What should Romney/Republicans do about gay marriage?

[IndyDave1776]

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.

Not a bad idea. My issue which leads me to lean toward telling the homosesuals to go f**k themselves is that they have persuaded me to believe that they do not want equal rights as evidenced by their general rejection of civil unions but rather demand our (i.e., everyone not homosexual) imprimatur on their behavior.

 

[Garb]

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.

So how do states handle these issues for people that aren't married?

 

[Grunt]

Thirty-two states have voted to ban gay marriage. It appears that society continues to consider and define this as deviant behavior. The gay rights movement continues to fail at convincing society to condone their behavior.

There are 4,260 mammals on the planet, and only man is homosexual? Gay rights activists want you to believe that this is a natural occurrence, but the science does not support this. Review this interesting article The Animal Homosexuality Myth. Animals do engage in homosexual acts infrequently, but do not sustain it.

Prior to 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and was treatable by mental health professionals. The gay rights movement began around that time when activists crashed a meeting of mental health professionals and began the process of trying to convince science that this was normal.

If a person wants to be homosexual, our laws say that is fine, but I'm not going to condone what society has determined to be a deviant behavior.

Do you need further convincing that homosexuality is a deviant behavior? There is a gay website called the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) frequented by the gay community. If you have a strong stomach, you can link to it here NAMBLA homepage. It celebrates the sex between male adults and male children. One of Obama's Czars is a member of NAMBLA.

Do you want to see more deviancy? Visit the Craig's List Personnals. For your convienence I have included the link indianapolis men seeking men classifieds - craigslist. Once I heard how the gay rights movement began I tried understanding their point of view, but I disagree with it.

If we do not discuss these types of issues openly, liberalism wins and our country is lost. Gay rights activists say its about love, but I believe they are looking for acceptance of their behavior.

Shouldn't abnormal deviant behaviors be treated medically?

Since the dawn of time, mankind all over the world has defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but in 1973 the gay community tells us that's untrue, illegal and immoral.

 

[level.eleven]

I see we have a had a link to NARTH ( National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) pop up in this thread. You may remember NARTH in the news lately as their most prominent board member was caught hiring an escort form rentboy.com and resigned from the organization. The board member had even gone as far to testify before the Florida legislature about gay marriage.

At first glance this is humorous. As a matter fact, fueled by politicians and religious leaders, there is a comedic stereotype of the straight laced conservative concealing homosexuality. Just last year in Indiana we had one of our "family values" state legislators hiring male escorts from craigslist. This is were it gets sad, in my opinion. These high profile outings of prominent ant-gay leaders reinforces the idea of gays being self-hating and repressed.

 

[rambone]

Maybe Mitt should go back to his 1994 stance.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I see we have a had a link to NARTH ( National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) pop up in this thread. You may remember NARTH in the news lately as their most prominent board member was caught hiring an escort form rentboy.com and resigned from the organization. The board member had even gone as far to testify before the Florida legislature about gay marriage.

At first glance this is humorous. As a matter fact, fueled by politicians and religious leaders, there is a comedic stereotype of the straight laced conservative concealing homosexuality. Just last year in Indiana we had one of our "family values" state legislators hiring male escorts from craigslist. This is were it gets sad, in my opinion. These high profile outings of prominent ant-gay leaders reinforces the idea of gays being self-hating and repressed.

By pointing out hypocritical behavior, you show that people are indeed weak and imperfect. We are all prone to succumb to impulses and bad behavior in a moment of weakness.

 

[PistolBob]

Nothing. Nothing at all. It's just fine the way it is.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Exactly, "nib out" isn't an option. A position has to be taken.

Some interesting commentary from Fox New's Shep Smith the other day. Are Republicans on the wrong side of history?

Shep Smith, call your office - POLITICO.com

A position doesn't have to be taken.

The President has nothing to do with marriage. Nothing. DOMA is in effect. DOMA will never be overturned by legislation with a 60 vote requirement to clear the Senate, and is unlikely to be overturned by Court action either. If however it were overturned by the Court, then the President would have no play in passing a Constitutional amendment. It is, and will forever be, a state issue.

The media has made this an issue to divert attention from Obama's abysmal record and focus on something that means absolutely nothing to the everyday lives of Americans. It is a special interest issue for a special interest group that doesn't feel special enough. They are feeding the majority of people that understand nothing about the Constitution or the roles of the various branches and authorities of states. It is sad that many on INGO have taken the bait.

Contrary to all the hooting and howling there is no discrimination or equal protection issue. A straight man can get married. So can a gay man. What is at issue is the composition of the marriage, and states clearly have the authority to regulate that composition going back to common law and beyond.

 

[KG1]

A position doesn't have to be taken.

The President has nothing to do with marriage. Nothing. DOMA is in effect. DOMA will never be overturned by legislation with a 60 vote requirement to clear the Senate, and is unlikely to be overturned by Court action either. If however it were overturned by the Court, then the President would have no play in passing a Constitutional amendment. It is, and will forever be, a state issue.

