If this doesn't make republicans jump ship

[CarmelHP]

Quote:


The government shouldn't even be in the "marriage business".

Up until the latter part of the 1800's, it wasn't.
"Marriage licenses" in the USA were first used to control inter-racial marriages.<emphasis added>

Here in Indiana, when doing genealogical research, i don't start finding them until the late 1800's.

Additionally, if you look up the history of marriage licenses, it is mentioned that it was used to control inter-racial marriages.
Massachusetts doesn't define everywhere.

What, now you want to change what you said? You said the first use of marriage licenses was to control interracial marriages and you certainly said nothing of Indiana. Maybe that was one use, but not until the 20th century. The first use was 500 years prior to that in Europe and 300 years prior to that time in, at least, one North American colony. My second peeve is how when someone on here gets caught in a blatant falsehood, intentional or unintentional, they try to claim they said something other than what they actually claimed.

 

[rthatchjr]

I think it's funny that after all of the conservative principles that the party has abandoned, this will be the straw that breaks the camels back for some.

I agree, I do not see much difference anymore, I am a firm believer in the Tea Party though, I believe they are our last hope, politically anyway.

 

[steveh_131]

You've said nothing I disagree with. That's exactly the reasoning I apply to elections.

I can understand your purpose in pointing out my inconsistency, but I disagree with it.

This is a philosophical discussion about the greater of two evils. It relies on the assumption that I have to choose between those two and those two alone. I stated clearly that given a third option, I would gladly choose it.

Voting is not a philosophical discussion, and I don't have only two options. I can choose the man I think is best fit for the job.

We agree on principle, but we disagree on the effects. In terms of liberty, the two main parties end up in nearly a wash for me. There are a few small issues where the R's are better (Supreme Court Justices?) But even that example fell flat when the last R appointee ruled in favor of Obamacare.

So I see more benefit in expending my vote to show both parties that I reject their anti-liberty stances, in the hopes that they will choose candidates who are pro-liberty enough that I can vote for them.

Just as pragmatic as your view, but with a different perspective.

 

[Bunnykid68]

What, now you want to change what you said? You said the first use of marriage licenses was to control interracial marriages and you certainly said nothing of Indiana. Maybe that was one use, but not until the 20th century. The first use was 500 years prior to that in Europe and 300 years prior to that time in, at least, one North American colony. My second peeve is how when someone on here gets caught in a blatant falsehood, intentional or unintentional, they try to claim they said something other than what they actually claimed.

I will be honest, every time I have ever mention the inter racial part of the marriage license I have always been talking about the USA, never even gave it any thought to prior to that because I am usually talking about our government.

 

[rambone]

In terms of liberty, the two main parties end up in nearly a wash for me. There are a few small issues where the R's are better (Supreme Court Justices?) But even that example fell flat when the last R appointee ruled in favor of Obamacare.

Both the Red Team and the Blue Team have been producing freedom-hating justices for longer than any of us have been around. These are just a handful of recent cases, none of which would have been possible without support of Republican justices who hold the majority.


Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
Government can seize private property from an individual and give it away to a private company.
Decision: 5-4 (Affirmed by 3 Republicans)

Kentucky v. King (2011)
Government can kick down a door and perform a warrantless search if the officer claims to smell criminal activity. Read More
Decision: 8-1 (Affirmed by all 5 Republicans)

Florida v. Harris (2013)
Unaccountable animals may be used to generate probable cause for a search. Read More
Decision: 9-0 (Affirmed by all 5 Republicans)

Arizona v. Gant (2009)
Warrants are not needed when officers claim that their safety may be in question, or they are looking for evidence of the crime for which they have just made an arrest. Read More
Decision: 5-4 (Affirmed by 4 Republicans)

Rehberg v. Paulk (2011)
False police reports and fabrication of evidence does not violate the Constitution. Read More
Decision: 9-0 (Affirmed by all 5 Republicans)

Florence v. County of Burlington (2012)
Anyone arrested for any reason, however minor, may be strip searched in jail, even without any reason to suspect that they have contraband. Read More
Decision: 5-4 (Affirmed by all 5 Republicans)

 

[Degtyaryov]

Good, it's about time. The conservatives are on the wrong side of history on this matter, and they need to move past it if they want to have any chance of winning elections in the future. It's a total non issue.

 

[CarmelHP]

Good, it's about time. The conservatives are on the wrong side of history on this matter, and they need to move past it if they want to have any chance of winning elections in the future. It's a total non issue.

If it's the "wrong side of history" then the states can easily address it, right? I'm willing to let "history" speak for itself.

 

[Liberty1911]

Good, it's about time. The conservatives are on the wrong side of history on this matter, and they need to move past it if they want to have any chance of winning elections in the future. It's a total non issue.

I guess you mean 4000 years of history where homosexuality was considered wrong.

 

[RockofStrength]

I guess you mean 4000 years of history where homosexuality was considered wrong.

Actually homosexuality has been considered perfectly fine to a majority of nations across history. Judaism didn't ban it back in the days of Moses because the cultures around them hated homosexuals. Some, like the Greeks, were even alright with pederasty and openly practiced it, considering it to be a rite of manhood. Thus why making moral decisions based upon the desires of the majority is an incredibly bad idea.

 

[Degtyaryov]

If it's the "wrong side of history" then the states can easily address it, right? I'm willing to let "history" speak for itself.

If the RNC were to declare it a state's rights issue and back off their current platform of demanding a constitutional amendment banning it, it would be a huge improvement, I'll grant you that.

 

[CarmelHP]

Actually homosexuality has been considered perfectly fine to a majority of nations across history. Judaism didn't ban it back in the days of Moses because the cultures around them hated homosexuals. Some, like the Greeks, were even alright with pederasty and openly practiced it, considering it to be a rite of manhood. Thus why making moral decisions based upon the desires of the majority is an incredibly bad idea.

Though irrelevant to the debate, it's not true. The Greeks would tolerate homosexuality but it was frowned up, and the tolerance was limited. It was tolerated for a lower class male to be buggered by an upper class male but not the reverse. The practice was considered to be taking the role of a woman, an inferior, and there were social sanctions for lowering oneself to be used by a male of lower social rank. The pagans surrounding Israel generally were of a like opinion to the Greeks. The ancient Hebrews considered homosexual intercourse, or heterosexual intercourse outside marriage, to be capital offenses. Hebrew scripture had prohibitions on homosexual sex, and many more on deviant or extramarital heterosexual sex practices. Saying it was approved just isn't true, and any acceptance was very conditional, but that is, ultimately, inapposite to the Constitutional issue.

 

[RockofStrength]

Though irrelevant to the debate, it's not true. The Greeks would tolerate homosexuality but it was frowned up, and the tolerance was limited. It was tolerated for a lower class male to be buggered by an upper class male but not the reverse. The practice was considered to be taking the role of a woman, an inferior, and there were social sanctions for lowering oneself to be used by a male of lower social rank. The pagans surrounding Israel generally were of a like opinion to the Greeks. The ancient Hebrews considered homosexual intercourse, or heterosexual intercourse outside marriage, to be capital offenses. Hebrew scripture had prohibitions on homosexual sex, and many more on deviant or extramarital heterosexual sex practices. Saying it was approved just isn't true, and any acceptance was very conditional, but that is, ultimately, inapposite to the Constitutional issue.

I stand corrected.

 

[Sfrandolph]

Political parties are diseased and need to be banned.