Six GOP Candidates Pledge To Sign Anti-Gay Discrimination Into Law

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

    Dec 20, 2015 4:09 AM GMT
    Well, at least they are open and honest about it icon_twisted.gif

    Does this mean if you are really heterosexual, in order for you to keep your job in the workplace, you must now prove your heterosexuality by officially getting married to a person of the opposite sex? Any person that is single is highly suspect and could be subjected to losing his/her job?


    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/19/3734043/gop-candidates-fadapledge/


    Six of the Republican candidates vying for the presidency have signed a pledge promising to support legislation during their first 100 days in the White House that would use the guise of “religious liberty” to give individuals and businesses the right to openly discriminate against LGBT people.

    Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee vowed to push for the passage of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), legislation that would prohibit the federal government from stopping discrimination by people or businesses that believe “marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman” or that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

    The pledge is supported by three conservative groups: the American Principles Project, Heritage Action for America, and Family Research Council Action.

    “It has become clear that the First Amendment Defense Act is rapidly becoming a signature issue that unifies the GOP,” Maggie Gallagher, Senior Fellow at American Principles Project, said in the group’s statement announcing the pledge. “Three out of the four top contenders for the nomination — Carson, Cruz, and Rubio — have pledged to prioritize passing FADA in their first 100 days of office. Additionally, Bush, Graham, Paul, and now for the first time, Donald Trump, have publicly expressed support for FADA.”

    Gallagher added that a Republican win in 2016 could mean that FADA becomes reality. “Real, concrete protections for gay marriage dissenters appear to be just one election victory away,” she said.

    round-up--1024x579.jpg
  • sportsguysd7

    Posts: 65

    Dec 20, 2015 4:18 AM GMT
    And this why it's hard NOT to be a single issue voter...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2015 4:33 AM GMT
    sportsguysd7 saidAnd this why it's hard NOT to be a single issue voter...




    These clearly, over the top, obsessed, marriage freaks who want to be president of the 'free nation', could require corporations (now are people) to have their entire workforce's in a opposite sex marriage as a 'condition of employment', sighting religious bible passages. icon_eek.gif

    The 'labor participation' under one of these people, would look like, proved heterosexuals... of any race, that would be married to opposite sex people, with special treatment for those with children. A right wing workplace Utopia! icon_rolleyes.gif








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

    Dec 20, 2015 4:33 AM GMT
    ELNathB said
    ...“sexual relations are properly reserved to such a [heterosexual] marriage.”

    Does that mean that premarital sex among straights would also be illegal? I'd think there'd be a lot of voter resistance to that provision. And I would hope an easy knock-down in the courts of the entire law, if ever passed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2015 4:44 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    ELNathB said
    ...“sexual relations are properly reserved to such a [heterosexual] marriage.”


    Does that mean that premarital sex among straights would also be illegal? I'd think there'd be a lot of voter resistance to that provision. And I would hope an easy knock-down in the courts.



    In a workplace situation, it sounds to me as if they would FORCE marriage among proven heterosexuals. The workplace is not supposed to control you, your friends or family, outside of or off the clock hours. Some workplaces, for whatever, illegal reasons, want to "know" what their employees are doing on their own free time.

    I can hear it now, your conservative manager boss comes up to you and says: "If you want to keep this job, I suggest you marry your girl friend"

    I am sure premarital sex would be looked down upon in any, republican, religious run business or its conservative management. There would probably be an extreme amount of pressure on the employee to 'comply' with their conservative rules and what they do outside of the workplace. If you don't comply with their conservatism, they naturally find ways to get rid of that employee and find others who will comply

    Their evil obsession with everyone's sex practices, could open up a new can of worms, especially in the workplace icon_twisted.gif
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Dec 20, 2015 7:05 AM GMT
    More anti-gay garbage from the GOP -- the party of bigotry.
    Another reason every Republican should be voted out of office.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Dec 20, 2015 6:51 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidMore anti-gay garbage from the GOP -- the party of bigotry.
    Another reason every Republican should be voted out of office.


    +1000 The GOP needs to be squashed and reformed as a legitimate conservative party rather than a christohadist gang of reactionaries and religious bigots. Unfortunately, while they are so vicious, legitimate conservative ideas and viewpoints are simply swallowed up in the bile.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2015 7:21 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidMore anti-gay garbage from the GOP -- the party of bigotry.
    Another reason every Republican should be voted out of office.

