# What "Conservative Values" aren't based on bigotry? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 16, 2019, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176 "2019-07-16T16:36:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/281 "2019-07-18T20:31:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > She said something anti Semitic which she recognized and later apologized for. Democrats criticized her for it and she apologized. It isn’t even clear that her statement was anti-Semitic. However, if offense was taken, appropriately or not, apologies are in order. > [@](#): > > Virtually all Republicans in office continue to support him and have not demanded he apologize. He has made it clear, and his supporters have made it clear by supporting him, that he considers apologizing when in the wrong to be a sign of _weakness_, not strength, amazingly. > [@Miller](#): > > If they’d stop supporting people like Donald Trump, or Steve Knight, or Roy Moore Steve _King_, right? Unless he lost his rank when he lost his committee assignments. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/282 "2019-07-18T20:38:01Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Okay, rebut the claim that low-income people are affected more by a flat tax rate than are high-income people. Take all the time you need. > > Spoiler: It’s a fact. What is “fair” about taking more of a high income earners money than a low? Go on, define your terms ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/283 "2019-07-18T20:39:10Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Let me try to get this clarified. > > You’re saying that, say, free college tuition for anyone who can’t afford college would be OK because it’s temporary assistance that will in many cases improve the person’s chance of getting a well paid job later on; but funding schools or job assistance for people with significant developmental disabilities would not be acceptable because they’re going to need assistance for all of their lives. > > Is that what you mean? Quite possibly I’d be on board with it if it didn’t bankrupt the country and got funded in a fair way sure! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/284 "2019-07-18T20:41:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Steve _King_, right? Unless he lost his rank when he lost his committee assignments. No, [I meant this guy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Knight_(politician)), who I absolutely knew existed before I Googled him just now, and is probably absolutely awful in some way that I don’t have time to explain right now. But that Steve King guy is a dick, too. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/285 "2019-07-18T20:44:24Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > Quite possibly I’d be on board with it if it didn’t bankrupt the country and got funded in a fair way sure! We gave a trillion and a half dollars to millionaires and billionaires a few months ago, didn’t bankrupt us then. We can just take that money back, revert to a pre-2018 tax environment, and pay off that college loan debt and be exactly where we are today. Sound good? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/286 "2019-07-18T21:06:47Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > This doesn’t parse. Clearly not, it seems that it is hard to face the reality that you are not noticing when racism is the issue, what it does not parse is your attempt at ignoring [that telling someone to leave America comes as racist in context](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/go-back-how-racists-try-deny-my-american-heritage-my-ncna1030951), what you trying to equate to is about about a person that does not tell the “offended” party to leave America or tell others to undermine her “targets”. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/287 "2019-07-18T21:21:55Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Your post to me said: > > Emphasis mine. > > So, yeah, that’s you accusing me of racism. I was thinking of something else. I stand corrected. Yes, that was racist of you. Congratulations. > [@](#): > > Okay, you don’t think there’s a serious problem with bigotry on the right. Which brings us back to the question: why are there so few minority Republicans? What is it about he Republican party, in your view, that leads only about 10% of black people to support it? How does the party that _literally ended slavery_ end up with so few black supporters? Race baiting and pandering from the left. That’s one answer. I’ll give the next when you ask me again 2 seconds. > [@](#): > > Then where are all the black Republicans? Why do Hispanics vote Democrat at such high margins? If the Democrats are so much more racist, how did we end up with the party that’s more diverse than the Republicans by orders of magnitude? Answer #2. Why do you assume it has anything to do with race? This is just bad bad logic. Bad assumptions. Let’s follow through with your logic and see where this gets you. Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately represented in the Democratic Party. They are also disproportionately represented in the prison system being incarcerated for violent crimes, including rape and murder. Therefore, the Democratic Party is the party of rape and murder. Do you agree with this argument? That’s your fucking argument, that’s your logic. I don’t. > [@](#): > > Yes, they did. I was pretty vocal about calling Obama out for his bigotry on the boards, too. Like the vast majority of queer people, I still voted for him, because the Republicans were even worse. Pointing out that the Republican party has become the standard bearer for racism and homophobia is not the same as claiming that Democrats are perfect and always have been. But pretending there’s any degree of parity between the two groups on the subject is a joke. I agree. The left is focused on race and gender and sexual preference and trying to breed dissent for political gain instead of just living and progressing and getting along. There is no comparison. It’s disgusting. > [@](#): > > What part of that statement is untrue? Do you think that there’s a significant body of support for Republicans among queer voters? Do you think that opposition to gay rights was not a significant Republican position over the last 20 years? Do you think the Democrats were more opposed to gay rights? All of it. Yes (log cabin Republicans, etc.) yes(and Democrats.) No, but not by much. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, what? Have you been living under a rock? Context of your quote suggested to me you were referring to a Federal Constitutional change. Simple misunderstanding. > [@](#): > > Alabama: > > [spoiler]ALABAMA CONSTITUTION - Amendment 774. Sanctity of Marriage Amendment (=Ref.1, cited as the approves of Marriage Amendment) > & ALABAMA CODE - Title 30. Marital and domestic relations - Chapter 1. Marriage. > § 30-1-19. Marriage, recognition thereof, between persons of the same sex prohibited.