WHY REPUBLICANS RIP THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

What history are we talking about? Antislavery began in Africa. I never said separation of church and state was in the constituion.The first amendment forbids Congress to set up or in any way provide for an established church.And the first constituion is pretty obvious in its meanings. I never said Quakers developed it. But they were just one of the dissenting groups like Puritans.

I have a bunch of books that list Abraham Lincoln as a founding member of the modern Republican party. It could be wrong or right. It really doesn't mater. Because that party wouldn't be what it was without him. And Abraham Lincoln was anti-slavery. In his 1854 speech at Peoria on the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Lincoln declared that he hated slavery because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world,enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites,causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty.

Abraham Lincoln thought the Dred Scott decision was wrong. Abraham's speech on the Dred Scott decision,I think the authors of the Declaration of Independence intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare men equal in all respects. This did not mean to say that all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Dred Scott decision setup the the movement of civil rights. Which caused a rippel effect with Lincoln,emacipation,13th amendemnt ,first civil rights act,etc.

 

Lets get back on the topic. What is with the whole protecting marriage thing? I thought marriage was really just a business agreement. If anything I think marriage for gays would help stabilize society. Its not like straight married people are doing great in marriage with the affairs and divorce rates.

 

Marriage in America has traditionally been not a business thing at all but a family, church, synagogue, mosque, or community issue. gays never wanted marriage until recently, as they have always stated that heterosexual traditions such as marriage were absurd. Now they want to be like heterosexuals to push their agenda for power.

This is my view and belief that traditional marriage should be protected as between one man and one woman, while gays will always live together and have unions, I dont believe they should take traditional marriage on. politically, i believe it is up to each state to vote on the issue, so as the people have a right to endorse it or reject it. New York today rejected activist from trying to push it through courts like in Massachusetts, so that the people of NY can vote for it or reject it.

 

Do you believe gays should get the same benefits(tax,spouse insurance,etc) in a civil union?

 

For one thing, Lincoln was never anti-slavery, until he realized the crippling effects of it when slavery started to destroy this nation...

and, if gays have a right to freely express themselves, be it friendship and dating, then it should be the same for marriage.

This is what I believe, and it couldn't do anymore harm than good, besides, it may help to decrease the surplus population. :lol: Seriously, I think they should be able to marry, plus, it's not like everyone will start turning gay once they do.

OK, you can both continue now.

 

Lincoln was antislavery from a young age. He started his political career on antislavery. He fought against slavery expansion but then decided on the emancipation. He wanted to preserve the Union by not having a civil war. And thats why he never emancipated the slave states. Until he saw them committing an illegal act with secession.

His Chicago 1858 speech,I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist. I have been an Old Line Whig. I have always hated it, but I have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska Bill began. I always believed that everybody was against it, and that it was in course of ultimate extinction.

I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all.-Abraham Lincoln

I agree with you opinion on gay marriages.

 

jxsilicon: absolutely not. I think they are single individuals and have only single benefits. I do think they should be able to will their inheritance to whomever they desire, however.

I think gays should not be attacked, should have right to fair housing, not discriminated in jobs and education.

 

Still, he didn't see blacks as equal, so regardless as to whether or not he was or wasn't against slavery, like so many people in political/economic power today, no matter how much 'freedom' we are given (or granted) we are never thought of as 'equal.'

Though I can't rank the discrimination/prejudice against gays up with being young black men in the USA, I don't believe that they should be attacked, or denied equal rights either, or have limited rights for that matter. One of the most homophobic tendencies about this nation in our current era is replacing the words 'stupid' or 'weird' with 'gay.'





1st Guy: " Well, personally, I prefer to wear shorts instead of pants. They just feel more comfortable to me."



2nd Guy: " Whoa... dude, that is so gay. I like pants better."



*a third fellow walks into the scenario, overhearing the wardrobe discussion unintentionally*



3rd Guy: "Man, I couldn't help by overhearing you guys. You dudes are having the GAYEST CONVERSATION EVER. I swear, you guys are real queers, for sure, LOL."



1st Guy: "Whatever, man." *rolls his eyes*

2nd Guy: *looks aggravated at the 3rd Guy* "Dude, don't be gay."



Imagine if you will, a group of teenage white guys. :lol:

 

basic human rights, i am for. I think all men and women should have that. But gay marriage, plural marriages, marriages between humans and animals, i am not for.

Lincoln didnt start the war to end slavery nor did he wish to destroy slavery. One of his speeches exclaimed that if he could save the union without destroying slavery he would do it. that doesnt sound like an antislavery advocate to me.

 

You're right he was anti-slavery but not civil rights. The antislavery advocates were two groups. The ones who wanted to free the slaves and stop it from spreading in the north. And the ones who wanted to free the slaves and give blacks equal rights. Lincoln was a moderate republican who supported freeing the slaves but not equal rights. The radical republicans supported freeing the slaves and equal rights.

Like I said before Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and if that meant keeping the South with slaves he would. But he didn't want slavery spreading to the North. The South left the Union when Lincoln was elected because they thought he would interfere in their states. The South started the civil war and Lincoln saw them seceding as an illegal act. Lincoln tried to appease slave states which was a mistake. He was moderate whig-republican antislavery not an abolitionist.

He saw slavery as evil but he first and foremost wanted to preserve the union. And the speech you're talking about tuckerreed, he said,If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

 

but NO to homosexual marriage!

 

So, tucker is bascially right in a sense if you consider it. He ONLY freed the slaves because of state of the Union, not because he cared about them or their equal rights. He sorta WAS pro-slavery, at least to ME.

 

Nope, he saw slavery as a moral evil. He went back into politics because slavery was going to be expanded. He was against expansion also.He freed the slaves on his own merit. But like his quote said would have kept the South with slavery or wouldn't if either way the union was preserved. He even tried to appease some Southern sates so they wouldn't secede. The emancipation proclamation was limited to seceding slave states at first. He was always anti-slavery but never abolished slavery in the South before the war for two reasons. The first one is he wanted to preserve the Union. And the second is states rights.

 

OK, but all of that just makes him seem even more hypocritical, in my opinion.

 

I think its just because he was the country's leader. And the South was a part of the union before seceding. And nobody wanted a civil war including him. He stopped slavery from expanding and tried to take bits away from the slave states. Even back then people didn't want the federal government having too much power. It would be like John Kerry getting elected and making all states adopt homosexual marriage.Except back then the nation was more untsable and people would go to war not just protest.

 

Alright. Thanks for clearing that up for me. 8)

 

wow, i agree with you jxsilicon thanks

 

Why not give Texas, New Mexico and California back to Mexico!

 

hey wait! I live in Cali!

STELLA!!

 

Yea right. You can try and convince the government to do that.