    Another reason every Republican should be voted out of office is how the US legislative process works. The majority party gets the committee chairmanships, the Speaker position where it exists, and will win most chamber votes, and so basically controls the legislation.

    You can argue that your own local Republican representative, whether at State or Federal level, is a good guy or gal. But voting them into office gives the radical Right Wing members the majority to control the entire government.

    And once in office these "good guys" will vote as they're told, or else face removal during the next primary election. And miss appointment to key committee seats, lose perks, and have their legislative initiatives ignored. So they play along, as obedient party members.

    Therefore, when you vote for one Republican in a legislative body, you vote for them all, including the radical nutjobs who rule the Party today. And at the local county and city level they're not any better, most cut from the same loony cloth, including elected judges.

    So I agree. Voting for a Republican for so much as city dogcatcher is tantamount to slitting your own throat. Or cutting your dick off if you're a gay man.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2015 8:37 PM GMT
    republican-taliban-104060352092.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2015 11:22 PM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    sportsguysd7 saidAnd this why it's hard NOT to be a single issue voter...


    Don't believe their mischaracterizing as single-issue politics our advocating for Gay Rights. The Republicans are full of shit.

    Civil Rights is not a single issue. This isn't about just gun control or just abortion or just animal rights; rather, it is about a whole host of rights withheld from an entire segment of the population.

    Coming together to fight that isn't single issue politics, though I suppose it might be considered a voting bloc which might in some senses disband once rights have been gained and secured. But single issue? Not hardly.

    The LGBT Social Movement, The Gay Rights Movement involves many issues, not just one. Marriage, jobs, discrimination in housing, access to healthcare, adoption rights, protections against school bullying, homelessness, abuses by religion, etc. etc etc.

    Single issue? No. This is a Social Movement. Somewhat greater than a single issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2015 12:01 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    KissTheSky saidMore anti-gay garbage from the GOP -- the party of bigotry.
    Another reason every Republican should be voted out of office.

    Another reason every Republican should be voted out of office is how the US legislative process works. The majority party gets the committee chairmanships, the Speaker position where it exists, and will win most chamber votes, and so basically controls the legislation.

    You can argue that your own local Republican representative, whether at State or Federal level, is a good guy or gal. But voting them into office gives the radical Right Wing members the majority to control the entire government.

    And once in office these "good guys" will vote as they're told, or else face removal during the next primary election. And miss appointment to key committee seats, lose perks, and have their legislative initiatives ignored. So they play along, as obedient party members.

    Therefore, when you vote for one Republican in a legislative body, you vote for them all, including the radical nutjobs who rule the Party today. And at the local county and city level they're not any better, most cut from the same loony cloth, including elected judges.

    So I agree. Voting for a Republican for so much as city dogcatcher is tantamount to slitting your own throat. Or cutting your dick off if you're a gay man.


    The Democratic party runs intentionally bad, toxically unqualified and/or incompetent candidates for vital local government functions in "flyover" states.

    If you really cared -- if you REALLY HONESTLY cared -- you'd acknowledge this concern, or at least be tolerant of people who do. Cynical moves like this further the concentration of power in Republican dogcatcher hands which you apparently claim here is so harmful to the gay community.

    I've raised this concern before, and you're not the only one here who starts slinging accusations when I do. You can't expect Republicans to fix the problems with the Democratic party, and you can't expect conservatives to fix the problems in the liberal community. If we don't raise these objections ourselves, or at least TOLERATE other liberals who do, we share responsibility for the results.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2015 12:18 AM GMT
    in the 1990's everyone hated the gays. There was no clear choice way back than.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2015 9:20 AM GMT
    pellaz saidin the 1990's everyone hated the gays. There was no clear choice way back than.





    This is because the previous decade plus (12 years), was run by the republican and its right wing (less visible then)

    Ronald Reagan January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989, George H. W. Bush January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993

    We as a country, had 12 years of social conservatism. This amount of time with the right wing in charge, probably set our community advancement back 20 years. Add the fact conservatives in charge during the worst medical crisis of our time, the start of Hiv-Aids. (which some believe was created to specifically rid the world of the 'undesirables', I personally point the finger at the Christian cult(s)). We as a community would have progressed during the late 90's but as we know now, were cheated by the republican and their cheat machine, Gore v Bush.