(=Ref.2, cited as the “Alabama Marriage Protection Act”) > > Ref.1 (b) & Ref.2 (b) > Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state. > > Ref.1 (c) & Ref.2 (c) > Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract. > > Ref.1 (d) & Ref.2 (d) > No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex. > > Ref.1 (e) & Ref.2 (e) > The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued. > > Ref.1 (f) > The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any common law marriage of parties of the same sex. > > Ref.1 (g) > A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage[/spoiler] > Alaska: > > [spoiler]ALASKA CONSTITUTION - Article I. Declaration of Rights - §25. Marriage : > To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman. > > ALASKA STATUTES - Section 25. Marital and domestic relations - Chapter 25.05. Alaska marriage code > Section 25.05.013. Same-sex marriage: > (a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or under statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage, including its termination, are unenforceable in this state. > (b) A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage.[/spoiler] > > Arizona: > > [spoiler] > ARIZONA CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE XXX. MARRIAGE: > > 1. Marriage > Section 1. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. > > ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES - Title 25 - Marital and Domestic Relations > § 25-101 Void and prohibited marriages > … C. A marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.[/spoiler] > > Arkansas: > > [spoiler]Arkansas Constitution Amendment 83: > Section 1. Marriage. Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. > Section 2. Marital status. Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman. > > Arkansas Code Annotated - Title 9. Family law - subtitle 2. Domestic relations - chapter 11. Marriage (law passed 1997) > Subchapter 1. General Provisions. > Section 9-11-107. Same sex marriage void > Marriage shall be only between a man and a woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex is void. > Section 9-11-109. Validity of foreign marriages > (a) All marriages contracted outside this state which would be valid by the laws of the state or country in which the marriages were consummated and in which the parties then actually resided shall be valid in all the courts in this state. > (b) This section shall not apply to a marriage between persons of the same sex. > > Subchapter 2. License and Ceremony. > Section 9-11-208. License not issued to persons under age or to persons of the same sex. > (b) It shall be the declared public policy of the State of Arkansas to recognize the marital union only of man and woman. No license shall be issued to persons to marry another person of the same sex and no same-sex marriage shall be recognized as entitled to the benefits of marriage. > (c) Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, where a marriage license is issued by another state or by a foreign jurisdiction, shall be void in Arkansas and any contractual or other rights granted by virtue of that license, including its termination, shall be unenforceable in the Arkansas courts.[/spoiler] > > California: > > [spoiler]Texts: > > California Constitution - Article I. Declaration of rights. > Section 7.5. - Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. > > [1] - Division 3. Marriage - Part 1. Validity of Marriage > (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).[/spoiler] > > Colorado: > > [spoiler]COLORADO CONSTITUTION, Art. II, §31: > Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. > > COLORADO REVISED STATUTES §14-2-104: > (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, a marriage is valid in this state if: > (a) It is licensed, solemnized, and registered as provided in this part 1; and > (b) It is only between one man and one woman. > (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 14-2-112, any marriage contracted within or outside this state that does not satisfy paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not be recognized as valid in this state.[/spoiler] > > Florida: > > [spoiler]Florida Constitution - Article I. Declaration of rights: > Section 27. Marriage defined. - Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. > > Florida Statutes Annotated - Title XLIII. Domestic relations - Chapter 741. Marriage; Domestic violence. > Section 741.04. Marriage license issued. > No county court judge or clerk of the circuit court in this state shall issue a license for the marriage of any person … unless one party is a male and the other party is a female. > Section 741.212. Marriages between persons of the same sex > (1) Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, or relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state. > (2) The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe of the United States or of any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship. > (3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term “spouse” applies only to a member of such a union.[/spoiler] > > Georgia: > > [spoiler]Constitution of Georgia. Article I Section IV: > Paragraph I. Recognition of marriage. > (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. > (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship. > > Georgia Code Annotated - Title 19. Domestic Relations - Chapter 3. Marriage generally - Article 1. General Provisions > Section 19-3-3.1 Same sex marriages prohibited > (a) It is declared to be the public policy of this state to recognize the union only of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. > (b) No marriage between persons of the same sex shall be recognized as entitled to the benefits of marriage. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex pursuant to a marriage license issued by another state or foreign jurisdiction or otherwise shall be void in this state. Any contractual rights granted by virtue of such license shall be unenforceable in the courts of this state and the courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction whatsoever under any circumstances to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to such marriage or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such marriage.[/spoiler] > > Idaho: > > [spoiler]IDAHO CONSTITUTION - Article III. Legislative department - §28. Marriage > A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state > > IDAHO CODE - Title 32. Domestic relations - Chapter 2. Marriage; nature and validity of marriage contract > § 32-209. Recognition of foreign or out-of-state marriages > All marriages contracted without this state, which would be valid by the laws of the state or country in which the same were contracted, are valid in this state, unless they violate the public policy of this state. Marriages that violate the public policy of this state include, but are not limited to, same-sex marriages, and marriages entered into under the laws of another state or country with the intent to evade the prohibitions of the marriage laws of this state.[/spoiler] > > Kansas: > > [spoiler]Kansas Constitution, Article 15, Section 16 > (a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. > (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage. > > Kansas Statute, Section 23-2501. Nature of marriage relation. > The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract between two parties who are of opposite sex. