a ruling that the Fed will follow.




    He continued: “I don’t think that the government ought to ever have the right to tell a church to marry people if the church doesn’t want to."

    In this he's quite right.

    Didn't Canada resolve this via federal legislation, though?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 2:38 AM GMT
    Wallace_at_University_of_Alabama_edit2.j

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 11:29 AM GMT
    In his first quote, 2012, he was talking about gays getting married in "civil" ceremonies, which I take to mean government (secular) ceremonies. In the second quote, he is talking about forcing Churches to conduct gay marriages. I'm wondering if churches could legally refuse to marry black people today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 11:54 AM GMT
    subbottomjock saidIn his first quote, 2012, he was talking about gays getting married in "civil" ceremonies, which I take to mean government (secular) ceremonies. In the second quote, he is talking about forcing Churches to conduct gay marriages. I'm wondering if churches could legally refuse to marry black people today.


    Yes they can. But i doubt it'd ever be an issue IRL. Churches are very segregated. What black couple is going to go to an all white church and ask to get married?!? More likely would be if a church refuse to marry an interracial couple. But even that'd be unlikely, racism is bad press so the church wouldn't want to be overtly racist.
  • peterstrong

    Posts: 989

    Oct 27, 2014 3:50 PM GMT
    agreed libertpaul / his is the opinion of a doddering old dixiecrat fool, that he is at heart icon_surprised.gif


    Colin Powell said 2002 at a State Department briefing with the Danish foreign minister. "There was nothing about the 1948 election or the Dixiecrat agenda that should have been acceptable in any way to any American at that time or any American now."



    http://www.mintpressnews.com/colin-powell-meets-the-party-of-strom-thurmond/45910/




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 3:56 PM GMT
    theantijock saidWallace_at_University_of_Alabama_edit2.j



    More inapposite bomb-throwing. Logical arguments work better, and the one to be made here is that once again Jimmy Carter has confirmed just how out of touch he has been since he suffered that nervous breakdown at Camp David midway thru his failed administration. Send him to Venezuela and let him monitor human rights and elections there.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 27, 2014 4:06 PM GMT
    Oh, great, Jimmy Carter is a bigot now. No one has cared what he's had to say for the last 35 years. I actually thought he was dead.

  • Oct 27, 2014 6:05 PM GMT
    I don't understand why people think that it is OK to treat every one different but yet they want to be treated like every one else but they separate us gays from the rest of the world and this is not equal it is wrong. We should be able to get married just like every one else what makes them so special the thing is they think that marriage is between a woman and a man and they run to this book to justify it for them but the thing is you don't even live by your own rules you say that marriage is final but yet there are so many that get married and Divorced and married again but yet we cant even get married once.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 7:11 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    theantijock saidWallace_at_University_of_Alabama_edit2.j



    More inapposite bomb-throwing....bla fucking bla

    How about you go fuck yourself for that. I wouldn't find that inappropriate.

    Perhaps you overlooked the referent...

    libertpaulian said
    meninlove said


    lol, good grief, how fiercely worded! What strong no-ifs-ands-or- buts-about-it language! Gasp, everyone!

    “I’m kind of inclined to let the states decide individually.”


    Wow, how definite, what fiery determination! (NOT)
    It's happening like it did in Canada. Once you get a majority of States (a large one), your Supreme court will make a ruling that the Fed will follow.


    He continued: “I don’t think that the government ought to ever have the right to tell a church to marry people if the church doesn’t want to."

    In this he's quite right.

    Didn't Canada resolve this via federal legislation, though?


    So here, let me wiki that for you...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door
    The Stand in the Schoolhouse Door took place at Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963. George Wallace, the Governor of Alabama, in a symbolic attempt to keep his inaugural promise of "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and stop the desegregation of schools, stood at the door of the auditorium to try to block the entry of two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood...

    (Yet)...On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision regarding the case called Brown v. Board of Education...

    ...General Henry Graham then commanded Wallace to step aside, saying, "Sir, it is my sad duty to ask you to step aside under the orders of the President of the United States." Wallace then spoke further, but eventually moved, and Malone and Hood registered as students...


