Comments on: Equality Issue Separates Virginia Democratic Candidates

By: Congressional Aid

Congressional Aid — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:53:39 +0000

Mr. Wilson’s arguments mirror exactly the arguments against interracial marriage. Let black and white people marry each other, they said forty years ago, and soon we’ll be marrying our dogs!

Treat Mr. Wilson’s claim with the same level of seriousness you would devote to the 1960s “negro=dog” claim.

P.S. Mr. Wilson, the 14th Amendment in this has to do with equal protection under law, not the nomination of judges. And the last clause of the 14th Amendment reads “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

By: Garrett Watson

Garrett Watson — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:12:56 +0000

What does the House of Representatives have to do with the 14th Amendment, they do not nominate judges, ETC.
You set a bad precedent if you allow the age old tradition of marriage being between a man and women. Whats next will you allow people to marry animals, polygamy, and child marriages? A civil union is the same as marriage with out the title, why not allow that. Another thought it was liberal activists judges that said separate but equal was fine.

How you figured out that Blue Virginia, is not a news source as of yet?

By: Congress Watcher

Congress Watcher — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:13:45 +0000

Garrett, I hope that you realize how dishonest the argument against equality you just made is.

Where in the Constitution does it say that African-American children are entitled to access to public education that is equal to that given to European-American children? It doesn’t because it doesn’t have to. It guarantees equal protection for all people and declares that no state shall have the power to deny that equality.

That’s in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States. Are you in favor of repealing the Fourteenth Amendment?

By: Garrett Watson

Garrett Watson — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:39:36 +0000

Umm, yes it does talk about hate crimes read Mrs. Ball’s quote. I think marriage law should be left up to the sates, to be honest, I could care less either way, Virginia voters overwhelming passed a ban on gay marriage, I am in favor of civil unions, but not marriage, now where in the constitution does it say equal protection for a guy to marry a guy, or anything to that substance, if that was the case wouldn’t polygamy be legal then? Another question, where in the Constitution does it say a women can kill a living breathing baby?

Blue Virginia is a political blog, they take real news and slant it to the left, just like my blog takes news and slants it to the right or has an opinion of it from a conservative prospective. you saying Blue Virginia is a news source is like saying Wikipedia is a great academic source.

As far as Robinson and Ball go, i hope Krystal gets nominated, because it will be an extremely easy reelection for Wittman.

By: Congress Watcher

Congress Watcher — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:15:57 +0000

Garrett, Blue Virginia reports news. That makes it a news source.

The Constitution certainly does pertain to marriage equality, given that marriage equality is a form of equality under the law, which is guaranteed to ALL people, not just the heterosexual ones, by the Constitution of the United States of America.

This article didn’t talk about hate crimes legislation.

I see that the name of your blog is On The Right, and that you advertise in favor of the re-election of Republican Rob Wittman. Do you believe that Democrats should veer to the right? If so, do you agree that Scott Robinson would be the more right wing candidate than Krystal Ball?

By: Garrett Watson

Garrett Watson — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:26:43 +0000

Blue Virginia is far from a news source, first off.

Second off every state that has put gay marriage on the ballot, gay marriage has been banned by the voters. I agree that the defense of marriage act should be ended on a federal level, I also agree with any stat that bans it due to a vote. The Constitution has nothing regarding marriage in it, no where does it same anything about marriage equality. Maybe you liberals should read it some time.

Third Hate Crimes laws are the dumbest, biggest waste of time for elected representatives to write, waste time to vote and ETC. Every crime is committed with some form of hate, what is the point of adding 7 years for a so called “hate crime” to a life sentence, it is pointless. Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can regulate whether they think you hate somebody?