« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

My thoughts on Gay Marriage.

By: plumely (Diary)  |  March 19th, 2013 at 04:42 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Gay marriage is a tough one it seems for the RNC to reconcile with. As of right now their handling of Gay marriage shows that they are only concerned about winning at all costs. They talk out of both sides of their mouth on the issue.  In one instance they are going to include Gays in the political tent and lend a sympathetic ear to the subject, and then in the other, they are say they will keep to their Conservative core principles. This is just my simple layman’s view of this. Well, if this is true, what does it mean? What do we tell the gay community that we stand for, man?

 

This is no way to have a platform. One of the problems people both “Elephant and Ass” have with the RNC is they are full of halfway positions on most things and end up doing a second rate job of fighting for what we as Americans hold dear. With that said, here is my solution to handling the Gay Marriage issue.

Our response is “It’s the Economy stupid.” Poverty doesn’t discriminate. Black white, Gay purple, Martian, it doesn’t matter if you can’t buy a loaf a bread. We need not answer gotcha questions from the media about this issue. If we must, we refer the issue to the states. After all, it’s a state’s rights question.

Personally, I disagree with the issue of gay marriage. But right now it is a boutique issue which we can’t afford to become mired in come election time. I am saying we get people energized about brining industry back to this country and restoring civil liberties and we will win. We can discuss gay marriage later.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

    “We need not answer gotcha questions from the media about this issue. If we must, we refer the issue to the states. After all, it’s a state’s rights question.”

    Thank you. You get it.

    • plumely

      Apprec, I think we either do two things, not play in their sandbox when it comes to the issue and say we have bigger things to talk about, or we stop screwing around and have the guts to tell everyone how we really feel about the issue.

  • sudomakeme

    I’ve always felt that marriage is a religious institution, the boundaries and requirements set by each specific religion. If a religion makes the decision to have you, I say fine. Let it. If not, then it is that religion’s right to deny it.

    Every day this decision and choice is made has been made by people long before the gay element came into play. For example: to be married in a Catholic church, you both need to be Catholic, or the “offending” party needs to convert. (Specifics under research, although initial point still applies. No intent to mislead and now I am curious and a bit surprised.). You know this, and you either say “Okay, we’ll do that” or you say “Nope, not gonna happen” and you move on to find something that will suit you both.

    The legal aspect falls under the civil union banner, and as such should be handled by the states. Don’t like how your state handles it? You have a choice to move and find one that has laws to suit.

    It is simply wrong to force this to a national level where nobody has a choice. It is wrong to force churches to accept what they don’t want to accept. Especially when straight people didn’t get that option (nor do they want it) and certainly did not go making national spectacles of themselves demanding it.

    Ok I guess I took the long road to say “It should be a state’s issue and they shouldn’t be involved in religion at all”.

    • streiff

      Your statement about Catholic marriages is wrong.

      Marriage has always been an institution that was defined by government regardless of the rites.

      Marriage can’t be a “states issue” without some kind of national action because otherwise the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution requires states who still wish to be considered part of Western Civilization to recognize the faint simulacrum of marriage granted by states who don’t wish to be part of Western Civilization… like Massachusetts and Maryland.

      • sudomakeme

        Well I’m Catholic and when I wanted to marry a Methodist 27 years ago, I could not get married inside the Church unless he converted. Even to have a Priest officiate outside of a church required an outrageous amount of weekly classes and such.

        • PaladinLostHour

          Uh – those weekly classes (which you can do in one 9 hour session on a Saturday) is called PreCana Counseling, and its required of everyone.

          • sudomakeme

            We weren’t offered the one-day plan back then.

      • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

        “Marriage has always been an institution that was defined by government regardless of the rites.”

        I agree somewhat, but there is a big piece missing from that statement. Prior to the establishment of the United States under the Constitution, the governments of every nation-state have been tied to a religion. This is true even of the freest states of the past: democratic Athens, the Roman Republic, and post-Glorious Revolution England/UK following the passage of the English Bill of Rights; along with the Vatican, I believe the UK is the only other Christian theocracy (officially) in the world. It was the state-sanctioned religion that defined the institution of marriage, not just the state itself.

