Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aw, I thought it was funny.

I can't believe people against gay marriage can't see how regressive and evil they are going to look in 50 years. Seriously, this is our generation's civil rights movement. Shame on them.

So not legislating gay marriage on a Federal level is evil?

No, the Constitution does not give Congress that power. But the Court has the power to declare it a protected right.

If they don't, is it evil?

Not evil, just bound in the past.

Who says embracing homosexuality is the future?

I just did so. Even if you were not on DCUM, I think you would not be wrong to say Takoma believes it to be so. And polls show that the increasing group of Americans who think so are now a majority.

Nobody is saying that the Holy Sacrament of Marriage should change; that's up to the churches. Just that plain old marriage, as recognized by the national and state governments, ought to be a right of every loving adult couple.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aw, I thought it was funny.

I can't believe people against gay marriage can't see how regressive and evil they are going to look in 50 years. Seriously, this is our generation's civil rights movement. Shame on them.

So not legislating gay marriage on a Federal level is evil?

No, the Constitution does not give Congress that power. But the Court has the power to declare it a protected right.

If they don't, is it evil?

Not evil, just bound in the past.

Who says embracing homosexuality is the future?

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aw, I thought it was funny.

I can't believe people against gay marriage can't see how regressive and evil they are going to look in 50 years. Seriously, this is our generation's civil rights movement. Shame on them.

So not legislating gay marriage on a Federal level is evil?

No, the Constitution does not give Congress that power. But the Court has the power to declare it a protected right.

If they don't, is it evil?

Not evil, just bound in the past.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aw, I thought it was funny.

I can't believe people against gay marriage can't see how regressive and evil they are going to look in 50 years. Seriously, this is our generation's civil rights movement. Shame on them.

So not legislating gay marriage on a Federal level is evil?

No, the Constitution does not give Congress that power. But the Court has the power to declare it a protected right.

If they don't, is it evil?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aw, I thought it was funny.

I can't believe people against gay marriage can't see how regressive and evil they are going to look in 50 years. Seriously, this is our generation's civil rights movement. Shame on them.

So not legislating gay marriage on a Federal level is evil?

Personally, I would say that federal discrimination is "evil," though I would use another word besides religiously influenced terminology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aw, I thought it was funny.

I can't believe people against gay marriage can't see how regressive and evil they are going to look in 50 years. Seriously, this is our generation's civil rights movement. Shame on them.

So not legislating gay marriage on a Federal level is evil?

No, the Constitution does not give Congress that power. But the Court has the power to declare it a protected right.

Anonymous wrote:Aw, I thought it was funny.

I can't believe people against gay marriage can't see how regressive and evil they are going to look in 50 years. Seriously, this is our generation's civil rights movement. Shame on them.

So not legislating gay marriage on a Federal level is evil?

Aw, I thought it was funny.

I can't believe people against gay marriage can't see how regressive and evil they are going to look in 50 years. Seriously, this is our generation's civil rights movement. Shame on them.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I favor gay marriage. I dislike the GOP and think it's backwards. But even I don't think your hyperbole worked. Sorry.

Not the first time my attempts at humor have fallen flat. C'est la vie.

Hey, admitting failure makes you one of the good ones. It's an honest commentator who can cop to being wrong once in a while. This town (and this site) needs more of that. So I applaud you.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is that rejecting the 21st century?

As I said, it was an exaggeration. But in the past 25 years, approval has gone from under 30% of the population to over 50%. Don't you think it's fair to at least say that the RNC is out of step with the times to have 0% approval?

Nope.

Anonymous wrote:I favor gay marriage. I dislike the GOP and think it's backwards. But even I don't think your hyperbole worked. Sorry.

Not the first time my attempts at humor have fallen flat. C'est la vie.

I favor gay marriage. I dislike the GOP and think it's backwards. But even I don't think your hyperbole worked. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:Why is that rejecting the 21st century?

As I said, it was an exaggeration. But in the past 25 years, approval has gone from under 30% of the population to over 50%. Don't you think it's fair to at least say that the RNC is out of step with the times to have 0% approval?

Why is that rejecting the 21st century?

Alright, that subject line is hyperbolic. They unanimously reasserted their opposition to gay marriage:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324010704578418993963912174.html