The media has made this an issue to divert attention from Obama's abysmal record and focus on something that means absolutely nothing to the everyday lives of Americans. It is a special interest issue for a special interest group that doesn't feel special enough. They are feeding the majority of people that understand nothing about the Constitution or the roles of the various branches and authorities of states. It is sad that many on INGO have taken the bait.

Contrary to all the hooting and howling there is no discrimination or equal protection issue. A straight man can get married. So can a gay man. What is at issue is the composition of the marriage, and states clearly have the authority to regulate that composition going back to common law and beyond.

This is exactly what they want. They want to manipulate and set the narrative of what the discussion is about. They want us to occupy our time by having a back and forth about issues like this. Meanwhile......

 

[melensdad]

Maybe Mitt should go back to his 1994 stance.

Did he substantially change?

As a governor he can argue its a states right issue and he can have influence. As a president he can argue its a states right issue and he has no real influence on it.

So really if he is against gay marriage as a president it really doesn't matter since gay marriage is not a federal issue. In fact Obama said he is personally in favor of it, but he also admitted its a state rights issue, in effect saying he won't be doing anything about it.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

I dont understand why a relegious people would be OK with the government requiring their permision even for strait marrage.
You take an oath to the other person to love,..."so help me god" But before you can do that, you have to go through the government to get a marrage license.

Thou shalt have no God before me...I thought that was a pretty strong commandment, but the church started allowing government to require a license to get married, that put government "before god". While this seemed harmless, it allowed the gov to define what it was giving permision for.
This has necessarily pushed the gov into dictating whom is allowed to marry. So when your local pastor is forced by federal law to marry Todd and Butch, understand that the cause was seemingly benign government involvment which the church/people allowed.

And now instead of wanting them out of your religious institution, some are asking for it to go even deeper, trying to steer laws and definitions in a direction more towards what they think god would want thus fortifying government into an even stronger position between you and god. That is making a "deal with the devil" in my book and making the devil a "go between" standing between you and god.
Thou shalt have no God before me...but as long as gov is involved, you are putting them before god, and you/me/we are paying the price.

 

[GBuck]

You guys are all so quick to point out the POTUS cannot do anything about gay marriage, but that's not entirely correct. He will be appointing many judges. These judges will undoubtedly be hearing the arguments of those on both sides of this issue and be making rulings. Same goes for guns, speech, etc.

 

[J_Wales]

You guys are all so quick to point out the POTUS cannot do anything about gay marriage, but that's not entirely correct. He will be appointing many judges. These judges will undoubtedly be hearing the arguments of those on both sides of this issue and be making rulings. Same goes for guns, speech, etc.

And there will be plenty cheering the expansion of the state all the way, eh GBuck?

 

[GBuck]

And there will be plenty cheering the expansion of the state all the way, eh GBuck?

I would assume that it would be more of a "bahhh" than a cheer, but mostly the same result.

 

[J_Wales]

I would assume that it would be more of a "bahhh" than a cheer, but mostly the same result.

Until then, there will be those like you advocating for said expansion.

 

[GBuck]

Please show me where I advocated for an expansion of government. I was the one up thread that said te gov shouldn't be in people's business.

 

[level.eleven]

A position doesn't have to be taken.

The President has nothing to do with marriage. Nothing. DOMA is in effect. DOMA will never be overturned by legislation with a 60 vote requirement to clear the Senate, and is unlikely to be overturned by Court action either. If however it were overturned by the Court, then the President would have no play in passing a Constitutional amendment. It is, and will forever be, a state issue.

The media has made this an issue to divert attention from Obama's abysmal record and focus on something that means absolutely nothing to the everyday lives of Americans. It is a special interest issue for a special interest group that doesn't feel special enough. They are feeding the majority of people that understand nothing about the Constitution or the roles of the various branches and authorities of states. It is sad that many on INGO have taken the bait.

Contrary to all the hooting and howling there is no discrimination or equal protection issue. A straight man can get married. So can a gay man. What is at issue is the composition of the marriage, and states clearly have the authority to regulate that composition going back to common law and beyond.

This is all true. I was referencing winning elections. Data is lining up against Republicans.

 

[J_Wales]

Please show me where I advocated for an expansion of government. I was the one up thread that said te gov shouldn't be in people's business.

My apologies.

I misinterpreted some of your posts as advocating regulation by the state of marriage. I see now the post you referenced.

My bad.

 

[OVERTHEHILLGUY]

Simple......Don't ask, don't tell.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This is all true. I was referencing winning elections. Data is lining up against Republicans.

If this is true, is it because people are waking up to our loss of freedom and seeking candidates that they believe will change our course? Or is it because like health care, wealth redistribution, separation of church and state, affirmative action, etc they want the government to force people into changing their attitudes and behaviors? I'm thinking it's the later.