Statist Lee Bright:Freaks Out About Gay Marriage During Confederate Flag Debate

[Vanguard101]

Dude is a moron. I can't believe I ever supported this fraud

This is what a loser sounds like.

Today, during the South Carolina Legislature’s debate on whether to remove the Confederate flag from the State Capitol, Republican Senator Lee Bright attempted to sideline the issue at hand by calling for a debate on gay marriage. No one listened despite Bright’s insistent, three-minute rant that included statements like, “We can rally together and talk about a flag all we want, but the devil is taking control of this land and we’re not stopping him!” and “We talk about abortion, but this gay marriage thing, I believe, we will be one nation gone under. Like President Reagan said, ‘If we’re not one nation under God, we’ll be one nation gone under.’” C-SPAN broadcast the debate live.

That Bright is flailing for relevance in light of the recent Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide should come as no surprise. He’s the type to whine in public the homosexual “agenda” and “indoctrination”—he did that alongside morality bastion Josh Duggar last year on C-SPAN. Bright also recently announced he’d be offering Confederate flag bumper stickers to campaign contributors for the sake of combatting “radical liberals.”

Toward the end of his rant today, he began one sentence by saying, “Now I believe that Christ teaches us to love the homosexual...” I’mma cut you off right there to tell you that you’re a terrible lover, Lee Bright.

Link to video: http://morningafter.gawker.com/senat...rat-1716006154

[angelatc]

Says a guy posting Gawker links? Lee Bright is a small government socially conservative Southern politician. He is not what's wrong in the South.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Moron? Statist? Fraud? Isn't this the man that many people here vehemently supported against Graham...even though Graham had no real challenge from any of his challengers?

[Vanguard101]

Says a guy posting Gawker links? Lee Bright is a small government socially conservative Southern politician. He is not what's wrong in the South.

Yes he is. Oh so small government until he wants to cry about the state legalizing marriage. Oh so small government but supported Bachmann over Paul. Oh so small government but supports Cruz over Rand. Oh and his "SOUTHERN PRIDE THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT!!"

[William Tell]

Moron? Statist? Fraud? Isn't this the man that many people here vehemently supported against Graham...even though Graham had no real challenge from any of his challengers?

If your kind had your way Brat never would have ran, and we would still have Eric Cantor.

[jj-]

Yes he is. Oh so small government until he wants to cry about the state legalizing marriage.Oh so small government but supported Bachmann over Paul. Oh so small government but supports Cruz over Rand. Oh and his "SOUTHERN PRIDE THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT!!"

You're a statist. The state should have nothing to do with defining marriage or saying which contracts are called marriage.

[Vanguard101]

You're a statist. The state should have nothing to do with defining marriage or saying which contracts are called marriage.

Then why does he want gay marriage banned? Do you even understand what he's saying. Man shut up. I swear this page is more social con than libertarian. It's ridiculous.

[jj-]

No, saying that the state shouldn't define what marriage is is the pro liberty position. You sound like one of those Social Justice Warriors libertarians.

[Vanguard101]

No, saying that the state shouldn't define what marriage is is the pro liberty position. You sound like one of those Social Justice Warriors libertarians.

But he's trying to BAN GAY MARRIAGE. Do you not understand this?

[Vanguard101]

No, saying that the state shouldn't define what marriage is is the pro liberty position. You sound like one of those Social Justice Warriors libertarians.

But he's trying to BAN GAY MARRIAGE. Do you not understand this? Are you really trying to suggest the current ruling was better than allowing states to ban gay marriage? Man you statists are annoying.

[jj-]

If he is a statist, that doesn't mean you aren't a statist.

Is the gay marriage ruling better? I don't know, because it carries with it violations of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to refuse customers, etc. That you can just conclude it is better while all these freedoms are being obliterated shows you are a statist.

[Vanguard101]

If he is a statist, that doesn't mean you aren't a statist.

Is the gay marriage ruling better? I don't know, because it carries with it violations of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to refuse customers, etc. That you can just conclude it is better while all these freedoms are being obliterated shows you are a statist.

How does it grant that? There is nothing in their ruling that allows for businesses to be forced to serve gays. Even if it did, when did I say I agreed with that. This is about MARRIAGE. Not what you think the state will do next. You continue to dodge the fact that he wants gay marriage banned and attack me for that. Lol go ahead and cry about how you still support this statist.

[jj-]

Defining the meaning of marriage is not the role of the state. You're a statist for supporting that.

[Vanguard101]

Defining the meaning of marriage is not the role of the state. You're a statist for supporting that.

Quote me where I said the state should define marriage.

[Mr.NoSmile]

If your kind had your way Brat never would have ran, and we would still have Eric Cantor.

Huh. I have a kind and way? Glad you figured that out before I did. Or just came up with it. Whatever works for you.

[TaftFan]

But he's trying to BAN GAY MARRIAGE. Do you not understand this? Are you really trying to suggest the current ruling was better than allowing states to ban gay marriage? Man you statists are annoying.

Do you not know the difference between banning and not licensing?

[Sola_Fide]

Dude is a moron. I can't believe I ever supported this fraud

This is what a loser sounds like.

Today, during the South Carolina Legislature’s debate on whether to remove the Confederate flag from the State Capitol, Republican Senator Lee Bright attempted to sideline the issue at hand by calling for a debate on gay marriage. No one listened despite Bright’s insistent, three-minute rant that included statements like, “We can rally together and talk about a flag all we want, but the devil is taking control of this land and we’re not stopping him!” and “We talk about abortion, but this gay marriage thing, I believe, we will be one nation gone under. Like President Reagan said, ‘If we’re not one nation under God, we’ll be one nation gone under.’” C-SPAN broadcast the debate live.