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. The consent of the parties is essential. The marriage ceremony may be regarded either as a civil ceremony or as a religious sacrament, but the marriage relation shall only be entered into, maintained or abrogated as provided by law. > > Kansas Statute Section 23-2508. Validity of marriages contracted without state. > All marriages contracted without this state, which would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were contracted, shall be valid in all courts and places in this state. It is the strong public policy of this state only to recognize as valid marriages from other states that are between a man and a woman.[/spoiler] > > Kentucky: > > [spoiler]Kentucky Constitution, Section 233A > Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. > > Kentucky Revised Statutes > Section 402.005 Definition of marriage. > As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. > Section 402.020 Other prohibited marriages. > (1) Marriage is prohibited and void: (d) Between members of the same sex; > Section 402.040 Marriage in another state > (1) If any resident of this state marries in another state, the marriage shall be valid here if valid in the state where solemnized, unless the marriage is against Kentucky public policy. > (2) A marriage between members of the same sex is against Kentucky public policy and shall be subject to the prohibitions established in KRS 402.045. > Section 402.045 Same-sex marriage in another jurisdiction void and unenforceable. > (1) A marriage between members of the same sex which occurs in another jurisdiction shall be void in Kentucky. > (2) Any rights granted by virtue of the marriage, or its termination, shall be unenforceable in Kentucky courts.[/spoiler] > > Lousiana: > > [spoiler]Louisiana Constitution, Article XII, section 15. Defense of Marriage > Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman. > > Louisiana Civil code > Article 89. Impediment of same sex > Persons of the same sex may not contract marriage with each other. A purported marriage between persons of the same sex contracted in another state shall be governed by the provisions of Title II of Book IV of the Civil Code. > Article 96. Civil effects of absolutely null marriage; putative marriage > §4. A purported marriage between parties of the same sex does not produce any civil effects. > Article 3520. Marriage (Title II of Book IV of the Civil Code) > A. A marriage that is valid in the state where contracted, or in the state where the parties were first domiciled as husband and wife, shall be treated as a valid marriage unless to do so would violate a strong public policy of the state whose law is applicable to the particular issue under Article 3519. > B. A purported marriage between persons of the same sex violates a strong public policy of the state of Louisiana and such a marriage contracted in another state shall not be recognized in this state for any purpose, including the assertion of any right or claim as a result of the purported marriage.[/spoiler] > > Michigan: > > [spoiler]Michigan Constitution, Article I, Section 25 > To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose. > > Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated > 551.1 Marriage between individuals of same sex as invalid contract.[2] > Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting that unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state. > 551.271 Marriages solemnized in another state validated.[3] > (1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a marriage contracted between a man and a woman who are residents of this state and who were, at the time of the marriage, legally competent to contract marriage according to the laws of this state, which marriage is solemnized in another state within the United States by a clergyman, magistrate, or other person legally authorized to solemnize marriages within that state, is a valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state to the same effect and extent as if solemnized within this state and according to its laws.’ > (2) This section does not apply to a marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex, which marriage is invalid in this state under section 1 of chapter 83 of the revised statutes of 1846, being section 551.1 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. > 551.272 Marriage not between man and woman invalidated.[4] > This state recognizes marriage as inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman, as prescribed by section 1 of chapter 83 of the Revised Statutes of 1846, being section 551.1 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, and therefore a marriage that is not between a man and a woman is invalid in this state regardless of whether the marriage is contracted according to the laws of another jurisdiction.[/spoiler] > > Mississippi: > > [spoiler]Mississippi Constitution, Article 14, Section 263A > Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this State only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another State or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this State and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this State. > > Mississippi Code § 93-1-1. Certain marriages declared incestuous and void. > (2) Any marriage between persons of the same gender is prohibited and null and void from the beginning. Any marriage between persons of the same gender that is valid in another jurisdiction does not constitute a legal or valid marriage in Mississippi. [5][/spoiler] > > Missouri: > > [spoiler]Missouri Constitution, Article I Bill of Rights > Section 33.Marriage, validity and recognition. > That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman. > > Missouri Annotated Statutes - Chapter 451. Marriage, Marriage Contracts, and Rights of Married Women > section 451.022. Public policy, same sex marriages prohibited—license may not be issued. > > 1. It is the public policy of this state to recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. > 2. Any purported marriage not between a man and a woman is invalid. > 3. No recorder shall issue a marriage license, except to a man and a woman. > 4. A marriage between persons of the same sex will not be recognized for any purpose in this state even when valid where contracted.[/spoiler] > > Montana: > > [spoiler]Texts: > > Montana Constitution - Article XIII. General Provisions > Section 7. Marriage Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. > > Montana Code Annotated - Title 40. Family law - Chapter 1. Marriage > Section 40-1-103. General Provisions — Formalities. > Marriage is a personal relationship between a man and a woman arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is essential. > Section 40-1-401. Prohibited marriages– contracts. > (1) The following marriages are prohibited: … (d) a marriage between persons of the same sex.[/spoiler] > > Nebraska: > > Nebraska Constitution > Article I, Section 29. Marriage; same-sex relationships not valid or recognized. Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska. > > Nevada: > > Nevada Constitution- Article I. Declaration of Rights. > Section 21. Limitation on recognition of marriage. > Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state. > > North Carolina: > > [spoiler]North Dakota Constitution Article XI. General provisions. > Sec. 6. Marriage. - “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.” > > North Carolina General Statutes - Chapter 51. Marriages - Article 1. General Provisions > Section 51‑1. Requisites of marriage; solemnization. > A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either: … > > Section 51-1.2. Marriages between persons of the same gender not valid. > Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.[/spoiler] > > North Dakota: > > [spoiler]North Dakota Constitution Article XI. General provisions. > Art. XI - Section 28. Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect. > > North Dakota Century Code - Title 14 Domestic Relations and Persons > Section 14-03-01. What constitutes marriage - Spouse defined. Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between one man and one woman to which the consent of the parties is essential. The marriage relation may be entered into, maintained, annulled, or dissolved only as provided by law. A spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. > Section 14-03-08. Foreign marriages recognized - Exception. Except when residents of this state contract a marriage in another state which is prohibited under the laws of this state, all marriages contracted outside this state, which are valid according to the laws of the state or country where contracted, are valid in this state. This section applies only to a marriage contracted in another state or country which is between one man and one woman as husband and wife.[/spoiler] > > Ohio: > > [spoiler]Ohio Constitution - Article XV. Miscellaneous - section 11 Marriage Amendment > Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage. > > Ohio Revised Code - Title XXXI Domestic Relations - Children > § 3101.01. Persons who may be joined in marriage; minor to obtain consent; public policy of state concerning same-sex marriage and extension of certain benefits to nonmarital relationships. > (A) … A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. … > (B) … > (C) (1) Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state. > (2) Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state. > (3) The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio. Nothing in division (C)(3) of this section shall be construed to do either of the following: > (a) Prohibit the extension of specific benefits otherwise enjoyed by all persons, married or unmarried, to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes, including the extension of benefits conferred by any statute that is not expressly limited to married persons, which includes but is not limited to benefits available under Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code; > (b) Affect the validity of private agreements that are otherwise valid under the laws of this state. > (4) Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, country, or other jurisdiction outside this state that extends the specific benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state.[/spoiler] > > Oklahoma: > > Oklahoma Constitution - Article 2 Bill of rights - Section 35 > A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. > B. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage. > C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. > > Oregon: > > [spoiler]Texts: > > Oregon Constitution - Article XV Miscellaneous > Section 5a. Policy regarding marriage. It is the policy of Oregon, and its subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.[/spoiler] > > South Carolina: > > [spoiler]South Carolina Constitution Article XVII Miscellaneous Matters, Section 15 > A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This State and its political subdivisions shall not create a legal status, right, or claim respecting any other domestic union, however denominated. This State and its political subdivisions shall not recognize or give effect to a legal status, right, or claim created by another jurisdiction respecting any other domestic union, however denominated. Nothing in this section shall impair any right or benefit extended by the State or its political subdivisions other than a right or benefit arising from a domestic union that is not valid or recognized in this State. This section shall not prohibit or limit parties, other than the State or its political subdivisions, from entering into contracts or other legal instruments. > > South Carolina Code of Laws - Title 20. Domestic Relations - Chapter 1. Marriage > Section 20-1-10. Persons who may contract matrimony. > (A) All persons, except mentally incompetent persons and persons whose marriage is prohibited by this section, may lawfully contract matrimony. > (B) No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, sister, grandfather’s wife, son’s wife, grandson’s wife, wife’s mother, wife’s grandmother, wife’s daughter, wife’s granddaughter, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter, father’s sister, mother’s sister, or another man. > (C) No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, stepfather, brother, grandmother’s husband, daughter’s husband, granddaughter’s husband, husband’s father, husband’s grandfather, husband’s son, husband’s grandson, brother’s son, sister’s son, father’s brother, mother’s brother, or another woman. > SECTION 20-1-15. Prohibition of same sex marriage. > A marriage between persons of the same sex is void ab initio and against the public policy of this State.[/spoiler] > > South Dakota: > > If you’ve actually gone through each of these spoiler boxes and opened each one, I’m genuinely impressed. > > Tennessee: > > [spoiler]Tennessee Constitution - Article XI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS > Section 18. Marital contract defined. The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one (1) man and one (1) woman, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state. > > Tennessee Code Annotated - Title 36. Domestic Relations - Chapter 3. Marriage - Part 1. License > 36-3-113. Marriage between one man and one woman only legally recognized marital contract. > (a) Tennessee’s marriage licensing laws reinforce, carry forward, and make explicit the long-standing public policy of this state to recognize the family as essential to social and economic order and the common good and as the fundamental building block of our society. To that end, it is further the public policy of this state that the historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state in order to provide the unique and exclusive rights and privileges to marriage. > (b) The legal union in matrimony of only one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be the only recognized marriage in this state. > (c) Any policy, law or judicial interpretation that purports to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one (1) man and one (1) woman is contrary to the public policy of Tennessee. > (d) If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry, which marriages are prohibited in this state, any such marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.