August 1, 2015 at 12:35 pm EST | by Chris Johnson
RNC set to vote on anti-gay resolutions at summer meeting
Dave Agema, Republican Party, gay news, Washington Blade

Dave Agema is proposing an anti-gay resolution for the RNC. (Photo public domain)

In the same week Republican presidential candidates are scheduled to slug it out in their first official debate, the Republican National Committee is set to vote during its summer meeting on resolutions against same-sex marriage and in favor of anti-gay sex education in schools, the Washington Blade has learned.

The Blade obtained the text of two proposed anti-gay resolutions and a third relatively pro-gay counter-proposal on the table for discussion during the upcoming meeting in Cleveland.

If the RNC were to adopt any of the non-binding resolutions next week, it would be the first official act of the Republican Party on the marriage issue following the historic U.S. Supreme Court decision last month in favor of marriage rights for same-sex couples. The initial vote could take place during the executive committee meetings on Wednesday and Thursday, where a successful vote would lead to consideration at the full committee meeting on Friday.

One resolution, titled “Resolution for Balanced Sex-Ed in Schools,” was introduced by former Michigan State House lawmaker and RNC member Dave Agema. It encourages schools “teaching the homosexual lifestyle in their sexual education class” to “also include the harmful physical aspects of the lifestyle.”

The resolution is based on the belief the Republican Party “supports the institution of traditional marriage,” which is considered code for opposition to same-sex marriage. The proposal is also based on questionable assertions that American culture “is portraying the homosexual lifestyle as an attractive option for school-aged children” and the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes says being gay takes up to 21 years off a person’s life.

Tempering the resolution is language saying Republicans believe all people should be treated with respect and dignity. The measure also calls for partnerships with parents for, among other things, efforts to “increase adolescent education on the spectrum of risks involved in alternative lifestyle.”

The resolution sponsor, Agema, is the same RNC member who has repeatedly landed in hot water for making anti-gay, racist and anti-Muslim posts on Facebook, such as an endorsement of Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law and an article saying gay people are “filthy,” frequently pedophiles and responsible for 50 percent of U.S. murders. Republican National Committee Chair Reince Preibus and Michigan Republican Party Chair Bobby Schostok have called on Agema to step down and the RNC has censured him, but no explicit mechanism exists to expel him from the RNC and he has remained in his post.

In response to a Blade email seeking comment on the proposal, Agema implicitly confirmed its accuracy, but had nothing further to say.

“First, how did you get a copy of this?” Agema said. “If you could answer this question please. Second, I don’t comment until after deliberations on the resolutions.”

Another resolution, titled “To Reserve, Strip and Pursue,” was introduced by Republican National Committee member Ross Little of Louisiana. The proposal responds to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage by calling for action from Congress saying the ruling violates the U.S. Constitution.

The measure criticizes the marriage decision “as lacking any warrant in the text, logic, structure or original understanding of the constitution,” arguing it ignores freedom of religion under the First Amendment and powers reserved to the states. The resolution says restricting marriage to one man, one woman is underpinned by the Bible, millennia of experience and U.S. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 2013 decision upholding the right of states to define marriage in the ruling against DOMA.

The proposal calls on Congress to defy the Supreme Court by passing, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, legislation saying marriage laws and recognition of marriages is the exclusive province of the states, although states shouldn’t be able to legalize polygamy or prohibit interracial marriage. Further, in accordance with Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the resolution seeks legislation stripping federal courts of jurisdiction over marriage issues.

Little had no comment on the proposed resolution when reached by phone.

Another counter resolution in response to those proposals sponsored by Maryland RNC member Diana Waterman is also slated for consideration. That proposal starts by referring to the Growth & Opportunity Report, which in 2013 called for GOP inclusion of gays and other groups. The resolution says the court has ruled on marriage and candidates, not the RNC, should be commenting further on the decision, but Republicans should nonetheless “support and promote our nominee, regardless of their expressed opinion on Obergefell v. Hodges.”

Co-sponsors of the resolution are RNC members from D.C. Robert Kabel, Jill Homan and Jose Cunningham, who are gay.

The RNC didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment on any of the resolutions, although multiple sources have confirmed they’re on the table.

