If this doesn't make republicans jump ship

[hornadylnl]

Once 'inconceivable,' Republican leaders sign pro-gay marriage brief - U.S. News

I wonder how many Romney voters will ditch the republican party over this?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

They're probably just trying to beckon that vast LP voting block back to the RP.

 

[cobber]

Just leaving it up to the States, like education and health, would be sufficient.

 

[hornadylnl]

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.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

:shrug:

The line between Democrat, Reublican, and Libertarian just blurred a little more.

 

[hornadylnl]

:shrug:

The line between Democrat, Reublican, and Libertarian just blurred a little more.

I guess it'll depend on how much republican voters hate Hillary. Many of them were more than willing to sacrifice their conservative principles to vote for Romney in the name of defeating Obama.

 

[cobber]

I guess it'll depend on how much republican voters hate Hillary. Many of them were more than willing to sacrifice their conservative principles to vote for Romney in the name of defeating Obama.

Last November if you did not want to see O returning to the White House, your choices were what exactly?

The election, unfortunately or not, is not the place to wage the battles of principle.

 

[hornadylnl]

Last November if you did not want to see O returning to the White House, your choices were what exactly?

The election, unfortunately or not, is not the place to wage the battles of principle.

Apparently the primary isn't either. Romney won.

 

[NavyVet]

I find it truly amazing that the word 'principle' is being used throughout this thread and not once does it appear in purple.

Nobody runs on principles, they run on money. He who has the money, establishes the principles. Unfortunately those that have the money are all thinking alike, leaving us no options. We can talk about the lessor of two evils in an election, but I for one, am extremely tired of voting against someone. Give me an option, I can vote FOR.

 

[Liberty1911]

I think you're creating a strawman. Surprise.

Those are individual republicans signing the brief, most of whom are no longer even in office.

When the Republican Party endorses homosexual marriage in their party platform like Libertarians and Democrats, then you'll have an actual comparison instead of a poorly constructed strawman.

In the meantime, people who vote republican can evaluate the candidates individually without "abandoning the party".

It just goes to show you though, how many republican candidates are RINO's in elephant's clothing and feel free to come out of the closet once they are no longer up for reelection.

Oh, and I'm sorry but I won't be able to give you another confirmed strawman kill since this one was so poorly constructed.

 

[thatgtrguy]

This is just ramp up to 2016. So the GOP candidate can talk all soft and moderate in the campaign then go back to discriminating based on sexual orientation once they get in office.

 

[edporch]

Once 'inconceivable,' Republican leaders sign pro-gay marriage brief - U.S. News

I wonder how many Romney voters will ditch the republican party over this?

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.

Up until that time, you just went to your church, had a minister perform the ceremony and got a "Marriage Certificate" from the church.
Or you just had a common law marriage.

Many marriages are going back to this, and making their own legal agreements to keep the government from making their marriage a "threesome".

If one believes in God, they know their vows to each other and to God is what creates the marriage.

Then through legal agreements, powers of attorney, joint ownership of property, wills, etc, they can take care of the "earthly" details.

There's never been any reason that homosexual couples can't do the same thing.

 

[hornadylnl]

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.

Up until that time, you just went to your church, had a minister perform the ceremony and got a "Marriage Certificate" from the church.
Or you just had a common law marriage.

Many marriages are going back to this, and making their own legal agreements to keep the government from making their marriage a "threesome".

If one believes in God, they know their vows to each other and to God is what creates the marriage.

Then through legal agreements, powers of attorney, joint ownership of property, wills, etc, they can take care of the "earthly" details.

There's never been any reason that homosexual couples can't do the same thing.

This. The reason the government is in marriage is because the statists want to control your bedroom.

 

[sgtonory]

Just leaving it up to the States, like education and health, would be sufficient.

Why not leave it up to yourself? What is a "state"? And how can it make choices for you?

 

[AtTheMurph]

Repups and Dems are, once you peel away the rhetoric, the same. Just more proof.

 

[CarmelHP]

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.

Marriage licenses have been required since 1639 in Massachusetts and they had nothing to do with "inter-racial marriages." Marriage licenses were first established to ensure the banns were observed in order to prevent legal impediments, such as bigamy. I can't believe the amount of poppycock that is manufactured as "history" on here and swallowed whole.

 

[Sfrandolph]

Bottom line, we as citizens have no representation from any party. The politicians are a class among themselves. They do not view the citizens as a viable part of their world other than a source of tax money. They are all proficient liars and cheats. Basically, no redeemable values among the lot.

 

[mrjarrell]

Marriage licenses have been required since 1639 in Massachusetts and they had nothing to do with "inter-racial marriages." Marriage licenses were first established to ensure the banns were observed in order to prevent legal impediments, such as bigamy. I can't believe the amount of poppycock that is manufactured as "history" on here and swallowed whole.

Actually, they date back even further. Licenses were common in many European countries and they were originally asked for by the churches, not the state. The churches wanted to get in bed with the governments for added legal protections for their churches members. Licensing has a long history, even if government shouldn't be involved in it. They are going to remain involved no matter what we might think, so it behooves us to see that everyone has equal standing before the laws. That's what the rule of law is all about and what these republicans are signing onto. Good for them for having the gumption to stick to their principles.

 

[tatertot]

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.

Up until that time, you just went to your church, had a minister perform the ceremony and got a "Marriage Certificate" from the church.
Or you just had a common law marriage.

Many marriages are going back to this, and making their own legal agreements to keep the government from making their marriage a "threesome".

If one believes in God, they know their vows to each other and to God is what creates the marriage.

Then through legal agreements, powers of attorney, joint ownership of property, wills, etc, they can take care of the "earthly" details.

There's never been any reason that homosexual couples can't do the same thing.

This is one of the things that has always baffled me about the Republican party. They preach small government, but consistently try to regulate the institution of marriage by denying gays the right to be married.

 

[Liberty1911]

Actually, they date back even further. Licenses were common in many European countries and they were originally asked for by the churches, not the state. The churches wanted to get in bed with the governments for added legal protections for their churches members. Licensing has a long history, even if government shouldn't be involved in it. They are going to remain involved no matter what we might think, so it behooves us to see that everyone has equal standing before the laws. That's what the rule of law is all about and what these republicans are signing onto. Good for them for having the gumption to stick to their principles.

This is a red herring. Everyone already has equal standing before the law.

Are you suggesting that the government can define marriage?