        With the U.S., it was the first time a national government (the federal government) of a nation-state was not tied to a particular faith. This worked for a long time as the vast majority of Americans were Christians and actually practiced their faith. But as we’ve seen since at least Roe v. Wade (probably before that), the federal government has been seeking to establish a morality that is in opposition to the morality of traditional religions; in effect violating the Establishment Clause. Sanctioning same-sex “marriage” is just another part of that establishment. It’s why the government needs to get out of being involved in any way with marriage, whether it’s recognizing what constitutes a marriage or having a box marked “Married, filing jointly” or “Married, filing separately” to be checked on a 1040.

        • celador2

          We have never been under a theocracy. The elected reps of people do not define marriage then who does? Some athiest outfit debasing the LORD? A sex slavery ourfit can come forward and define that a marriage if all parties consent? What about poor ole Bob Green and his five wives in Utah?

          British NA had three types of colonies one was Crown but most the colonies were free of Church of England requirements. Puritans had magistrates as they came here to avoid High church and self governing ststes have defined and protectd marriage ever since. US constitution establishes no religion and allows states to regulate marriage. Elections of state lawmakers determine who defines US marriage.
          Abolish states regulating marriage and what a void , a big hole.

          As for the past hiistory of authority the year 1688 was done finally with divine right of kings too. .So even in crown colonies there was no theocracy in British NA colonies so full of low church dissenters. From there we move into the United States 1783 under Articles Confederation, then US in 1787 with current system that required amending before ratification. No state religion is right up there at top of the concerns.

          . No theocracy even in times of personal monachy. Henry II decided once and for all the church was not supreme.

          • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

            “We have never been under a theocracy. The elected reps of people do not define marriage then who does?”

            Except that isn’t the reality. Neither elected reps of the people people, nor the people themselves, are being allowed to define marriage when it consists of just one man and one woman. Unelected judges are (and in the case of Iowa, elected judges, all of whom were voted out). The only time the people or their elected representatives are allowed to vote to define marriage is when same-sex “marriage” is being added to the definition. Chances are good that when the Supreme Court finally does issue its ruling, the 30 states that have had the people’s elected representatives or the people themselves define marriage that consists of one man and one woman will have all those statutes and state constitutional amendments thrown out all at once, with Obama’s help no less. In other words, the government is not interested in protecting what you and I know is a marriage. And it isn’t going to change anytime soon. Worse, the federal government will continue constricting our Free Exercise rights at the same time as the Establishment Clause is gutted and ignored.

            The only way I can see making sure the government adheres to the first two clauses of the First Amendment are to get out of marriage. Two of those things you mentioned:

            “Some athiest outfit debasing the LORD?…What about poor ole Bob Green and his five wives in Utah?”

            What does it matter to any level of government if there is no state-sanctioned definition of marriage? Debasing the LORD is considered protected speech (except when Obama declares Allah off-limits). As far as Bob Green, all that should matter to every level of government is how much tax he and his wives pay.

            Besides, the government, usually by judicial fiat, has decided not only to sanction what we might call immoral behavior, but is also promoting it. Look how federal dollars are being used to teach condom use and not even discuss abstention; as a bonus, the federal government wants their teaching to begin early, in some cases in kindergarten. The federal government is promoting their morality, a new religion where the state is God to protect all. A theocracy will be established by people who make it a point to ignore both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

            This is the reality. It sucks. The only way to start reclaiming morality is to get government, at all levels, out of marriage.

            As far as England, Henry VIII set up a new religion under a real theocracy. Technically, the UK and the Vatican are the only Christian theocracies left in the world. While the UK doesn’t force its people to belong to the state religion nor practice the religion’s supremacy over the people, and the monarchs no longer believe in the divine right of kings under either the Catholic faith or the state religion, it is still a state religion. England’s troubles with the Church and which institution, the English monarchy or the papacy, had ecclesiastical supremacy didn’t end in 1170 with the death of Becket.

    • PaladinLostHour

      “For example: to be married in a Catholic church, you both need to be Catholic, or the “offending” party needs to convert. ”

      You’re entitled to your opinion but not statements that are so factually incorrect that, in the age of Google, they border on mendacious.