TJ Helmstetter, a DNC spokesperson, slammed the RNC for consideration of the proposed anti-gay resolutions.

“Even though marriage equality is now the law of the land, Republicans are still pursuing the same divisive and outdated anti-gay, anti-equality agenda,” Helmstetter said. “Move on, GOP, embrace the times.”

Here’s the Dave Agema resolution:

From Dave Agema:

RESOLUTION FOR BALANCED SEX-ED IN SCHOOLS

Whereas the Republican Platform supports the institution of traditional marriage and believes it will determine the success as a nation; AND

Whereas, the Republican Platform states that education is more than schooling, that it is the whole range of activities by which families and communities transmit to a younger generation, not just knowledge and skills, but ethical and behavioral norms and traditions; AND

Whereas, the Republican Platform states that American education has been the focus of constant controversy, as centralizing forces outside the family and community have sought to remake education in order to remake America; AND

Whereas, the Republican Platform supports the right of parents to consent to medical treatment including mental health and drug treatment which includes giving our children accurate information about behavioral choices that could affect their health and welfare; AND

Whereas, we teach our children the hazards of smoking that can take up to 10 years off their life according to the New England Journal of Medicine; AND

Whereas, the popular culture is portraying the homosexual lifestyle as an attractive option for school-aged children; AND

Whereas, according to the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (JAIDS) participation in the homosexual lifestyle can take up to 21 years off one’s life; AND

Whereas, one of the fastest growing age groups getting HIV are 13-24 year olds according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC-HIV Among Youth-Age-Risk-HIV/AIDS); AND

Whereas, the CDC reports that over 50% of the youth infected with HIV don’t know that they are infected (CDC- HIV Among Youth – Age- Risk-HIV/AIDS); AND

Whereas, the prevalence of having been taught in school about HIV infection or AIDS decreased from 92% in 1997 to 85% in 2013; AND

Whereas, the CDC states that continual HIV prevention outreach and education efforts, including programs on abstinence, delaying the initiation of sex, and negotiating safer sex for the spectrum of sexuality among youth—homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, and transgender—are urgently needed for a new generation at risk.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; the National Republican Party:
1. Embraces the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity;
2. Encourages schools that are teaching the homosexual lifestyle in their sexual education class also include the harmful physical aspects of the lifestyle;
3. Encourage the partnership with parents to deliver exemplary sexual health education emphasizing HIV and other STD prevention, increase adolescent education on the spectrum of risks involved in alternative lifestyles, and establish safe and supportive environments for students and staff.

Here’s the Ross Little resolution:

To Reserve, Strip & Pursue
Resolution for the Republican National Committee
On the Restoration of Marriage in Response to Obergefell v. Hodges
By Ross Little, Jr., Republican National Committeeman, Louisiana

