What should Romney/Republicans do about gay marriage?

[GBuck]

Could someone please explain why everyone gets so hung up on the word "marriage"?

 

[Expat]

We can remove the Feds from being involved through the tax code. But I don't see how we can leave it to the states on an individual basis as the courts are going to force other states to recognize the "marriages" performed in another state. I don't know if we can get the states out of the marriage business altogether, due to problems that come with them such as children guardianship, custody disputes, some states have alimony, child support, distribution of property,etc.

 

[Expat]

Could someone please explain why everyone gets so hung up on the word "marriage"?

Because some of us see it as a religious sacrament or an institution made by God.

 

[GBuck]

Because some of us see it as a religious sacrament or an institution made by God.

I understand that... But we're all clear that the gov't should not be in the religious field, right? There are many things that have religious definitions that also have secular definitions.. Why can't they be separate? The word has no more or no less meaning than any one person chooses to give it, correct?

 

[strahd71]

I understand that... But we're all clear that the gov't should not be in the religious field, right? There are many things that have religious definitions that also have secular definitions.. Why can't they be separate? The word has no more or no less meaning than any one person chooses to give it, correct?

some of us feel like some things deserve and should be protected and it trumps politics

jake

 

[rphutchi]

They aren't related to the subject at hand. No matter how much you wish to equate them.

In function you are correct. But they all fall under what a society deems to be normative sexual behavior and what will not be considered normative and or sanctioned. We continue (to date) to view beastiality as aberrant. We view pedophelia, and necrophelia as aberrant. The homosexual rights movement has as their objective to create a culture where their sexual activity is considered normative and ultimately protected minority status.

We historically have been heavily influenced by the Judeo/Christian ethic and even our founders and the documents they used to lay out the republic were steeped in that culture. Completely aside from anyone's personal faith or beliefs, this matters. It matters because it is this influence and ethic that gives us.... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Without this, our rights come from the state and there is no appeal to any higher authority of conscience w/o it.

To stay w/ the original question however I would simply say that it doesn't matter what Romney says. No one will believe him either way. Going forward after this election, the GOP will continue to wrestle internally w/ whether they believe the above or that the founders were pure secularists and none of it matters.

 

[GBuck]

some of us feel like some things deserve and should be protected and it trumps politics

jake

Put down the bottle and try that sentence again please..

 

[strahd71]

Put down the bottle and try that sentence again please..

i fixed it

jake

 

[edporch]

The answer is simple.
"Marriage licenses" are a state and local issue.

I don't know of anybody who ever got a FEDERAL "marriage license".

So it's NOT copping out to let each state decide how to handle the "marriage license" issue.

And if in time issues arise, they will work their way up the court system.

 

[GBuck]

i fixed it

jake

Ok, so again, you're asking the federal (or any) government to restrict something based on a definition of a word. That's seriously what we're fighting over? A word?


And here I thought you were one of the good guys that wanted the .gov out of everything.

 

[Pocketman]

As others have posted, let's not get hung up on the dictionary definition of marriage. A nut and bolt can be married. At issue here is the government's involvement. Romney has made his de jour stand on the issue. The Republicans will not jeopardize their candidate's position.

 

[J_Wales]

And here I thought you were one of the good guys that wanted the .gov out of everything.

Oh, the irony.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Could someone please explain why everyone gets so hung up on the word "marriage"?

Because you can derail absolutely anything of a legal nature once you grant the 'right' to redefine words, as found in the case of arguing that the Second Amendment grants/acknowledges the right of the National Guard to keep and bear arms while willfully disregarding the both the definition of militia and also that the second clause states 'of the people' not any organization.

 

[Pocketman]

Because you can derail absolutely anything of a legal nature once you grant the 'right' to redefine words, as found in the case of arguing that the Second Amendment grants/acknowledges the right of the National Guard to keep and bear arms while willfully disregarding the both the definition of militia and also that the second clause states 'of the people' not any organization.

Who or what authority has the "right" to define words?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Who or what authority has the "right" to define words?

I cannot say with authority who has the final word, but when a given word has been defined the same way for centuries if not millenia, that definition would appear to be authoritative. I suppose you would prefer having it up for grabs? If so, I would hope that there are no conditions to which you have become attached, since anything could be subject to arbitrary redefinition.

 

[Captain Bligh]

some of us feel like some things deserve and should be protected and it trumps politics

jake

What exactly are we protecting? Certainly not "marriage." Straight marriage has a 40-50% failure rate for first marriages. The numbers are worse for second marriages.

I'm okay if your church wants to call it a sin. I'm okay if your Pastor or Priest is prohibited from blessing the union and officiating the ceremony.

I'm not okay with denying some people of our society opportunity that is available to other people in our society.

Have we forgotten about this?...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[buckwacker]

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams


If we were a religious and moral people, we would not be needing to have this discussion. It appears the end of the Republic is at hand.

 

[cobber]

Gay marriage is inevitable. Progressives have corrupted the pop-culture, our schools, and our churches...they have succeeded in normalizing homsexuality. I wonder what will be next.

Back to polygamy. In a good way.

 

[Pocketman]

I cannot say with authority who has the final word, but when a given word has been defined the same way for centuries if not millenia, that definition would appear to be authoritative. I suppose you would prefer having it up for grabs? If so, I would hope that there are no conditions to which you have become attached, since anything could be subject to arbitrary redefinition.

Hence the reason laws usually have accompanying "definition" text. As an example, the Defense of Marriage Act: "... legal union between one man and one woman ..." Key verbiage here is "legal union." Does not preclude such a union between same sex couples, they just aren't called "marriage" under the current act.

A solution may be to remove the term "marriage" from government terminology and replace it with "legal union." A legal union can then be a state sponsored contract and/or church recognized marriage.

 

[Grunt]

Shep is a douche bag

Concur. He is a big libtard.