How to pressure the electoral college?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Pamela

I'd like to see that declaration in the record. Who voted for it? When was the vote?

There is no war on the LGBT community. ....

Really?

"The platform also makes homophobia and the denial of basic civil rights to gays, lesbians and transgender people a centerpiece. It repudiates same-sex marriage, despite strong support for this constitutional right in the nation at large. The party invokes “natural marriage” and states’ rights for determining which bathrooms transgender people may use, and it defends merchants who would deny service to gay customers."

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02/t...-lgbtq-people/

https://ballotpedia.org/2016_preside...n_LGBTQ_rights

Originally Posted by Pamela

When I cast my vote for President, I voted for the person I thought was best to lead the entire country in many topics, not just one or two.

You thought wrong.

[Spexxvet]

And this

GOP to Reintroduce "Religious Liberty" Bill Targeting LGBT People

http://www.advocate.com/politics/201...ng-lgbt-people

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Pamela

When I cast my vote for President, I voted for the person I thought was best to lead the entire country in many topics, not just one or two.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Really?

You thought wrong.

Maybe not, she didn't specify: to lead the country where...

[Undertoad]

Identity politics is DIFFICULT! Should one vote for the candidate who said consistently that gay marriage should be illegal because it is morally wrong, right up to 2013 - the year the law changed and it was clear nothing more could be done about it?

Or this asshole?



(I'm just asking, I don't actually vote)

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Maybe not, she didn't specify: to lead the country where...

GOOD QUESTION!!!

And, I'd like to know if they think his cabinet will help him get us there.

[Pamela]

Possibly the fourth. I forget where Susan fell on the spectrum.

[Pamela]

Trump has not said a word about such a platform. I read his published platform and policies. Nary a word for OR against the GLBT crowd. And he had no problem hanging with us at rallies and even invited Caitlyn Jenner to use the restroom of her choice at Trump whatever it was. I don't think he really cares one way or the other. He has much bigger fish to fry.

Don't listen to the hysterical ravings of the increasingly irrelevant. Listen to Trump. HIS words, not what someone says are his words.

Give the man a chance; he might surprise you.

[elSicomoro]

With all due respect, Pam, his words are becoming increasingly meaningless...for his supporters and the rest of us.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Pamela

Trump has not said a word about such a platform. I read his published platform and policies. Nary a word for OR against the GLBT crowd. And he had no problem hanging with us at rallies and even invited Caitlyn Jenner to use the restroom of her choice at Trump whatever it was. I don't think he really cares one way or the other. He has much bigger fish to fry.

Don't listen to the hysterical ravings of the increasingly irrelevant. Listen to Trump. HIS words, not what someone says are his words.

Give the man a chance; he might surprise you.

#1
​ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO CATHOLICS

Religious Liberty

Religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is our first liberty and provides the most important protection in that it protects our right of conscience. Activist judges and executive orders issued by Presidents who have no regard for the Constitution have put these protections in jeopardy. If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths. The Little Sisters of the Poor, or any religious order for that matter, will always have their religious liberty protected on my watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs.
#2
"I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman," Trump said during the interview.

"I just don't feel good about it," Trump said. "I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage."
#3
Trump told the Fox News host that he supports leaving the issue of transgender rights up to the states. "You know, Obama’s getting into a very tricky territory," he said, referencing the guidance issued by the Obama administration. "The amazing thing is so many people are talking about this now and we have to protect everybody even if it's one person … but this is such a tiny part of our population."

O'Reilly asked Trump if he provided gender-neutral facilities in his properties. “No, we don’t have that," replied Trump. "I hope not. Because frankly, it would be unbelievably expensive nationwide. It would be hundreds of billions of dollars."

[classicman]

If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths

Whats the problem?

From your own link ...

He (Trump) said he would favor a domestic partnership law that afforded same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples.

and from another

At one point, he (Trump) said transgender celebrity Caitlyn Jenner could use whatever bathroom she preferred in one of his luxury buildings — an offer Jenner later took up at the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Manhattan.
Since his election, Trump has not publicly addressed transgender issues, though he did ease some concerns among gays and lesbians by saying that he considered same-sex marriage to be settled law.

Link

[Flint]

So that everyone understands why the "First Amendment Defense Act" is a discussion topic:

The bill provides that the federal government "shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."

This language isn't accidental, and it isn't being misconstrued. It's very clear.

[Undertoad]

How is the Federal Government discriminating against these people now? How will that change with this bill?

[glatt]

Well there was that County clerk a couple years ago who got fired for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays. That was a local thing but it was a government thing

[classicman]

She did wrong and was fired. What more would you like to happen, glatt?

[Flint]

This is my only question. Why would they put that language in there?

It's certainly not "for no reason," so there has to be some reason. And because we're not mind-readers, we have to guess, based on what reasonable assumptions we can make, don't we? This is speculation, yes. Speculation is a large part of being aware of the world around you. People don't announce their intentions. People have even been known to obfuscate their intentions--believe it or not!!

Useful queries: is this part of a recognizable trend? (It is.) Have other examples of this trend been straightforward in announcing their intentions, i.e. have the hundreds of state-level, gay-hating laws been similarly, misleadingly packaged and titled? (They have.) Does creating the appearance of innocent, "religious" intentions create a "safe space" for bigots to openly deny basic human rights to other citizens, whose lives are none of their goddamn business? (It does.) Would you have to be naive, disingenuous, and/or extremely obtuse to claim ignorance of the obvious here? (You most certainly would.)