    This, cheating, was part of the original 12 year religious, conservative run plot that included 9/11 (the event that forever changed our way of life up until that point). What followed of course was war. (a favorite of the republicans, not just any war though, but a religious one, also favored by the right wing).

    Another 8 year set back for our community advancement. Do the math. In the last 34 years, 20 of those years, our country has been run by conservatives and their right wing. That leaves only 14 years that our country has been run by liberals. Liberals still have a ways to go to ketch up to the amount of time conservatives spent running our country.

    Up until this point in time, conservatives, their religions, have used social issues and their fear mongering to win elections. The tide is on our side, with the finally, huge advancements under the current liberal leadership and social issues, dying off, the conservatives will have difficulty winning any more elections, going forward, as the social pendulum has shifted.

    It would appear as if the conservatives and their religions have now shifted fear focus from social issues to that of fear based on terrorism and continuous, non stop wars. If Americans are that stupid, to cast their vote, based on a created, right wing republican fear mongering machine, then I am afraid our country's future is in great jeopardy. 'Conservatism' (the way the republicans and their religions have bastardized it) is dying. We as a country, cannot socially evolve and grow under conservatism. The whole meaning behind "progress" is moving forward.

    Therefore I only see our country getting more progressive socially as more time passes. The US is in competition with other industrialized nations for social equality. The republicans will not win any more elections if they continue with their backwards thinking that conservatism brings. We already know they are pro, non regulated business and anti-government. We as a country, have already experienced their unchecked pro business culture in the form of the 2008 great recession.

  • Apparition

    Posts: 3529

    Dec 22, 2015 12:31 AM GMT
    whatever happened to the traditional process of just shooting politicians every now and then to shake things up? Keep them on their toes politically.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2015 12:52 AM GMT
    ELNathB said
    pellaz saidin the 1990's everyone hated the gays. There was no clear choice way back than.





    This is because the previous decade plus (12 years), was run by the republican and its right wing (less visible then)

    Ronald Reagan January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989, George H. W. Bush January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993

    We as a country, had 12 years of social conservatism. This amount of time with the right wing in charge, probably set our community advancement back 20 years. Add the fact conservatives in charge during the worst medical crisis of our time, the start of Hiv-Aids. (which some believe was created to specifically rid the world of the 'undesirables', I personally point the finger at the Christian cult(s)). We as a community would have progressed during the late 90's but as we know now, were cheated by the republican and their cheat machine, Gore v Bush.

    This, cheating, was part of the original 12 year religious, conservative run plot that included 9/11 (the event that forever changed our way of life up until that point). What followed of course was war. (a favorite of the republicans, not just any war though, but a religious one, also favored by the right wing).

    Another 8 year set back for our community advancement. Do the math. In the last 34 years, 20 of those years, our country has been run by conservatives and their right wing. That leaves only 14 years that our country has been run by liberals. Liberals still have a ways to go to ketch up to the amount of time conservatives spent running our country.

    Up until this point in time, conservatives, their religions, have used social issues and their fear mongering to win elections. The tide is on our side, with the finally, huge advancements under the current liberal leadership and social issues, dying off, the conservatives will have difficulty winning any more elections, going forward, as the social pendulum has shifted.

    It would appear as if the conservatives and their religions have now shifted fear focus from social issues to that of fear based on terrorism and continuous, non stop wars. If Americans are that stupid, to cast their vote, based on a created, right wing republican fear mongering machine, then I am afraid our country's future is in great jeopardy. 'Conservatism' (the way the republicans and their religions have bastardized it) is dying. We as a country, cannot socially evolve and grow under conservatism. The whole meaning behind "progress" is moving forward.

    Therefore I only see our country getting more progressive socially as more time passes. The US is in competition with other industrialized nations for social equality. The republicans will not win any more elections if they continue with their backwards thinking that conservatism brings. We already know they are pro, non regulated business and anti-government. We as a country, have already experienced their unchecked pro business culture in the form of the 2008 great recession.



    "but as we know now, were cheated by the republican and their cheat machine, Gore v Bush."