[/spoiler] > > Texas: > > [spoiler]Texas Constitution - Article 1. Bill of Rights - Section 32 - Marriage > (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. > (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage. > > Texas Family Code - TITLE 1. The marriage relationship > Chapter 2. The marriage relationship - Section 2.001. Marriage licence. > (a) A man and a woman desiring to enter into a ceremonial marriage must obtain a marriage license from the county clerk of any county of this state. > (b) A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex. > Chapter 6. Suit for dissolution of marriage - Section 6.204. Recognition of same-sex marriage of union. > > (a) In this section, “civil union” means any relationship status other than marriage that: > (1) is intended as an alternative to marriage or applies primarily to cohabitating persons; and > (2) grants to the parties of the relationship legal protections, benefits, or responsibilities granted to the spouses of a marriage. > (b) A marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union is contrary to the public policy of this state and is void in this state. > (c) The state or an agency or political subdivision of the state may not give effect to a: > (1) public act, record, or judicial proceeding that creates, recognizes, or validates a marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union in this state or in any other jurisdiction; or > (2) right or claim to any legal protection, benefit, or responsibility asserted as a result of a marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union in this state or in any other jurisdiction.[/spoiler] > > Utah: > > [spoiler]Utah Constitution - Article 01. Declaration of Rights > Section 29. Marriage. > (1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. > (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect. > > Utah Code - Title 30. Husband and Wife - Chapter 01. Marriage > 30-1-4.1. Marriage recognition policy. > (1) (a) It is the policy of this state to recognize as marriage only the legal union of a man and a woman as provided in this chapter. > (b) Except for the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman recognized pursuant to this chapter, this state will not recognize, enforce, or give legal effect to any law creating any legal status, rights, benefits, or duties that are substantially equivalent to those provided under Utah law to a man and a woman because they are married. > (2) Nothing in Subsection (1) impairs any contract or other rights, benefits, or duties that are enforceable independently of this section.[/spoiler] > > Virginia: > > [spoiler]Virginia Constitution - Article I. Bill of Rights - Section 15-A. Marriage. > That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. > This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage. > > Code of Virginia - Title 20. Domestic relations > § 20-45.2. Marriage between persons of same sex. > A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable. > § 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex. > A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.[/spoiler] > > Wisconsin: > > Wisconsin Constitution - Article XIII. Miscellaneous provisions > Section 13. Marriage. Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state. > Wisconsin Statutes - Chapter 765. The Family Code (765-768) > 765.001(2) Intent. - Extract: > … Under the laws of this state, marriage is a legal relationship between 2 equal persons, a husband and wife, who owe to each other mutual responsibility and support… > 765.01 A civil contract. > Marriage, so far as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates the legal status of husband and wife. > 765.04 Marriage abroad to circumvent the laws. > (1) If any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who is disabled or prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this state goes into another state or country and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state, such marriage shall be void for all purposes in this state with the same effect as though it had been entered into in this state. > (3) No marriage shall be contracted in this state by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another state or jurisdiction, if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other state or jurisdiction and every marriage celebrated in this state in violation of this provision shall be null and void. > 765.30 Penalties. > (1) The following may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 9 months or both: > (a) Penalty for marriage outside the state to circumvent the laws. Any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who goes outside the state and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state. > And those are just the constitutional bans. I left out the states that banned SSM without amending their state constitution. > > How could you possibly have been unaware of this? Miscommunication. It looked to me like you were talking about the attempt to make a Federal amendment. Anyhow. I’ve been a supporter of Gay marriage since before it was a thing. I don’t think government should be in the marriage business at all. To the extent that it is, there is not a single good reason to withhold the privileges of marriage from gays. I convinced abricker to change his stance on this subject way back when. But you know what? This makes me happy. I don’t see it as a Republican/Democrat thing. It’s an ignorant/non ignorant religious/non religious thing. The party lines on this issue are incidental. > [@](#): > > Lots of Democrats have called him a white supremacist who’s running concentration camps. It’s only the dark skinned ones that he’s said should be run out of the country. Do you think there’s no racial element behind him saying that to people who were born here, like Ocasio-Cortez or Pressley? I think it’s Xenophobic at best, racially tinged and arguably racist. It was a terrible statement. I don’t defend it. But no. I don’t think Trump is a racist. I think Omar is a true blue anti Semite. > [@](#): > > I guess that broad brush is okay when it’s in your hand, huh? I mean, you’re after me as a bigot because I said Republicans are more racist than Democrats, and then you post this about liberals? To be clear, I’m not mad about the broad brush - amused, mostly, since it’s so thoroughly disconnected from reality - but the hypocrisy here is a bit much. I’m a total hypocrite. Before I dive into the mudfight, I like to stand there, all clean and point out how covered in filthy everybody else is. Anyhow. I am going to stop here because I think this a stupid debate. I knew better when I started. I’ve been in this same debate too many times to think anybody participating is capable of moving off the “other guy…bad!” Platform ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/288 "2019-07-18T21:23:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Clearly not, it seems that it is hard to face the reality that you are not noticing when racism is the issue, what it does not parse is your attempt at ignoring [that telling someone to leave America comes as racist in context](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/go-back-how-racists-try-deny-my-american-heritage-my-ncna1030951), what you trying to equate to is about about a person that does not tell the “offended” party to leave America or tell others to undermine her “targets”. This doesn’t parse was saying that I could not actually make sense or understand what you were saying ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/289 "2019-07-18T21:28:25Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > In your opinion, does “personal freedom” include the right to marry who you want? First, I never said either side is or has ever been terribly consistent. In theory, this would definitely fall under the ‘freedom from government interference’ concept. But in practice, that concept is usually overridden by the idea that locals should be able to determine their own laws, and the notion that somehow, gay marriage is infringing on someone else’s religious rights. Second, it’s not symbolic logic. Pointing out an inconsistency doesn’t invalidate the whole concept. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/290 "2019-07-18T21:31:01Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I think it’s Xenophobic at best, racially tinged and arguably racist. It was a terrible statement. I don’t defend it. But no. I don’t think Trump is a racist. I think Omar is a true blue anti Semite. > **[Opinion | Trump Is Racist to the Bone (Published 2019)](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/opinion/donald-trump-racist.html)** > > Trump’s hate is evident from his jawbones down to his thumbs and little toes. > [@](#): > > Virtually every remaining bone was implicated in Trump’s early refusal to rent apartments in his buildings to blacks, leading the Nixon administration Justice Department (not exactly a pillar of liberalism) to sue him for housing discrimination in the 1970s. A former building superintendent working for Trump explained that any rent application from a black person was coded “C,” for “colored,” apparently so that the office would know to reject it. > > “Racist” is an explosive term that should never be lightly flung as an epithet, and it is more likely to end a conversation than clarify it. For a single tweet or action there is a possibility of misunderstanding or ambiguity. > > Yet for more than 45 years, since that housing discrimination, Trump has engaged in a consistent pattern of racist behavior and speech. His latest controversial tweets are not an aberration but a culmination. This isn’t a matter of a single tweet; it’s a lifetime with a narrative arc of bigotry. > > America’s history is a tapestry of innumerable threads, many of them triumphant and inspiring that we should be deeply proud of, but Trump goes out of his way to weave together two of the most shameful strands. > > One is the racism and nativism that go back to the 18th and 19th centuries, to the Philadelphia speaker who in 1844 denounced Irish immigrants as “scum unloaded on American wharves” and helped provoke anti-Catholic riots, to the waves of hysteria against African-Americans, Italians, Chinese, Jews, Japanese-Americans, Latinos and other immigrants. There is another strain of American hospitality highlighted by the Statue of Liberty and the admission of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees beginning in the 1970s, but the nativism is real — it’s why Trump’s family, alarmed by anti-German bigotry, pretended to be Swedish. > > The other thread that Trump pulls is more political: what we now call McCarthyism, although it, too, goes back to our nation’s earliest days. It vilifies opponents as enemies of the state. > [@](#): > > But the question put to Congress this week was a resolution properly condemning the presidential tirade. It was grotesque to see Republicans who had been mute at presidential bigotry suddenly protest that the backers of the resolution violated rules of decorum. > > Really? We’re left again with the question: How can members of the party of Lincoln today protest the label of racism, but not the racism itself — in a man who for 45 years has shown himself to be a racist from his mandible to his metatarsals? [/snip] > [@Scylla](#): > > Anyhow. I am going to stop here because I think this a stupid debate. I knew better when I started. I’ve been in this same debate too many times to think anybody participating is capable of moving off the “other guy…bad!” Platform You better, because, after so many years of claiming plausibly that Republicans in power were not racists the Republicans in congress are thinking now that running with the idiot ball makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/291 "2019-07-18T22:12:51Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > We gave a trillion and a half dollars to millionaires and billionaires a few months ago, didn’t bankrupt us then. We can just take that money back, revert to a pre-2018 tax environment, and pay off that college loan debt and be exactly where we are today. Sound good? You’re wrong. We didn’t give them anything, it was theirs to start with. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/292 "2019-07-18T22:27:05Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Let me try to get this clarified. > > You’re saying that, say, free college tuition for anyone who can’t afford college would be OK because it’s temporary assistance that will in many cases improve the person’s chance of getting a well paid job later on; but funding schools or job assistance for people with significant developmental disabilities would not be acceptable because they’re going to need assistance for all of their lives. > > Is that what you mean? > [@Kearsen1](#): > > Quite possibly I’d be on board with it if it didn’t bankrupt the country and got funded in a fair way sure! You’ve only addressed the first part of my question… You said your objection was based on permanent versus temporary assistance. Are you opposed to the permanent assistance suggested in the second half of that question, which I’ve quoted again in this post? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/293 "2019-07-18T22:45:04Z")
If you fight fire with Fire pretty soon everything is on fire. One of the problems with the adversarial political system is that when a question comes up to be answered one needs to ask “who is asking this question?” For example, we’re Donald Trump’s tweets xenophobic at best and racially tinged? Are they Morally wrong and abhorrent? If one were to answer “yes,” than of course the next follow question, isn’t this thing and that other thing he said also along those lines, so isn’t he in fact a racist, and since the Republicans support them and Republicans have done all these other things that are racist, aren’t republicans generally racist? How can you support racism? You should vote Democrat. If you defend it, or refuse to engage it, or try to argue that it’s not bad, than your questioner can’t go do down that road, so it’s best never to admit that you or your side ever does anything wrong. But, the bottom line is that if you wish to be a person you need to call these things out when it happens on your side. If you don’t you are just another hack. I am very much against the left these days. I think the divisive identity politics game they are playing is cynical unadulterated racism, despicable from top to bottom. I think the Democrats are hypocritical and in bad faith in their accusations of racism to such a degree that they can safely be ignored. I think Ilhan has shown herself to be a radical antisemite, time and time again. Even today she put forth a resolution to support BDS an organization that Nancy Pelosi publically recognized as blatantly and openly anti-Semitic. I think it is shameful of the Democrats not to hold her account, to defend her, I think the resolution that they made a month or so ago to condemn hate in general rather than to specifically recognize the anti Semitic sentiments was an act of pure political cowardice. She is a duly elected member of Congress, and she is a citizen and we dont Deport citizens because we don’t like what they say, no matter how vile. Trump’s tweets were wrong. That chanting was an ugly moment. Trump could have and should have rebuked the crowd. I have found his character to be disgusting since before he was elected. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/294 "2019-07-18T22:48:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Most people prefer not be disemboweled. Which is why I don’t need care about people who want to do it to me. > [@](#): > > That’s the funny thing about extreme libertarians. They can only exist in a system which protects them even as they argue the system should be eliminated. The system doesn’t protect me. The system is an aggressor towards me and many others. Please do more research on all of the peaceful imprisoned people the system is protecting. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/295 "2019-07-18T22:50:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is like claiming that anecdote **should** be data. Since that is not done your reply is really useless and irrelevant. > > In the real world that is not looked at, and the data shows that flat tax proposals will harm the less wealthy more. > > [GOP 'simple' flat tax proposals simply do not add up](https://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/11/gop-simple-flat-tax-proposals-simply-do-not-add-up.html) Once again your bookmarked citation doesn’t quite fit. Good effort though. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/296 "2019-07-18T22:54:11Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Once again your bookmarked citation doesn’t quite fit. Good effort though. Irrelevant retort too. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/297 "2019-07-18T23:21:34Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I was thinking of something else. I stand corrected. Yes, that was racist of you. Congratulations. Right, so, we’re back at, “Pointing out the racism of the right makes you the REAL racist?” Cool, cool. > [@](#): > > Race baiting and pandering from the left. That’s one answer. I’ll give the next when you ask me again 2 seconds. Ah, so the reason 90% of black people vote Democrat is that most black people are stupid enough to fall for our pandering and race baiting? Interesting take! We must be super-good at it, to convince them to vote for the most racist party in America! Weird how we seem to be so bad at it in other areas, though, doesn’t it? It’s like, we’re really good at pulling the wool over the eyes of blacks and queers, but somehow, can’t quite pull it off with all the white folk. You’d almost have to think that white people are just inherently smarter - I mean, if we’re taking your assertion here at face value, of course. > [@](#): > > Answer #2. Why do you assume it has anything to do with race? This is just bad bad logic. Bad assumptions. > > Let’s follow through with your logic and see where this gets you. > > Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately represented in the Democratic Party. They are also disproportionately represented in the prison system being incarcerated for violent crimes, including rape and murder. Therefore, the Democratic Party is the party of rape and murder. > > Do you agree with this argument? That’s your fucking argument, that’s your logic. > > I don’t. That’s not the logic I used to reach the conclusion that the Republican party is deeply, deeply racist. The logic I used to reach that conclusion was looking at the policies they support, the candidates they vote for, and the things they actually say. And, again, the political polarization among blacks isn’t just “disproportionate.” _Ninety percent_ of black people vote Democrat. Ninety! You can’t honestly believe that none of that represents problems with race in the Republican party! > [@](#): > > I agree. The left is focused on race and gender and sexual preference and trying to breed dissent for political gain instead of just living and progressing and getting along. There is no comparison. It’s disgusting. It’s 100% a response to Republican aggression. There’s nothing inherent in being gay that makes you support a social safety net, or a progressive tax rate. There’s tons and tons of gays that would love to vote for a fiscally conservative party. Most of them still vote Democrat, because the Republican hostility toward queer people is relentless. Opposition to civil rights for gays is literally a plank in the Republican platform. The same goes for being black, or Hispanic, or Muslim. Again, _the party of Lincoln can’t get black voters._ A hundred years ago, that wasn’t the case: in much of the country, it was literally the opposite. How did the Republican party lose the support of African Americans so completely? How can you be so absolutely, completely certain that it has nothing at all to do with Republican attitudes towards minorities? Muslims and Hispanics tend to come from cultures that are _hugely_ conservative. More Hispanics Catholics would rather vote for Democratic baby-killers than the pro-life party. How are Republicans bungling representation there so badly, given that they’re so clearly the more racially progressive party? > [@](#): > > All of it. Yes (log cabin Republicans, etc.) yes(and Democrats.) No, but not by much. Log Cabin Republicans, eh? Great guys, great guys. Hey, remember when they donated a grand to Bob Dole’s campaign, and he returned it? Republican hatred of gays is so deep seated that it can get a politician to _give back money._ How many of them are there, anyway? How many of them hold elected office as Republicans? Do you know how many gay Republicans sought office in 2018? Turns out zero! This represents a staggering drop from 2016, when there were three. Democrats, of course, had upwards of 20, in addition to the seven openly gay members already in Congress. The Republicans, by contrast, have _never_ elected an openly gay candidate. What queer representative they do have, came out after they were elected - usually involuntarily after they were caught in some sort of sex scandal. But I’m sure the total lack of queer Republican candidates has nothing to do with official Republican party policy towards gay rights. Meanwhile, Democrats are running the first openly LGBT presidential candidate, ever, and the main concern about him is that he’s inexperienced. Democrats champion laws that protect the rights and safety of queer people - Republicans oppose those laws across the board, naturally. We’re putting trans people in statehouses - Republicans are kicking them out of the military and are trying to legislate where they’re allowed to pee. Obama passed a lot of protections for gay people through executive order - he could do it legislatively because of