      I’m Catholic. My wife was raised a Southern Baptist. We were married, with a full Mass, in the Catholic Church, by a priest, 11 years ago. Marriage between a baptised man and woman – even if one is not Catholic – is a sacramental marriage within the Church, and fully valid.

      Marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptised person requires a dispensation from the local bishop for ‘disparity of cult’, but with that, still constitutes a valid natural marriage in the church.

      • sudomakeme

        Well that was not an option with my local bishop. Not my opinion but the way it happened. If that has changed, or if bishops are more lenient these days, that is great. (And why would I think to search on Google when it was my own experience?)
        And I had to listen to my grandmother every time she visited trying to get us to “make it right”.

        Late edit: Upon reflection, I’m fairly certain the marriage was considered valid but non-sacramental.

    • celador2

      Who has last say the state or religion in marriage? Always the state in US history going back to Puritans. The issue of state suremacy over the church was settled in England at time of Henry II and Thomas Becket imo. The secular defintions of marriage may mirror Biblical beliefs and do.

      Congress makes no law establishing religion so if only religious bodies perfomedmarriage their regulation may go to hell. Obscene atheist outfits calling themselves religious might marry animals to disgust the world and insult and defy GOD. More to the poiint some refugee cultures have marriage practices US state laws codemn and punish as child abuse like early marriage or marriage to a man the teen does not want to marry.

      Marriage is the states to regulate and states set criteria which are carried out in all counties. A county issues a marriage certificate application and if both parties meet them they can take the approved marriage certificate to an authorized official including religious for a marriage ceremony.
      Marriage by a priest or preacher is not required for Protestants salvation and they were the overwhelming majority of US settllers. JPs and judges have long done a thriving marriage business since church wedding are costly especaily in the past Churches may have their own criteria as we know for marriage outside the state restrictions.

      States set marriage rules that reflect majority rule and will of the people—Criteria are age of consent, married to no one else, no close blood relative and one man one woman of course in most states.

      .

      • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

        “The issue of state suremacy over the church was settled in England at time of Henry II and Thomas Becket imo.”

        As someone who has studied this period in history, not only was state supremacy over the church not settled at this time, it got worse. Henry’s son King John managed to PO the Church so badly he and England were excommunicated by Pope Innocent III over who would be appointed Archbishop of Canterbury; John wanted his man, the English bishops wanted their man, and Innocent wanted Stephen Langton. This allowed John’s main enemy, France’s King Philip II Augustus, to attack England with the Church’s blessing (John couldn’t complain to Innocent since John was no longer part of the Church). It was only when John knuckled under to Innocent and allowed Langton to take his position that the excommunication was lifted; this was just another item in the trouble that continued over the remainder of John’s reign. England didn’t rid itself of Catholic supremacy of church matters until Henry VIII established the Church of England with himself as Supreme Head and deliberately wrecked Catholic institutions for the remainder of his reign. It has only been due to the loss of power by the monarchs since the Glorious Revolution have there been looser state handling of religious matters.

        There is no reason for any level of government in the U.S. to license or certify a marriage. If people want to get married, it should be recognized by the people getting married that it is a religious function, without government intervention or interest. Otherwise, all you’re doing is having the government violate the Establishment Clause by dictating what the government believes is proper for the religious institution of marriage.

        Besides, the federal government as a whole has no interest in protecting what has historically been called a marriage. Since this is true, then it should get out of figuring out who is and who isn’t considered married, since there will be a difference between what the government says and what tens of millions of Americans believe.

  • kipling

    The “it’s a state’s rights question” response is not going to work. The left is intent on pushing the issue at the federal level and forcing the states into compliance. You are going to be asked about DOMA, possible legislation in Congress, the Supreme Court. You can only stonewall so long. Better to be honest and shoot straight.

    • sudomakeme

      I do agree it won’t be able to be avoided. Look at that interview of poor Mr. Cardenas at CPAC, he couldn’t get away from that issue.

      • capeconservative

        Again I say the msm has lost all credibilty for factual reporting…it is entirely agenda driven…and I see no end in sight! Whether it is homosexuals, birth control or amnesty for those who have entered our country ILLEGALLY, the msm won’t stop pushing and shoving and pushing and shoving.

