Author Wants Southern States To Secede Over Gay Rights, Name New Country 'Reagan'

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Reagan? A more fitting name for this religious nutcase nation would be XXXXXX

Don't let the door bump you in the ####### on the way out

Nice end run around the word filter

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Reagan? A more fitting name for this religious nutcase nation would be Dumbfcukistan.

It amazes me that there are nuts like this out there.

[Rob L 3,811]

Conservative columnist and former Reagan administration aide Douglas MacKinnon is out with a new book calling for Southern states to secede…again.

...

MacKinnon called for a movement of states, starting with South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, to establish a new country that will adhere to the Religious Right’s political agenda.

Texas, MacKinnon explained, was not included in his secessionist blueprint because “there have been a number of incursions into Texas and other places from some of the folks in Mexico.”

...

MacKinnon ... even proposed an “interim name” for the ultraconservative breakaway nation: “Reagan.”

MacKinnon specifically cited advances in gay rights as a reason for Southern states to leave the U.S. and create a new country.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/author-wants-southern-states-secede-over-gay-rights-name-new-country-reagan

I am not sure people in the south are ready for a Theocracy. It appears the times, they are a changing

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-souths-stunning-embrace-of-gay-marriage/284306/

Forty-eight percent of Texans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, compared to 49 percent who oppose. Support for same-sex marriage among Texans has doubled during the last 10 years, up from 24 percent a decade ago according to a 2003 poll from Pew Research Center. And despite Texans’ pride in being “like a whole other country,” Texas is no outlier among southern states. In the South overall, support for same-sex marriage has similarly risen from 22 percent in 2003 to 48 percent in 2013.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I was under the impression that Texas had more gun nuts than religious nuts.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I am not sure people in the south are ready for a Theocracy. It appears the times, they are a changing

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-souths-stunning-embrace-of-gay-marriage/284306/

Forty-eight percent of Texans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, compared to 49 percent who oppose. Support for same-sex marriage among Texans has doubled during the last 10 years, up from 24 percent a decade ago according to a 2003 poll from Pew Research Center. And despite Texans’ pride in being “like a whole other country,” Texas is no outlier among southern states. In the South overall, support for same-sex marriage has similarly risen from 22 percent in 2003 to 48 percent in 2013.

The anti-gay movement is on life support. States are falling like flies.

[Rob L 3,811]

I was under the impression that Texas had more gun nuts than religious nuts.

one in the same in Texas, concealed weapons are allowed at church

[GandD 5,966]

Guys, I gave you a warning to stop. A "tap on the shoulder" as the Natureboy described it. I'm giving you ample rope here yet it is continuing. But I will be nice. One more comment like the ones both sides are making and mod action will be taken. The severity will be determined by the infraction. I also wouldn't suggest trying to argue with me about it.

I have removed multiple posts above.

Edited October 25, 2014 by GandD

[GBCW 397]

You are projecting weakness with these repeated warnings. Take it from someone who loves to mess with moderation.

[Rich and Wen 101]

To get back to the original topic of this post, let's imagine for a minute that the issue was about a black person and a white person (heterosexuals) marrying. Do those super-religious cake bakers have the right to refuse them? How about a super-religious apartment manager refusing to rent to them? How about being arrested by the police for being together?

I can remember when such things did happen in this country, when protesters had dogs sicced on them, high pressure water sprayed on them. Fortunately this no longer happens, and fortunately in 20 or 40 years, the gay rights controversy will be history as well.

It bears noting, that judges who lean conservative, as well as those who lean liberal, have struck down those laws as unconstitutional. The checks and balances written into the Constitution, remember?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To get back to the original topic of this post, let's imagine for a minute that the issue was about a black person and a white person (heterosexuals) marrying. Do those super-religious cake bakers have the right to refuse them? How about a super-religious apartment manager refusing to rent to them? How about being arrested by the police for being together?

I can remember when such things did happen in this country, when protesters had dogs sicced on them, high pressure water sprayed on them. Fortunately this no longer happens, and fortunately in 20 or 40 years, the gay rights controversy will be history as well.

It bears noting, that judges who lean conservative, as well as those who lean liberal, have struck down those laws as unconstitutional. The checks and balances written into the Constitution, remember?

I don't think anyone has a right to use their prejudices to infringe on the rights of others.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Guys, I gave you a warning to stop. A "tap on the shoulder" as the Natureboy described it. I'm giving you ample rope here yet it is continuing. But I will be nice. One more comment like the ones both sides are making and mod action will be taken. The severity will be determined by the infraction. I also wouldn't suggest trying to argue with me about it.

I have removed multiple posts above.

If you're addressing me and HM, I think you may be off base. I don't think we were saying anything wrong. I know he said nothing I took offense to, and I don't think he was upset with me. If it isn't us, then disregard.

At any rate, the bread is rising, so I'm back for awhile. Let's discuss!!

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I don't think anyone has a right to use their prejudices to infringe on the rights of others.

True statement. But often times the lines between prejudices, facts, and even human rights become blurred. Especially when you throw religious beliefs into the mix.

Don't think I weighed in as to the OP yet... I think it's just silly. Secession in the US? Not likely. Over gay rights? Never.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, it won't happen but its funny the issue keeps coming up.

[GandD 5,966]

There's nothing to discuss, personal attacks are against TOS, regardless of wether or not someone is offended by it. Make another one and pay the price.

Edited October 25, 2014 by GandD

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

There's nothing to discuss, personal attacks are against TOS, regardless of wether or not someone is offended by it. Make another one and pay the price.

Who specifically are you talking to ? When posts get delted and general comments made sometimes we get confused.

Ps Whether has an H in it.. It so rare I get to be on the pointing out end of that