WHEREAS, The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, a decision lacking any warrant in the text, logic, structure or original understanding of the constitution, with no basis in the Constitution, nor in the precedent of the Court[1], nor in the history of this nation[2], acting beyond its constitutional bounds by declaring marriage between two persons of the same sex to be a newly invented “fundamental right,” requiring state authorities and officials to license marriages between persons of the same sex, overturning the law of 34 states, and ignoring the First Amendment provision of free exercise of religion, has usurped the powers reserved by the Constitution to the states and to the people;
WHEREAS, Marriage has always been understood in our law and in the philosophical traditions supporting it, as the conjugal union of a husband and a wife, instituted by God as set forth in the Bible, supported by religion, proved by millennia of experience, recognized by all those who framed and ratified the United States Constitution[3], by all of the founding states[4], by all of the states at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted[5], and by all of the states up until 2003; all these facts having been ignored by the majority in Obergefell;
WHEREAS, The Supreme Court’s effort to redefine marriage creates an inevitable clash[6] between the government and the First Amendment right to the free exercise[7] of religion;
WHEREAS, Justice KENNEDY, who wrote the majority opinion in Obergefell, wrote the following, for the same majority justices, just two years ago in U.S. v Windsor, invalidating a federal law defining marriage, in part based on the doctrine that state courts have virtually exclusive jurisdiction over family law matters:
“Regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”[8] (emphasis mine)
“The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.”[9] (emphasis mine)
“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders.”[10] (emphasis mine)
“The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the protection of offspring, property interests and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.”[11] (emphasis mine)
“The states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce and the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”[12] (emphasis mine)
“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.”[13]
“Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”[14]
“…[T]here is no federal law of domestic relations … .”[15]
“In order to respect this principle, the federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues of marital status even when there might otherwise be a basis for federal jurisdiction.”[16] (emphasis mine)
“Federal courts will not hear divorce and custody cases even if they arise in diversity because of the virtually exclusive primacy of the States in the regulation of domestic relations”[17] (emphasis mine)
“The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”[18] (emphasis mine)
“Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State.”[19]
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;”
WHEREAS, Article III of the Constitution authorizes Congress to establish and determine the jurisdiction of all inferior federal courts, and to regulate and make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which Congress has done on numerous occasions;
WHEREAS, despite the majority claim that the opinion was based on the Constitution, it appears that Obergefell was based neither on the Equal Protection Clause[20], nor the Due Process Clause[21] of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. According to Chief Justice Roberts, joined with Justices Scalia and Thomas, this newly invented right “has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”
WHEREAS, the majority opinion completely ignored the first amendment, with absolutely no mention[22] of the constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion and no consideration of the religious nature of marriage;[23]
WHEREAS, this case continues a trend in which a divided Supreme Court has taken one side of a controversial issue in favor of expansion of Federal Courts’ power, and the Federal Government diminishing the right and role of state courts, state governments, and of the people[24];
WHEREAS, because the definition of marriage is the foundation of all family law, this Federal Courts’ assertion of jurisdiction over the definition of marriage thus amounts to a significant step in the federal takeover of marriage and family law, in accordance with the wishes of liberal-leaning commentators[25]. After all, “if an unvarying social institution enduring over all of recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking, what can?”[26]
WHEREAS, Congress should, in accordance with and in pursuance of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and generally in harmony with the law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution until this year, adopt legislation establishing that questions involving marriage and family law, including, but not limited to issues of marriage, community property, inheritance, divorce, alimony, child support, child custody, and the definition of marriage (with the proviso that states would not be authorized to allow marriage of other than two persons, nor would they be authorized to prohibit interracial marriage) and the recognition of marriage between states are matters reserved to the states;
WHEREAS, Congress should, in accordance with and in pursuance of Article III of the Constitution, and in harmony with a long line of U.S. Supreme Court Cases[27], adopt legislation removing from the jurisdiction of all inferior federal courts and from the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court for all cases and controversies, questions involving marriage and family law, including, but not limited to issues of marriage, community property, inheritance, divorce, alimony, child support, child custody, and the definition of marriage and the recognition of marriage between states.
WHEREAS, Litigants in marriage and family law would continue to have an adequate, fair and traditional forum to litigate both marriage cases and their related issues, including constitutional issues, in the State Courts;

Therefore, be it Resolved that the Republican National Committee calls upon Congress, in accordance with and in pursuance of, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to adopt legislation establishing that questions involving marriage and family law, including but not limited to issues of marriage, community property, inheritance, divorce, alimony, child support, child custody, and the definition marriage (with the proviso that states would not be authorized to allow marriage of other than two persons, nor would they be authorized to prohibit interracial marriage), and the recognition of marriage between states, are matters reserved to the states and are thus the exclusive province of the States;

Be it Further Resolved that, the Republican National Committee calls upon Congress, in accordance with and in pursuance of, Article III of the Constitution to adopt legislation removing from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and from the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court for all legal cases and controversies, questions involving marriage and family law, including, but not limited to issues of marriage, community property, inheritance, divorce, alimony, child support, child custody, and the definition of marriage, and the recognition of marriage between states.

Be it Further Resolved that the Secretary of the Republican National Committee is authorized and directed to send this resolution to currently serving Republican Congressman, Senators, Governors, Secretaries of State and Attorneys General; in addition to the Republican State Committees of every State.

Here’s the Diana Waterman resolution:

Whereas the Republican National Committee adopted the Growth and Opportunity Project report in March, 2014 after the disappointing results of the 2012 Presidential election.

Whereas this RNC’s Growth and Opportunity Project report made several good recommendations for expanding the base of the Republican party through more effective messaging to constituencies important to the future success of the Republican party, including, but not limited to, Hispanics, women and millennials.