    • obviously

      Agreed. The issue is going to be part of the political process for the foreseeable future. Saying that it’s a state-by-state issue is fine if you are being logically consistent, but it won’t keep you from getting asked about it again and again, and I don’t think it obviates the political liabilities associated with this issue.

      • plumely

        Fine let them ask about it again and again. We need not respond. Nothing we say to them is going to be acceptable… especially if we don’t have the intestinal fortitude to really go to the mat on the issue. The RNC does not.

        • bogornes

          The problem is that this is taking us out of contention in purple states and districts (which we need to win). Apparently the GOP is at odds with ~80% of voters under 30 (many who agree with us on a host of fiscal issues). There is clearly a strong contingent who believe that encouraging monogamy for gay couples is a legitimate conservative principle.

          • plumely

            Then again, I stand by my assertion that we refer the issue to the states. Why say we are for an issue if we don’t believe it.

          • californiasquish

            Whatever your personal position on the issue, tho, you don’t square the circle on the state level.

            First, what about federal benefits? That has to be decided. Also, what happens to a gay couple legally married in one state when they move to another?

            As some states are already there, we need a federal answer.

  • dvdmsr

    When the GOP surrenders to gay marriage or abortion, I personally will be done. As a social conservative, I’m tired of compromising: decriminalizing vices, excising religion from local public schools and government, surrendering the town square, TV, the movies, and the Internet to debauchery, etc etc.. My question is when are the Libertarian invaders of the GOP going to compromise?

    • Bill S

      I’m right there with you.

    • exitsfunnel

      Protecting innocent life alone wouldn’t be enough to keep you politically active?

      • dvdmsr

        More has been done on the state level and through interests groups and their education efforts to preserve the lives of unborn human beings than any effort by the GOPs nationally elected leaders. Social conservatives were last told to maintain the support for the GOP (to hold the line) for the sake of traditional marriage and innocent life, now we’re being told to capitulate on traditional marriage. Oh, but don’t turn your back on the national GOP (who has done little to protect unborn human beings) for the sake of innocent life; yet another compromise. This trend does not bode well, and if we continue to replace traditional values and standards for libertarian values and standards, then I’m sure the feigned effort to protect unborn human beings will be next. The line must be drawn on traditional marriage, if they’re not willing to stand with us on that then there is no reason to believe that they’ll do anything more but continue to give us lip-service on the protection of unborn human beings. We’ve been loyal voting and contributing members of the GOP for a long as there ha been a GOP. They owe us more than lip-service on the protection of innocent human beings, but since they’re not in a position to do much about that now (as they repeatedly tell us), protection of traditional marriage is the price for my support. This is something they are in a position to affect now, and I expect them to do it. For once I expect them to hold the line. This is the issue of the day. If they can’t hold the line on traditional marriage, then I’m done. As I said, unborn human beings have been better advocated for and more effectively protected by forces other than the national GOP, and if need be, I’ll will put all my time, money, and votes there instead.

        • exitsfunnel

          That’s a fair response. I think that there is a difference though between moving your focus away from the national party and towards local and state races and removing yourself from politics altogether. I am a (pro life) Libertarian so, even though I vote for a lot of Republicans, I certainly have no particular affection for the National GOP apparatus.

  • ruckus

    LOL, what year do you think it is, 2011? The GOP was saying it was all about the economy for the past 18 months, and what did that achieve? You’ve got to be kidding yourself if you think a decision on gay marriage can wait.

  • californiasquish

    This will be decided in the Supreme Court, and we will all have to live with it either way.

    Personally, I look forward to having this issue settled so we can talk about things that matter in my actual life, like how we are going to lose this crushing national debt.

    • kipling

      The Supreme Court may issue a decision but it will not settle the issue. Dred Scott did not settle the slavery issue. Plessy v. Ferguson did not settle the equality issue. Roe v. Wade did not settle the abortion issue. Neither side will accept the decision. I for one do not plan to live with it either way.

      Since when did family not matter is actual life. Did you ever stop and think that the destruction of the traditional family is what led to the crushing debt with all the entitlement programs?