Republican obstruction, which meant that there was nothing stopping the next Republican president from reversing those orders once in office. Which, of course, Trump did. But yeah, the two parties are basically the same when it comes to gay rights. > [@](#): > > Context of your quote suggested to me you were referring to a Federal Constitutional change. Simple misunderstanding. > > Miscommunication. It looked to me like you were talking about the attempt to make a Federal amendment. Totally understandable. I mean, I literally said “in their states” right there, but okay. I’d actually forgotten about the federal amendment to ban gay marriage that Mitt Romney ran on. Thanks for the reminder! Doesn’t do wonders for your argument that, as recently as 2012, the presumptive leader of the Republican party was campaigning to establish anti-gay bigotry in the highest law of the land, though. Or are you going to explain to me how opposition to gay marriage isn’t related to prejudice against gay people? > [@](#): > > Anyhow. I’ve been a supporter of Gay marriage since before it was a thing. I don’t think government should be in the marriage business at all. To the extent that it is, there is not a single good reason to withhold the privileges of marriage from gays. I convinced abricker to change his stance on this subject way back when. That’s genuinely great. Good for you, and I mean that entirely without sarcasm. But the issue isn’t you, it’s the Republican party, and the American right in general. > [@](#): > > But you know what? This makes me happy. I don’t see it as a Republican/Democrat thing. It’s an ignorant/non ignorant religious/non religious thing. The party lines on this issue are incidental. [And that’s just plain ignorant.](https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/) The political division on this issue is as stark as you could ask for. (Well, not as stark as the political division among African Americans, and you’re already ignoring that, so…) 71% of solid democrats support SSM. Only 37% of Republicans support it. Both numbers get better when you include people who “lean” one way or the other, but Republicans still don’t crack 50%. And even among Republicans who things SSM is okay, opposition to it still isn’t enough to hurt a Republican candidates chances of being elected. > [@](#): > > I think it’s Xenophobic at best, racially tinged and arguably racist. It was a terrible statement. I don’t defend it. But no. I don’t think Trump is a racist. I think Omar is a true blue anti Semite. So, Omar criticizing Israel is enough for you to label her a “true blue” (cute) anti-Semite, but you’re still not convinced that Trump is a racist, despite… well, take your pick. The wall? Attacking that judge for being of Mexican descent? “Shithole” countries? The Muslim ban? The attacks on Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats of color? That time he was literally convicted in court of racial discrimination? At least you’re open about your double standard. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/298 "2019-07-18T23:43:49Z")
Stark difference between the **Scylla** of 2000 and the **Scylla** of today. The 2000 version would never have defended this kind of right-wing bigotry, period. I’m sad to say that no, the **Scylla** of 2019 is NOT better than this. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/299 "2019-07-19T00:30:38Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Stark difference between the **Scylla** of 2000 and the **Scylla** of today. The 2000 version would never have defended this kind of right-wing bigotry, period. I’m sad to say that no, the **Scylla** of 2019 is NOT better than this. 1. What exactly am I defending? I have gone out of my way to point out how poorly I feel about Trump’s comments and the chants last night. 2. Really? You are going to show up in a thread that is jus naked Republican bashing, ignore everything else has said and chastise me for defending… what am I defending. 3. My whole point is that this self-congratulatory better than them, aren’t the other guys immoral and bad, ignores the failings of the left in this same regard. Go point out how Ilhan Omar’s anti-semitism and the Democrats’ defense of it is reprehensible. Go denounce the Antifa attack on a journalist, their takeover of Oregon, their bombing of a detention center filled with immigrants. Say something about the absurd number of specious accusations being bandied about by the left as race baiting and pandering, congratulate the Republicans for kicking King off the commute assignments. In short, show that you actually have an even standard that you are applying consistently and not just when it is convenient politically, and then maybe I will take your chastisement of me as worthy of considering. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2019, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176/300 "2019-07-19T00:48:16Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 1. What exactly am I defending? I have gone out of my way to point out how poorly I feel about Trump’s comments and the chants last night. > > 2. Really? You are going to show up in a thread that is jus naked Republican bashing, ignore everything else has said and chastise me for defending… what am I defending. > > 3. My whole point is that this self-congratulatory better than them, aren’t the other guys immoral and bad, ignores the failings of the left in this same regard. Go point out how Ilhan Omar’s anti-semitism and the Democrats’ defense of it is reprehensible. Go denounce the Antifa attack on a journalist, their takeover of Oregon, their bombing of a detention center filled with immigrants. Say something about the absurd number of specious accusations being bandied about by the left as race baiting and pandering, congratulate the Republicans for kicking King off the commute assignments. In short, show that you actually have an even standard that you are applying consistently and not just when it is convenient politically, and then maybe I will take your chastisement of me as worthy of considering. You’ve continually ignored how Democratic officials have handled misconduct (whether bigoted statements by one of their members or mistreatment of women) orders of magnitude better than Republicans. Omar recognized her mistake and apologized for it, after heavy criticism from her fellow Democrats. Trump has never recognized his bigoted statements or apologized for them, and almost every Republican official has continually defended him and his bigoted statements. Democrats have actually booted their own abusers of women (in the last few years – before that, they were as bad as Republicans), Republicans elevate and celebrate Trump. The Democrats are very far from perfect, but they are orders of magnitude superior, morally speaking, than the Republican party in the present. Democrats condemn and expel abusers of women; Republicans elevate and celebrate them. Democrats generally chastise and apologize for bigotry within their ranks; Republicans generally defend and rationalize bigotry within their ranks. Your characterization of the parties is highly inaccurate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conservative-values-arent-based-on-bigotry/837176.md?page=16)