Whereas the RNC’s Report recognized the significant influence of younger voters to the success of Republican candidates; and recognized that 18-29 year old voters were the second largest block of voters to support President Obama in the 2012 election.

Whereas the Growth and Opportunity Project report identified that voters aged 18-29 expressed strong commitment to preserving equal rights and opportunity for all Americans, including all minority populations; and expressed concern that the Republican party was not committed to preserving equal rights and opportunity for all minority populations.

Whereas the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, held that states must permit equal rights to marry for same sex couples.

Whereas declared Republican candidates for President have already responded to the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision and each expressed their personal views on the decision.

Whereas the Republican National Committee primary purpose is to support our Republican nominee and win the White House.

Therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Republican National Committee recognizes and respects the right of Republican presidential candidates to express their individual positions on this Supreme Court decision and reiterates our commitment to support and promote our nominee, regardless of their expressed opinion on Obergefell v. Hodges.

Chris Johnson is Chief Political & White House Reporter for the Washington Blade. Johnson attends the daily White House press briefings and is a member of the White House Correspondents' Association. Follow Chris

  • Parque_Hundido

    Wood work digging the soon-to-be skeletons in the closet out of this year’s GOP closet.

    The clown car seems awfully full this year, especially for those who want to reserve a right to the states even as they prescribe exactly what states may do with that right.

  • newtosf921

    Dave Agema makes Ted Cruz and his ilk look liberal! He is one nasty man on the issues of gblt………….

    • lnm3921

      Which should serve as a wakeup call that just because we’ve won some major battles the war is not over. Keep vigilant, keep fighting and take nothing for granted.

  • Kevin Moseley

    Congress can’t overturn SCOTUS with legislation. It would require a Constitutional Amendment, which as a practical matter simply is not going to happen. Additionally, the comment about the “god” of the buybull creating the definition would render the bill Unconstitutional all by itself.

  • bkmn

    So much for that 2012 Post-mortem. As long as they let asshats like Agema run the show the party is going to keep losing voters.

  • GayEGO

    It is time we push the news political media to ask these GOP candidates about their views on equal rights for all Americans such as LGBTs. Is the news media being told not to ask them about equal rights for LGBTs? I wonder what we will see in the debates? But then, the GOP candidates are sneaky anyway and are probably afraid they will lose money and votes if they have to answer – humina, humina, humina i.e. Jackie Gleason’s phrase when he was stumped on how to answer. :>)

    • OldBut YoungMoney

      Equal rights? Homo”sexuality” is an action and a behavior, that exhibiting it is an action in itself. Actions don’t define people. There is no ushc thing as an “LGBTabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz” person. At least not in the way you put it. They exist only as much as a soccer player exits. Therefore, we are against people for their actions, that are a plague on society I might add, not who they are, seeing as they are the same as everybody else and their actions are the only thing that separate them from others.

      • Peking_Duck_sd

        F**** off. Your arguments are like stuff the majority believed 5 decades ago. I’m sorry you missed the bus – over and over and over again – but the United States has progressed and draconian bigots like you are now the fringe.

      • GayEGO

        Hey! Some of you straights leave babies in hot cars, filthy homes with dead babies, have more pedophiles, etc. Gays are more caring, loving, and understanding because of the discrimination we have endured. Marriage Equality is advancing because of the people who use their brains and think logically as they have not been brainwashed by their religions. My lifetime partner of 53 years and I, married 11 years, have wonderful friends, single and married, straight and gay, and we are both retired and living the American dream. You sound unhappy and miserable, which is the losing part of civilization.

      • lnm3921

        So because you think something that is supposed to make it so? What the hell do you know about equal rights? You’re just a loud mouth blowhard nobody peddling his blatant stupidity!

        Is this the only place you think you can get noticed? You basically fade into the background among the cacophony of your own! They should brand you with a HUGE “L” on your forehead for loser!

  • Jimmy LaSalvia

    The fact that bigotry is still tolerated on the RNC and in the Party is why I left. You can read about it in my forthcoming book, NO HOPE: Why I Left the GOP (and You Should Too) amzn.com/1510702385

    • MattM

      Nobody cares, Auntie Tom. That you want us to pay for the privilege of reading about your life as a privileged, willfully ignorant gay man is truly insulting. You and your ilk couldn’t take a hint from the GOP (the just aren’t that into you). GoProud enabled the GOP that so gleefully persecuted the LGBT community while also criticizing the people that actually put these Pro-LGBT rulings into motion (LGBT Dems).