      • californiasquish

        I’m trying to remember the last time I saw a pro-slavery demonstration, and I’m drawing a blank. I’m gonna go out on a limb and call that issue settled.

        As for your second point, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t see how treating gay unions the same as straight ones harms or diminishes my marriage in any way.

        I thought expressing fatigue on this one would resonate with everyone, but I guess not.

        • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

          Since I doubt you are more than 150 years old, your Democrat education must neglegted teaching you about such an event. I seem to recall reading about a particularly violent pro-slavery demonstration, perpetrated by Democrats, upon a little place outside Charleston, SC. You might have heard of it: it was called Fort Sumter. Yes, the slavery issue was settled after 700,000 men were killed, after millions more were wounded, after Democrats in the North tried and failed to surrender to the Confederate Democrats in the 1864 election, and after the passage and ratification of the 13th Amendment.

          So the idea that the Supreme Court settles things goes against real history, not what you’ve learned from Democrats. kipling is right; regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, the issue will not be settled.

      • bogornes

        OTOH, ‘Brown v. Board of Ed’ and ‘Loving v. Virginia’ and ‘Lawrence v. Texas’ certainly did settle the issues. That said, 14 years after “Brown” George Wallace still won 5 states in the presidential election on a segregationist platform. That’s not the model we want to emulate.

        • californiasquish

          Interesting examples. Both Loving and Lawrence feature prominently in the SC briefs about the Prop. 8 case currently before the court.

        • kipling

          None of those cases settled the issue. As you pointed out, 14 years after Brown, Wallace won 5 states.

      • exitsfunnel

        We’re on more or less opposite sides of this issue but I tend to agree that the supreme court won’t settle this. It will be settled in the court of public opinion (I think that it already has been really) and all the Supreme Court will accomplish by upholding the appeals court is to make an already divisive issue even more bitter. SSM proponents in California will have no trouble overturning Proposition 8 at the ballot box in two years anyway.

        • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

          They won’t have to. Unelected judges will have done it for them instead of trying to convince the people to do it. And as an added bonus SSM proponents, nobody will be allowed to use the real definition of marriage. Just wait until these same intolerant, religion-hating bigots decide that the words husband and wife are discriminatory.

        • kipling

          I am afraid that the issue will not even be settled in the court of public opinion. The “normalization” of deviant behavior will have consequences no matter how many people support it.

  • capeconservative

    What really ticks me off is that MA voters never even had the chance to cast a ballot on this homosexual marriage law by judicial fiat ‘first’. Ironically, the two lesbians who pushed this through divorced shortly after their big deal marriage…further proof this whole issue is NOT about wanting to be married but about shoving their lifestyle on the rest of us.

    Shove all they want, they will NEVER succeed! Listening to the msm however, why more people accept it now than don’t…which I do NOT believe for one second. They are simply pushing the homosexual agenda through their mighty microphones.

  • revtm

    Why is the government involved in the religious institution of marriage anyway? I firmly believe Marriage is a religious institution, the 1st amendment is actually a freedom from government in our religion, not the other way around, the government needs to ignore marriage all together. It is up to the religious institution of the person involved to decide who is married and who isnt, everything else should just be a contract.

    • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

      My thoughts exactly.

    • pythagoras

      There are over 140 benefits the government gives married couples.

      http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

      Are you suggesting that taking them away from heterosexual marriages is a better solution than providing them to LGBT couples? Either solution is acceptable. So
      please lead the charge to remove these benefits from heterosexual marriages and then there will be no need to make LGBT marriage legal. See if you get any push back.

      • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

        It’s one of the platforms being expressed by Republican Rand Paul.

        • pythagoras

          Agreed. His father has pushed it for decades. No government benefits of any kind for any marriages – heterosexual or LGBT. He did not get much traction. But read that list on the link I provided above. Eliminating those benefits is NEVER going to happen. The tax benefits (income and estate) alone make it a complete non-starter in the main stream.

          • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

            The benefits would remain. Two or more adults living together do so under an agreement of some kind, one that doesn’t and shouldn’t require government involvement. As long as the government recognizes that agreement as a contract, there is nothing that would need to change except, perhaps, the wording.