    The picture symbolizes that the United States of America will not tolerate state-sanctioned discrimination.
  • buddycat

    Posts: 1874

    Oct 27, 2014 7:16 PM GMT
    If states were allowed to deny rights to a minority, there would still be states that did not permit black and white people to marry. The question is why should the majority of straight people all decide what rights gay people should have?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 7:19 PM GMT
    buddycat saidIf states were allowed to deny rights to a minority, there would still be states that did not permit black and white people to marry. The question is why should the majority of straight people all decide what rights gay people should have?


    They should have no say over our civil rights. The str8s and the churches should all go fuck themselves. We don't need them to give us our rights. They just need to get the fuck out of our way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 8:01 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidOh, great, Jimmy Carter is a bigot now. No one has cared what he's had to say for the last 35 years. I actually thought he was dead.

    Only brain-dead.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 8:25 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidOh, great, Jimmy Carter is a bigot now. No one has cared what he's had to say for the last 35 years. I actually thought he was dead.


    You were thinking of Jerry Ford.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 8:35 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    He continued: “I don’t think that the government ought to ever have the right to tell a church to marry people if the church doesn’t want to."

    In this he's quite right.

    Problem with that is, no one is pushing to force churches to do anything. That's virtually a straw man argument.

    Because legal marriage in the US is a CIVIL function of the State, The religious add-ons the churches perform are window dressing, of an underlying CIVIL ceremony. Which a church can decline to perform, and a civil marriage performed by a judge or other official still has all the force of the law behind it.

    That's the myth of the church wedding Christian fundamentalists try to promote. To claim legal marriage, and its definition, is their exclusive domain. And would change the law to make religious weddings the only legal ones, which by themselves they are not.

    So what's being argued is civil gay marriages by the invidual States. Nothing to do with churches at all. Carter may indeed be revealing some mental decline.
  • davfit

    Posts: 309

    Oct 27, 2014 8:42 PM GMT
    If your Old and straight... keep your mouth shut..people who grow up in the South....ugh
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 9:35 PM GMT
    libertpaulian said
    meninlove said

    ...a bunch o stuff.

    Didn't Canada resolve this via federal legislation, though?


    They did, after the Supreme court made a ruling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2014 9:50 PM GMT
    In time it will be illegal to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. It's happening. It's coming. All the hand wringing and prophecies of doom for the US by religious and social conservatives won't stop it. The wheels of the Juggernaut will crush them in its path.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14345

    Oct 27, 2014 10:40 PM GMT
    HikerSkier said
    HottJoe saidOh, great, Jimmy Carter is a bigot now. No one has cared what he's had to say for the last 35 years. I actually thought he was dead.

    Only brain-dead.
    Or senile.
  • honestsweat

    Posts: 182

    Oct 27, 2014 11:46 PM GMT
    I am loathe to comment on a post by metta8 because he just simply posts hyperlink after hyperlink after hyperlink without realizing the Forums were designed for 1.) the poster to make a statement and 2.) a RJer to comment on the discussion.

    Merely doing a copy/paste of a headline does not constitute an authentic use of the Forum function. If one wishes to be a one-man news aggregator they should seek employment with Yahoo or AOL.

    In fact, this may be why RJ has removed the forum author identification feature from the RJ homepage.

    However, in this case, it is necessary to comment because one of the reasons this story is seeing the light of day -- and why people are paying any attention to Presiden Carter -- is that his grandson is in a hotly contested gubernatorial race in Georgia.

    Gay rights is a major issue here. Attorney General Olens is saying he will not pursue the issue of gay marriage because the current state constitution bans it. If a democrat is elected there is a hope for repeal. Carter's grandson is known to rely on former President Carter for advice. So, this article may be either trying to make Carter the younger palatable to Republicans or it may be trying to incite them conservatives to be sure to vote against Carter, the candidate.

    Stepping down from my soapbox...

    Alpha
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2014 1:00 AM GMT
    theantijock saidWallace_at_University_of_Alabama_edit2.j



    How appropriate, Democrat George Wallace. A lifelong supporter of segregation.