      Why don’t you go organize a Ted Cruz fundraiser with your bretheren Mati Weiderpass and Ian Reisner. We lower and middle class gays will continue to advance LGBT rights while you Log Cabin sychophants complain we’re too uppity. Bye Felicia.

    • OldBut YoungMoney

      Good, leave our party, we don’t want you morbid freak of nature kind in our party. Moreover, you don’t even know what bigotry means. Bigotry means having intolerance of other people’s opinions, which seems to describe your ilk more so than mine right now you gay Nazi’s.

      • Peking_Duck_sd

        LOL. Your party is supporting Donald Trump, I think you have more to worry about than the gays. But I like your bigoted, exclusionary attitude – it prevents you right wing nut jobs from winning.

        • OldBut YoungMoney

          Pff, you don’t even know what bigot means fool. Bigot means a person who has intolerance of other peoples’ opinions, which seems to describe you more so right now than I.

          • lnm3921

            You are obviously both blind as well as dumb. What tolerance are you showing people here? Who are you kidding, yourself? You’re a hypocrite, blowhard and arrogant.

            Evidently someone shoved a dildo in you without lubing you up first! So much for your old butt and the money you paid someone young for the action!

            Those are my opinions! How are unbigoted are you of them?

            What are you doing exactly reading a gay news site and commenting on it?

          • OldBut YoungMoney

            You are seriously immature.

          • lnm3921

            Whilst you’re seriously obnoxious.

          • OldBut YoungMoney

            See, this is my opposition folks. An immature child who name calls and throws a temper tantrum when he is met with the opposition that he and the rest of the fascists failed to silence.

          • lnm3921

            Is immature the only word you know? I’d rather be a witty child than an old bitter fart like you. You whine about name calling yet you just called me a fascist. You are so blind to your own hypocrisy!

          • OldBut YoungMoney

            Pff, you don’t even know my age first off. Secondly, you are being immature so excuse me if I call you out for your immature actions, it’s not “whining”, only children use terms like whining. Fascism is something you obviously don’t understand seeing as I’m am not making you do anything against your will, while the homo”sexual” mafia is.

          • lnm3921

            Your moniker says you’re old. Is that a lie, too?
            There is no excuse for you. Only wackos use terms like homosexual mafia!

            What a pathetic joke you are. Go see therapist and ask for medication to help you with your delusions and obsession with homosexuality!

            How many times will you use the word immature? You whine about me being a child when you act like one! Loser! You’re a gadfly who needs to be smacked away!

      • lnm3921

        The GOP has been full of a-holes for decades but soon that will be all that’s left. You obviously will fit in perfectly!

        • OldBut YoungMoney

          You’re the assholle. I didn’t insult you but you insult me out of nowhere, hypocritical bigot.

          • lnm3921

            It’s hardly out of nowhere.Your generalities insult and offend many on this site. Stop playing the victim when it’s you who bully others. If you can’t take being scorched then you shouldn’t play with fire in order to burn others.

            Are you a parrot? You seem to regurgitate the same words over and over again. Someone needs to lift the needle spinning on the phonograph in your head…it’s stuck on the word bigot!

            You sound bigoted when it comes to people expressing their opinions about you but think it’s fine when you do it about others. Where’s the tolerance you whine about? Who is the Nazi now?

            It’s not an insult to call someone with your attitudes in the GOP an a-hole. It’s a fact. You should be used to it by now I’m sure a lot of people think of you that way!

    • Foodahz

      Oh God, that’s how he’s trying to redeem himself, selling us books?

      /eyeroll

  • WesternIowan

    Politicians pursuing mass human rights violations to fulfill political ambitions never ends well.

  • Fyva Prold

    Mr Dave Agema looks not quite straight.

  • ScottJL

    One has to but wonder about the skeletons in this man’s closet to fill him so full of hate. Who needs horror movies with folks like this?

  • Hata H. Zappah

    Why don’t we just hand them Clinton’s reigns and let the GOP elect our President?