          • pythagoras

            Oh, so my wife and I (yes I am in a heterosexual marriage) could decide on and enter a contract for a 1 million dollar annual income tax write off and the IRS will accept it?

          • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

            What I’m saying is that you and your wife live together as part of an agreement. The government doesn’t need to know whether you’re “Single, “Married, filing jointly”, “Married, filing separately”, or as the “Head of Household”. It should ask if you are filing as an individual or jointly with those you all have agreed to live with. The same principle could be used regarding wills and other benefits. Simple.

          • pythagoras

            Please confirm you have looked at this link:

            http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html.

            There is no way to provide those benefits without a marriage agreement. It is THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT that defines this. Any other contract would just be the marriage contract under a different name. So are we talking about the rights or just the word marriage here?

            Without the marriage contract, can I get SS benefits for anyone I want? Pension benefits? Can two roommates qualify for all these benefits that are not in a relationship? Can the courts control child support and protections in case of break-ups? Can gift my money to anyone I want? Can I file jointly even if they don’t live with me, like married couples? Can I sue for wrongful death? Can I transfer my entire estate to anyone that lives with me without death takes? Will my leases automatically renew? Will my immigrant wife be able to stay? Can I change the person from year to year? Can I have more than one beneficiary if I have two girlfriends?

          • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

            A marriage contract is still just a contract as far as the government is concerned.

            “Without the marriage contract, can I get SS benefits for anyone I want?” Why not if you have an agreement with someone, like a marriage.

            “Pension benefits?” That’s up to the pension to decide.

            “Can two roommates qualify for all these benefits that are not in a relationship?” Why not? Besides, they are in a relationship, just not necessarily a sexual one.

            “Can the courts control child support and protections in case of break-ups?” Courts do it now for child support, regardless of whether or not the father and mother are married. A break-up (e.g., divorce) can be treated as the breaking of an agreement, a contract, and treated as such.

            “Can gift my money to anyone I want?” You can now.

            “Can I file jointly even if they don’t live with me, like married couples?” It depends on whether or not you can prove you have an agreement with the other person.

            “Can I sue for wrongful death?” You can now.

            “Can I transfer my entire estate to anyone that lives with me without death takes?” I think you mean taxes. Why not? You had an agreement to live with another, and the other person died.

            “Will my leases automatically renew?” That would be up to whomever you have a rental agreement with.

            “Will my immigrant wife be able to stay?” Ooh, that’s a good one. That depends on what comes out of any new immigration law.

            “Can I change the person from year to year?” Why not? Right now, you can divorce and remarry as often as you like.

            “Can I have more than one beneficiary if I have two girlfriends?” You can name multiple beneficiaries now if you want. Although your wife might have a problem with it.

            Other than the immigrant question, the word “marriage” or “married” should be and can be irrelevant to the government.

    • Kyle-MI

      Government is involved because the product of marriage was often children. At least it use to be although it is becoming less so. Study after study after study have shown that children are better off when they are raised in a family that includes both a mother and a father. It is to the benefit of our society and our nation that children are raised in full families.

  • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

    Crap. Even a few years ago, the numbers were reversed. So how did the pro-same-sex “marriage” people react? By getting unelected judges to force states into recognizing same-sex “marriage”. California twice held ballot initiatives to define a marriage as one consisting of one man and one woman; twice, unelected state and federal judges said no. Unelected Massachusetts judges didn’t even let the people decide one way or another. So spare me about how America is now in love with same-sex “marriage”. The same crowd that “preaches” how Americans should forcibly “tolerate” same-sex “marriage” are the same people who are COMPLETELY intolerant of religion and those who believe otherwise, to the point where mainstream religions who are against same-sex “marriage” are considered hate groups by mainstream Democrats like those at the misnamed Southern Poverty Law Center (which is itself a hate group).

    How about getting marriage out of the government? Or is it now that the federal government is promoting same-sex “marriage” and force people to tolerate it, now it’s ok? Again, I say crap.

    • pythagoras

      You have just defined civil rights. Religious, race or otherwise. You have the right to your own views and beliefs and have the ability to exercise them in America, only because America is tolerant to the beliefs of others and lets them exercise them – even if you don’t believe in them..

