Quote: Matter-eater Man said: I explained it, Ray explained it. If you want I can certainley repost it again.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said:
Quote: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said:
Quote: the G-man said: So...it was okay for Clinton to ban gay marriage because that "nipped [a republican] wedge issue in the bud"?
I think the point he's making is that Clinton signed it into law, blocking the GOP from doing a constitutional amendment. It's easier to repeal a law than an amendment.
Sort of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Yeah it pretty much took it away from the GOP. They've tried reworking it but Clinton pretty much made gay marriage a non-issue.
Right.
You and Ray are both perfectly OK with Democrats voting for anti-gay legislation, so long as it steals conservative votes away from Republicans, in a total abandonment of pro-gay/liberal principles.
We get it.
I guess it's clear how you & others want to portray it. I can't speak for all gay people but I prefer having a law that gives individual states the right to decide the gay marriage issue than having anti-gay language written into the constitution. If there was a case of having neither I would of course prefer that but we all know that the GOP wouldn't leave the issue alone. For the last 6+ years I've watched the party try to get our constitution changed. That didn't happen because of Clinton. If there had been no Defense of Marriage Act there would have been more people willing to put anti-gay language into our constitution.
I did explained how I felt here G-man. I'm not interested in spending much time or thought in trading insults with some anonymous poster. Your simply not worth it. It wouldbe interesting to see if you had any type of argument that somehow explained how the GOP wouldn't have gotten anti-gay language written into the constitution like they've been trying to do if Clinton hadn't defanged the issue to most Americans. I don't really see a case there though and so instead we get the "MEM/Zick attacks".
