The Oregon Court of Appeals has formally asked the state’s highest court to decide whether Republican state senators who carried out a record-setting GOP walkout this year can run for
Umm, they were elected to do their jobs, and opted instead to leave. Why would anyone ever vote them into a position of responsibility, ever again. They made their choice, and that choice was to play stupid games. What part of this is unclear?
edit: Let’s keep in mind that these walkouts occurred 3 years in a row. The constitutional amendment, approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2022, barring re-election after 10 or more unexcused absences, came directly in response to GOP elected officials walking out in '19,'20, and '21. This wasn’t one person, one time, “oops I’m sorry, won’t happen again”; it was to prevent a votes from happening. You say you don’t like stupid games, but your politically aligned representatives were doing just that. smh.
“There were nine Oregon Republicans and an independent who clocked at least 10 absences during this year’s legislative session in order to block Democratic bills covering abortion, transgender health care and gun rights. The walkout prevented a quorum, holding up bills in the Democrat-led Senate for six weeks.” That is not not doing their jobs.
People will vote for them because we are partisan. I am not overly partisan. I vote Republican but you need to do your job. It’s that simple. Even if the law wasn’t in place, I would mot vote for them for refusing to do their job.
It’s kinda dumb to vote for someone, just because they claim a party affiliation, when they have already demonstrated that they won’t do their job. smh.
You disagree with what stance? The GOP national party platform from 2016 and 2020 (it’s the same platform on pages 31-32 as enumerated on the bottom of the page) states an opposition to LGBT+ marriage. This is not a matter of opinion it is 100% factual to say the GOP opposes equal rights. Marriage rights provide a TON of other rights most importantly the right to decide who gets you stuff.
This is not a matter of anyone having “extra” rights under the law. The only people with “extra” rights would be straight people under the GOP’s platform.
It is not additional rights. Straight people can marry and gay people can marry that’s equal rights. Saying that gay people cannot marry creates unequal rights between the groups.
The fact that marriage traditionally meant X does not change the fact that marriage legally confers a set of rights to the new couple. Denying LGBT+ people access to those rights means that straight people have MORE rights.
The GOP does not support equal rights and that should be a good reason for everyone to oppose them.
This is why you’re getting downvoted. People traditionally owned other people, too. “Traditional” is not necessarily “equal”.
Can a man marry me? Can a woman marry me? If the answer to both questions isn’t exactly the same, that is an explicit failure of the 14th Amendment Equal Protections clause. Just like “Can I own a white person? Can I own a black person?” Asymmetric rights are the purest example of unequal treatment. It’s no different than when a Republican president told the world that Freedom of Religion is Freedom of Christian Religions and that Pagan Religions deserve no rights. (I wonder if you know which president did that)
Be honest if you oppose equal protections, but don’t bend yourself into a pretzel to pretend persecuting homosexuals is something other than it is.
I’m not a child, so I don’t care about downvotes. It just shows my viewpoint is accurate.
I get you may live for an upvote but I live in the real world where success isn’t measured by a click by others.
I do not know which president said that and that is wrong as the 1st amendment guarantees religious rights. I’m not religious but I’m not anti-theist.
I don’t oppose equal protections. You’re bending yourself into a pretzel trying to make it fit the scenario. It’s why the 14th amendment is poorly written. It’s the escape clause for when someone can’t figure something out.
I am a republican and I say no based on the way the law is written.
I don’t like stupid games in politics. Do your job.
Umm, they were elected to do their jobs, and opted instead to leave. Why would anyone ever vote them into a position of responsibility, ever again. They made their choice, and that choice was to play stupid games. What part of this is unclear?
edit: Let’s keep in mind that these walkouts occurred 3 years in a row. The constitutional amendment, approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2022, barring re-election after 10 or more unexcused absences, came directly in response to GOP elected officials walking out in '19,'20, and '21. This wasn’t one person, one time, “oops I’m sorry, won’t happen again”; it was to prevent a votes from happening. You say you don’t like stupid games, but your politically aligned representatives were doing just that. smh.
“There were nine Oregon Republicans and an independent who clocked at least 10 absences during this year’s legislative session in order to block Democratic bills covering abortion, transgender health care and gun rights. The walkout prevented a quorum, holding up bills in the Democrat-led Senate for six weeks.” That is not not doing their jobs.
People will vote for them because we are partisan. I am not overly partisan. I vote Republican but you need to do your job. It’s that simple. Even if the law wasn’t in place, I would mot vote for them for refusing to do their job.
It’s kinda dumb to vote for someone, just because they claim a party affiliation, when they have already demonstrated that they won’t do their job. smh.
Please don’t vote republican. The national party has since 2016 maintained as a major party plank that all Americans should not have equal rights.
I disagree with that stance. Equal rights means equal. It doesn’t mean one group has more than the other.
Democrats are pushing the idea that not all pigs are the same and I don’t agree with that.
You disagree with what stance? The GOP national party platform from 2016 and 2020 (it’s the same platform on pages 31-32 as enumerated on the bottom of the page) states an opposition to LGBT+ marriage. This is not a matter of opinion it is 100% factual to say the GOP opposes equal rights. Marriage rights provide a TON of other rights most importantly the right to decide who gets you stuff.
This is not a matter of anyone having “extra” rights under the law. The only people with “extra” rights would be straight people under the GOP’s platform.
No it’s additional rights. Traditionally marriage was a between a man and a woman. That’s how it’s worked for thousands of years.
I’m not opposed to gay marriage but it’s an additional right.
It is not additional rights. Straight people can marry and gay people can marry that’s equal rights. Saying that gay people cannot marry creates unequal rights between the groups.
The fact that marriage traditionally meant X does not change the fact that marriage legally confers a set of rights to the new couple. Denying LGBT+ people access to those rights means that straight people have MORE rights.
The GOP does not support equal rights and that should be a good reason for everyone to oppose them.
Up until recently marriage was defined as a man and woman. As such it’s an additional right.
You’re not going to change my opinion on the topic. While I’m fine with gay marriage. It’s not an equal right issue as it’s an additional right.
Deny gay marriage is not giving straight couples more rights. It’s giving them the right to marriage which was defined as a man and a woman.
This is why you’re getting downvoted. People traditionally owned other people, too. “Traditional” is not necessarily “equal”.
Can a man marry me? Can a woman marry me? If the answer to both questions isn’t exactly the same, that is an explicit failure of the 14th Amendment Equal Protections clause. Just like “Can I own a white person? Can I own a black person?” Asymmetric rights are the purest example of unequal treatment. It’s no different than when a Republican president told the world that Freedom of Religion is Freedom of Christian Religions and that Pagan Religions deserve no rights. (I wonder if you know which president did that)
Be honest if you oppose equal protections, but don’t bend yourself into a pretzel to pretend persecuting homosexuals is something other than it is.
I’m not a child, so I don’t care about downvotes. It just shows my viewpoint is accurate.
I get you may live for an upvote but I live in the real world where success isn’t measured by a click by others.
I do not know which president said that and that is wrong as the 1st amendment guarantees religious rights. I’m not religious but I’m not anti-theist.
I don’t oppose equal protections. You’re bending yourself into a pretzel trying to make it fit the scenario. It’s why the 14th amendment is poorly written. It’s the escape clause for when someone can’t figure something out.