Those lousy, unreliable Democrats. You put them in office to further your agenda, and it turns out they are as, um, diverse in their opinions as other Americans:
Last week's election results may be more of a mixed bag for gay rights supporters than many originally thought.
At least 13 of 50 newly elected House and Senate Democrats oppose same-sex marriage, with two of those backing constitutional amendments to ban such unions.
[. . .]
Indiana's three new representatives, meanwhile, offered no clear stance on civil unions, and at least two campaigned against gay marriage. Their victories drew uneasy support from gay activists.
"We are happy with the election of these three people," said Indiana Equality Chair John Clower. "They helped remove the party in control that has not been supportive on issues of concern to GLBT people in our state."
But he noted the three were just "marginally better" than the GOP incumbents they will replace.
Ellsworth, who supports the marriage amendment, defeated Rep. John Hostettler, who backed a House bill to stop federal courts from ruling on marriage-related issues.
Joseph Donnelly and Baron Hill, the state's other new House members, are social conservatives who maintain ambiguous or hostile stances on gay rights issues.
At least the focus is on legislators, where it belongs, rather than on the courts.
Comments
Why does the focus belong on legislators? They're cowards. If it had been up to them, this country would still be practicing Jim Crow.
The courts are just doing what they're supposed to do
Alex..."Why does the focus belong on legislators? They're cowards. If it had been up to them, this country would still be practicing Jim Crow."
The answer to your question is, The focus should be on the legislators because they actually make the laws and the policy that the public want. The judiciary then enforces the decisions made by the legislature.
Whether they are cowards or not is a moot point. We (as a majority..ironic huh?) voted for them to be our spokesperson and if they perform poorly we have a remedy.
The Jim Crow analogy just won't work, because it pertains to racism. One cannot equate the civil rights struggle of African-Americans to the modern day movement of homosexuals. It's like apples and oranges.
One was the struggle of an entire RACE of people that had been enslaved.
The other is a matter of "perceived" discrimination. Homosexuals are not a "class" of people, they're just people, like the rest us.
Just out of curiosity - do think it's ok for a homosexual to be fired simply for being a homosexual?
This is legal in many states.
In this regard, it's very much like the civil rights struggle of african americans
Seems to me, if you were fired for your race, you have a case. A person can't control what race they are.
If you're fired for being a homosexual, you're being fired because of behavior.
Behavior is choice driven...
I personally think it's an employers perogitive to be able to fire employees whose behavior they deem inappropriate.
Didn't they require government in your senior year, Tim? The courts aren't there to enforce whatever the legislature does. The courts are there to ensure legislation doesn't run afoul of individuals' constitutional rights. Those "liberal activist judges" from the 1950s and '60s who ended Jim Crow weren't "legislating from the bench," but rather were applying the constitution properly for the first time.
As for homosexuality being a choice, the scientific community doesn't think so. Just as it didn't think left-handedness was an act of wilfull disobedience, although it took the church a long time to recognize the error of its perceptions.
Well personally I think it's disgusting to fire somebody for something they legally do in their own bedroom that doesn't affect anyone else. But maybe that's why I'm not a Republican - I don't feel it necessary to legislate my morality. What's next - fire everyone because they don't drive an SUV?
Actually Alex, back in the 70's Government was called Values & Issues, and yes I took it. The cases of the 50's and 60's dealt with discrimination against race. They weren't considered "activist" judges or rulings because it's pretty hard to refute the "All men being created equal" thing.
I never said homosexuality was a choice. I said it was a behavior. Ask an African-American if they feel the civil rights struggle they have endured to be recognized as equal to ALL races is parallel to the struggle for Bob( who is already an equal citizen with all the rights Americans already have) to get his own set of extra rights and priveledges because he likes to have sex with Bill.
Jeff, I too think it would be disgusting to fire somebody for what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom, it would be unfair. However, life can be unfair, and I don't want ANY branch of Government telling me who I can hire and fire. I have never cared what anybody does in the privacy of the bedroom, but as an employer I have the right to hire (or fire) anyone I please. My business is my business, and if I want to project a certain image that is my right.
Would you frequent Hooters if they had to hire openly gay men in short shorts and a tube top?
You simply can't compare what Race you are to where you want to stick your wanker.
No comparison......
Oh yeah, weren't you tolerant types all over Mark Foley for trying to date men of legal age? How's that work?
>...weren't you tolerant types all over Mark
"Foley for trying to date men of legal age?
"How's that work?
If you call propositioning young pages whose fortunes may rise or fall with the whims of your political influence "trying to date men of legal age," you are over-ripe for a long stretch in a concrete box yourself. Want a second run at that mis-definition of 'dating men of legal age,' or will you sink on the one you embrace?
I guess I'll sink on the one I embrace while I try to figure out what the definition of "is" is.
Easy sparky, you're getting dangerously close to Bill & Monica part 1.
Oh hell, I forgot that was ok, he's a democrat.
Clinton was not a democrat; he was a Democrat. Maybe I overreacted, Tim, but despite your impression of my comment, I was invited to the last RNC dinner in D.C. so I hardly qualify as a defender of Monica's kneepads.
On a higher note, I'd simply say I condemn both Foley's and Clinton's debaucheries while in high office.
Cancel out 100% of the political hay-making if that were possible, and people like Foley, Clinton, Nixon, Hart, Condon, and so many, many others would still clearly remain in harsh spotlights as the luckless architects of their own spoiled careers.
Steve, that was well put. I concur!
Someone who came to our country who knew nothing about us would think our biggest problems are gay marriage/rights and abortion. I do agree that government is too involved in the hiring and firing of employees. Lazy incompetent people keep their jobs because of their race or some other detail that may be considered discrimination. Forget about people being assessed for their job performance, we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by giving Jane a raise and not Kim even though Jane deserves one.