  • OldBut YoungMoney

    Good, we need to move to stop these morbid freaks from seeping into every crevasse of society.

    • lnm3921

      We know what crevices you’ve seeped into resulting in excessive farting!

      • OldBut YoungMoney

        How mature.

        • lnm3921

          Well, I have to stoop to your level so you can understand. The only thing mature about you is likely your age not your deportment.

          • OldBut YoungMoney

            I haven’t done anything to you, and I’ve acted with kindness. You are the one who came out swinging and being childish because someone disagrees with you.

          • lnm3921

            You started this whole thing lashing out by referring to gay people as Morbid Freaks of nature. How is that showing kindness? Don’t waste my time calling it an opinion. You’re offensive and lack basic human decency!

            Donald Trump referring to all Mexican illegals are rapists and criminals was insulting to Latinos, legal as well as legal everywhere. His opinion doesn’t excuse the insulting rhetoric.

            You social conservatives try and get a free pass to say anything you want be whining about Political Correctness when really it’s about being decent to other people whether you agree with them or not. If you want respect, you have to give it first and earn it! You should apologize to everyone on this website for what you said but you likely won’t so don’t expect to be treated well by anyone! But you’re likely as arrogant as Trump and won’t.

            You get what you give in life. If you start out being vicious then you can only expect the same in return.

  • OldBut YoungMoney

    Funny, these plans address actions not people but you people keep saying oh you’re attacking people.

    No, we can’t attack a rhetoric driven adjective that doesn’t exist. There is no kind of person that is homo”sexual”, not in the way you people put it. Homo”sexuality” is an action and behavior, and actions and behaviors do NOT define people. Therefore, once your smoke and mirrors rhetoric game that plays on words is destroyed we can move on to serious matters past you word wall and straw mans. So I say again, we cannot attack a rhetoric driven adjective that doesn’t exist in the fashion you people use it. But, can attack the action that is harmful.

    And, it’s funny again, you people see these facts FACTS that homo”sexuality” THE ACTION is harmful, it just flat out is, there is no getting around it, and you still want to poison our children with knowledge that could lead to their harm.

    • Peking_Duck_sd

      America values equality and mutual respect for all people. You are obviously incapable of respecting people different from you and you are against equal rights for all. Might I suggest Sub-Saharran Africa or Sharia governed areas of Southwest Asia for you to move to? Your viewpoints clearly fall more in-line with repressive theocracies than they do with the values and constitution of the United States of America.

  • Limbaugh_The_Hutt

    Someone needs to get a big dildo and use it to slap that smug smirk off this bigot’s face. The guy just looks like a self-absorbed jerk.

  • lnm3921

    The resolution to introduce legislation in Congress to declare the SCOTUS decision on marriage equality unconstitutional and strip the courts of the jurisdiction to review marriage issues is so reminiscent of what Congressmen tried to do following the Brown Vs. Board of Education decision that ended segregation. That decision led to the a similar resolution known as the Southern Manifesto which many from the South endorsed.

    Religious conservatives will keep being a hemorrhoid on this issue much like they have been on the right to an abortion decision. This only proves that you need to stop taking your rights for granted and keep vigilant because these people will continue to try and strip you of your hard own rights!

    As much as you want to fool yourselves into believing that being GLBT in America doesn’t matter anymore and you can integrate into the heterosexual world without judgment or scorn the reality is many people still hate us will try and oppress us. You can change the laws but the homophobic attitudes are still there.

  • What fools these Republicans be. Their insistence that the Constitution be interpreted in the same manner as it was interpreted by the nation’s founders is totally divorced from any semblance of reality.

    It is inpossible to apply an 18th-century interpretation of the 200-plus-year-old document in the 21st century, as the 18th-centurty mindset long ago ceased to exist, having died with the 18th-century interpreters.

    This is why the Constitution is a “living document” that can be interpreted only from a present-day mindset. 100 to 200 years from now, it will be interpreted from a different mindset than that which in place today. It’s inevitable. Nothing in the human mind stays static.

  • Foodahz

    Man, F them all.

© Copyright Brown, Naff, Pitts Omnimedia, Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.
Blade Blast

Get the latest LGBTQ news to your inbox every Thursday!