That Bright is flailing for relevance in light of the recent Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide should come as no surprise. He’s the type to whine in public the homosexual “agenda” and “indoctrination”—he did that alongside morality bastion Josh Duggar last year on C-SPAN. Bright also recently announced he’d be offering Confederate flag bumper stickers to campaign contributors for the sake of combatting “radical liberals.”

Toward the end of his rant today, he began one sentence by saying, “Now I believe that Christ teaches us to love the homosexual...” I’mma cut you off right there to tell you that you’re a terrible lover, Lee Bright.

Link to video: http://morningafter.gawker.com/senat...rat-1716006154

No, Lee Bright is one of the better ones.

[Sola_Fide]

Defining the meaning of marriage is not the role of the state. You're a statist for supporting that.

Agree.

[Sola_Fide]

If he is a statist, that doesn't mean you aren't a statist.

Is the gay marriage ruling better? I don't know, because it carries with it violations of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to refuse customers, etc. That you can just conclude it is better while all these freedoms are being obliterated shows you are a statist.

Yes, you're exactly right.

[Danke]

You're a statist.

Generally that is what a "progressive" is.

[Vanguard101]

Do you not know the difference between banning and not licensing?

What's the difference under the law?

[juleswin]

What's the difference under the law?

Its sort of like a doctor without a license, he can give medical advise at parties, blogs and message boards but when he tries to benefit from the knowledge by setting up a shop, then he would encounter the ban. There is more to marriage license than the benefits.

The same people who tell you that govt shouldn't be in the business of redefining marriage stays mum while govt defines marriages as the union of 1 man and 1 woman. The Christians also stayed mum when govt changed the definition to include interracial marriages, again stayed mum when govt started allowing no fault divorces which are illegal in the catholic faith. Their silence in the other cases when govt redefined marriages tell you all you need to know when all of a sudden they find it objectionable when they made allowances for the gays.

[Vanguard101]

Its sort of like a doctor without a license, he can give medical advise at parties, blogs and message boards but when he tries to benefit from the knowledge by setting up a shop, then he would encounter the ban. There is more to marriage license than the benefits.

The same people who tell you that govt shouldn't be in the business of redefining marriage stays mum while govt defines marriages as the union of 1 man and 1 woman. The Christians also stayed mum when govt changed the definition to include interracial marriages, again stayed mum when govt started allowing no fault divorces which are illegal in the catholic faith. Their silence in the other cases when govt redefined marriages tell you all you need to know when all of a sudden they find it objectionable when they made allowances for the gays.

All of this.

[Brett85]

Then why does he want gay marriage banned? Do you even understand what he's saying. Man shut up. I swear this page is more social con than libertarian. It's ridiculous.

Libertarianism is not simply a combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. If it were, then you could call someone like Susan Collins a "libertarian."

[TaftFan]

What's the difference under the law?

People can call themselves married if they want, they just won't receive government approval.

You can make an equal protection argument, but you can't say that gay marriage is banned.

[juleswin]

Libertarianism is not simply a combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. If it were, then you could call someone like Susan Collins a "libertarian."

Susan Collins a fiscal conservative? I could have sworn that she was part of the big government, big spending republican senatorial gang.

Also one doesn't have to be "liberal" on social issues, you just have to be small govt about it regardless of your personal beliefs. Essentially, you have to take a "live and let live" stance of things that doesn't directly affect you. Sorta like the same way Ron supports drug legalization even though he opposes the use of said drugs

[William Tell]

People can call themselves married if they want, they just won't receive government approval.

I really don't know why people don't get this. The way the liberals wail and moan you'd think homosexuality was illegal.

[Sola_Fide]

Its sort of like a doctor without a license, he can give medical advise at parties, blogs and message boards but when he tries to benefit from the knowledge by setting up a shop, then he would encounter the ban. There is more to marriage license than the benefits.

The same people who tell you that govt shouldn't be in the business of redefining marriage stays mum while govt defines marriages as the union of 1 man and 1 woman. The Christians also stayed mum when govt changed the definition to include interracial marriages, again stayed mum when govt started allowing no fault divorces which are illegal in the catholic faith. Their silence in the other cases when govt redefined marriages tell you all you need to know when all of a sudden they find it objectionable when they made allowances for the gays.

You say "the Christians" as if there weren't scores of Christians (like me) who have always been against marriage licenses. The silence that you will show when religious liberties are stamped out will say everything about where you stand for freedom. And how short sighted you are, because it will come back to your freedom as well in due time.

[juleswin]

You say "the Christians" as if there weren't scores of Christians (like me) who have always been against marriage licenses. The silence that you will show when religious liberties are stamped out will say everything about where you stand for freedom. And how short sighted you are, because it will come back to your freedom as well in due time.

Scores when there are supposed to be millions of people. I figure you would have come out against it when the govt started issuing no fault divorces, you are not a hypocrite onth is issue, you are as hardcore in your christian faith as they get. But I am speaking about the rest of the Christian population now protesting when gay marriage was recognized by the courts but did nothing when govt did virtually the same by introducing no fault divorces. This has caused the break up of million of families and the impact to the children cannot be measured.

I would love to see a movement that pushes for the reversal of all the govt tampering with in the institution of marriage.

[Vanguard101]

People can call themselves married if they want, they just won't receive government approval.

You can make an equal protection argument, but you can't say that gay marriage is banned.

Have you ever asked a gay person if they felt that way. I'm sure they would say otherwise. That's basically like saying interracial marriage wasn't banned in the Jim Crow era.

Libertarianism is not simply a combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. If it were, then you could call someone like Susan Collins a "libertarian."

That's your interpretation.