    ^^^^^^ This ^^^^^ is why I save stuff like the below

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html

    "This, cheating, was part of the original 12 year religious, conservative run plot that included 9/11 ("

    And again



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

    Dec 22, 2015 1:00 AM GMT
    ELNathB said... This is because the previous decade plus (12 years), was run by the republican and its right wing (less visible then)...
    president Bill Clinton, on DOMA, fed us to the lions. I forgive him as it possibly saved his ass back than. The economy was absolutely booming. Had some debt paid off till stupid started his wars.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2015 1:01 AM GMT

    I know, you hate Michael Moore too icon_rolleyes.gif





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

    Dec 22, 2015 1:02 AM GMT
    ELNathB saidI know, you hate Michael Moore too
    who me? no.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2015 1:07 AM GMT
    pellaz said
    ELNathB saidI know, you hate Michael Moore too
    who me? no.



    Not you, you did not defend GW Bush cheating to win his election icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2015 1:24 AM GMT
    ELNathB said
    pellaz said
    ELNathB saidI know, you hate Michael Moore too
    who me? no.



    Not you, you did not defend GW Bush cheating to win his election icon_wink.gif


    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2015 1:31 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    ELNathB said
    pellaz said
    ELNathB saidI know, you hate Michael Moore too
    who me? no.



    Not you, you did not defend GW Bush cheating to win his election icon_wink.gif


    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html





    Designed to fail, Designed to question, Designed to cheat icon_rolleyes.gif

    chads.gif

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

    Dec 22, 2015 1:47 AM GMT
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html

    So, who really won? What the Bush v. Gore studies showed
    By Wade Payson-Denney, CNN
    Updated 10:06 AM ET, Sat October 31, 2015
    Bush vs Gore The Endless Election_00011904


    "Bush v. Gore: The Endless Election 01:24

    As a whole, recount studies show Bush would have most likely won a Florida hand recount of undervotes
    Studies also show Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes
    CNN's Gloria Borger explores the 2000 election in a special report Monday at 9 p.m. ET

    CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger revisits the 2000 election in a CNN Special Report, "Bush v. Gore: The Endless Election," Monday at 9 p.m. ET.

    (CNN)After the grueling 36-day Florida recount battle, Al Gore finally conceded the presidency to George W. Bush on December 13, 2000.

    But the controversy surrounding this unprecedented election and its aftermath did not end there.

    Months after the United States Supreme Court delivered its ruling to stop the statewide hand recount in the Sunshine State, media and academic organizations conducted their own studies of the disputed ballots in Florida.

    Taken as a whole, the recount studies show Bush would have most likely won the Florida statewide hand recount of all undervotes. Undervotes are ballots that did not register a vote in the presidential race.

    When every vote counted: Closest U.S. elections
    15 photos: When every vote counted: Closest U.S. elections
    This goes against the belief that the U.S. Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush, or took it away from Gore.

    The studies also show that Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, which are ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted at all. However, his legal team never pursued this action.

    The studies also support the belief that more voters went to the polls in Florida on Election Day intending to vote for Gore than for Bush.

    Even 15 years after the election, partisans on each side cherry-pick various scenarios that would have favored their candidate.

    Here's a detailed look at what the studies found::

    The first major review
    The players: A group of newspapers including the USA Today, Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder newspapers conducted the first major review of the Florida ballots.

    How it worked: The group hired the accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine more than 60,000 "undervotes" -- ballots that did not register a vote in the presidential race -- from all 67 Florida counties. These were ballots the Florida Supreme Court ordered to be hand counted with its December 8, 2000, decision.

    The newspapers applied BDO Seidman's findings to four vote-counting standards. This was published in April 2001.

    The results: The study shows that Bush likely would have won the statewide recount of undervotes even if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened to stop the counting. It also reveals that, ironically, the most lenient standard of vote counting —advocated by Gore — gives Bush his biggest lead. However, USA Today cautioned that, "The study has limitations. There is variability in what different observers see on ballots. Election officials, who sorted the undervotes for examination and then handled them for the accountants' inspection, often did not provide exactly the same number of undervotes recorded on election night."

    The details, with USA Today's original explanations of the different standards in parentheses:

    Lenient Standard: Bush +1,665 ("This standard, which was advocated by Gore, would count any alteration in a chad -- the small perforated box that is punched to cast a vote -- as evidence of a voter's intent. The alteration can range from a mere dimple, or indentation, in a chad to its removal. Contrary to Gore's hopes, the USA TODAY study reveals that this standard favors Bush and gives the Republican his biggest margin: 1,665 votes.")
    Palm Beach Standard: Bush +884 ("Palm Beach County election officials considered dimples as votes only if dimples were found in other races on the same ballot. They reasoned that a voter would demonstrate similar voting patterns on the ballot. This standard -- attacked by Republicans as arbitrary -- also gives Bush a win, by 884 votes, according to the USA TODAY review.")
    Two corner standard: Bush +363 ("Most states with well-defined rules say that a chad with two or more corners removed is a legal vote. Under this standard, Bush wins by 363.")
    Strict standard: Gore +3 ("This "clean punch" standard would only count fully removed chads as legal votes. The USA TODAY study shows that Gore would have won Florida by 3 votes if this standard were applied to undervotes.")
    A larger review gives mixed results
    The players: Roughly a month later, a larger consortium that included the above outlets plus a group of five Florida newspapers released its review of more than 171,000 disputed ballots. In addition to the undervotes, this study reviewed more than 111,000 overvotes -- ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted.

    This study showed that Democratic voters were far more likely to make the mistake of casting an overvote than Republican voters. Gore was marked on 84,197 of the overvote ballots, compared to 37,731 for Bush. USA Today's headline at the time read, "Florida voter errors cost Gore the election."

    How it worked: The newspapers tallied up the overvotes, and then used BDO Seidman's undervote counting to test similar scenarios.

    The results: This study shows a less decisive result than the count of only undervotes. However, there was no way to correct the overvote mistakes once they were cast, and Gore's team never asked for a hand recount of overvotes during the contentious recount battle in Florida.

    Nevertheless, the study does support the theory -- expressed to CNN by both Gore's Florida senior adviser Nick Baldick, and the Republican senior adviser to Katherine Harris, John "Mac" Stipanovich -- that more voters went to the polls in Florida intending to vote for Al Gore than for George Bush.

    Above all, USA Today highlighted that its review revealed, "The American system of elections routinely fails to count hundreds of thousands of ballots because of errors by voters, confusing ballot instructions, poorly designed ballots, flawed voting and counting machines and the failure of election workers to adequately help voters."

    The details, again with USA Today's explanations cited in parentheses:

    Lenient standard: Gore +332 ("One uses the most permissive definition of a vote. It counts chads that are merely dimpled or bear slight impressions. Under the "dimple standard," Gore would have won by 332 votes.")
    Palm Beach standard: Gore +242 ("The other standard counts dimples as votes only if dimples are found in other races on the same ballot. This is known as the "Palm Beach Standard" because that is the rule that county's elections board adopted to determine voter intent in the early hand recounts of the Florida vote. The board's theory was that if dimples appeared in other races, that most likely meant that the voter just didn't press hard enough. Under this standard Gore would have won by 242 votes.")
    Two corner standard: Bush +407 ("The most widely used rule — that at least two corners of a chad must be detached to count as votes — is used in many states, including California, Oregon, Washington and Michigan. Recounting by that standard, Bush would have won by 407 votes, narrower than his 537-vote official margin.")
    Strict standard: Bush +152 ("By the strictest standard — one that requires a completely clean punch for the vote to count — Bush would
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2015 2:30 AM GMT
    ^As someone who works with and is certified in Standards, the US voting system sucks. Its obvious now, after the 2000 election cheating scandal, that the US no longer uses punch card ballots. Thank goodness we have wised up.

    Although we don't have to worry about those punch cards being used, I still am worried about state by state voting equipment that is not standardized, across the board.

    I do see improvement though as the US has basically got the equipment down to two, the paper ballot and DRE (digital ballot). What is troubling with the DRE is that some states have a paper trail with the electronic ballot, and some states don't have a paper trail.

    As someone who is certified in equipment calibration, why not make all voting equipment the same, and its use, the same in every state? That would truly take what we call "the variables" out of the equation.



    Voting equipment by state
    http://ballotpedia.org/Voting_equipment_by_state


    https://magic.piktochart.com/embed/8373150-untitled-report