      Yes, you are correct, it is total Hippocratic to support one civil right (gay marriage) and not support another (freedom of religion). My point is that it is equally Hippocratic in the other direction – To support the freedom of religion right but not be tolerant of the gay marriage civil right or race civil rights for that matter.

      I am tolerant to both, and it should be the platform of the GOP (regardless if I agree with either – because my beliefs have nothing to do with it). Can you say the same thing?

      • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

        I think you mean hypocrisy and hypocritical, not Hippocratic. America is tolerant. But when the government decides what is required to be tolerated, like same-sex “marriage”, that becomes coercion, tyranny. The government has demanded the American people be “tolerant” of abortion, especially since there are a huge number of Democrats who want abortion expanded (like Obama), and despite the fact that tens of millions of people regard it as murder, especially when it’s done at a rate of a million a year, and mostly to keep from women from being “inconvencienced” by irresponsibly having sex leading to an unexpected pregancy. (As a side note, the murder trial of Kermit Gosnell in Pennsylvania has proven that Roe v. Wade has led to what the pro-abortion crowd claims it stopped, the back-alley abortions using a coat hanger, so to speak; one wonders how many more Gosnells are out there.)

        “I am tolerant to both, and it should be the platform of the GOP (regardless if I agree with either – because my beliefs have nothing to do with it). Can you say the same thing?”

        I am not tolerant of being forced to be tolerant of something I believe is sinful, although I have no interest in criminalizing sinful behavior nor of denying anyone their rights under the Constitution. I am tolerant of having same-sex couples and married couples being treated the same way by the government, provided the government gets out of the way of having a say in what constitutes a marriage, especially since the government is doing this via unelected judges.

        • pythagoras

          Yes, i got spell checked fed on hypocrisy vs Hippocratic. Sorry.

          Again, your only looking at the religious side. It is not about the love, the sin, etc. It is about the benefits you get from the government once you are married. There are so many, but the financial ones jump out. Transfer of pension, social security, income tax breaks, estate tax breaks, etc. You can not deny some citizens these benefits while giving them to others. I still haven’t seen a solution to this point in any of your posts. I only see two options: either take all these government benefits away from heterosexual marriages or give them to LGBT marriages. Which do you support or do you have third option?

          • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

            I have not at all supported taking away benefits from married couples so that they don’t go to same-sex couples. I’m saying the benefits should be available to both kinds of couples without having the government reference the word marriage. As I had mentioned, a marriage is an agreement; that is how the government should treat it, regardless of who is part of that agreement. It preserves marriage as a religious institution protected by the Free Exercise Clause, and it doesn’t discriminate against same-sex couples living together, nor cause the government to violate the Establishment Clause by calling the same-sex couple married.

    • pythagoras

      Also, if you take government out of the equation, and eliminated all federal marriage rights those of heterosexual couples, then that solves the problem as well. But that is not going to happen.

      • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

        Why not? We’ve seen that the government is promoting what the vast majority of religions call immorality with the government calling it civil rights. There are tens of millions of people who believe the same, that the government is promoting immorality, perhaps more than the polls indicate when those polls claim that same-sex “marriage” has majority support. It is entirely possible.

  • sudomakeme

    Marriage has already been defined as one man and one woman and it is a religious sacrament.
    If they want a religious sacrament for themselves, they’ll need to find a denomination that will make a new one for them and call it whatever-the-heck-they-want-to-call-it, but “marriage” has already been defined.
    Wanting government to intervene and legitimatize a union is stepping into the “civil union” realm, which is already happening.

    I have no idea how this is not fair. I can’t say “I want to be a dog, now change the meaning of dog”.

    • pythagoras

      The problem is that marriage is not “just” religious sacrament. There are countless government benefits that are awarded. Unfortunately, Civil Unions for LGBT couples do not provide the same government benefits – Google it. If they did, you’d be on to something. As that is the key. Outside of the religious sacrament there has to be equality. And today, there is not and thus a civil rights violation. It is that simple. So take away the benefits for heterosexuality couples or give them to LGBT couples.

  • plumely

    I think we all tolerate the idea of Gay marriage we just don’t condone it. If we want to handle this correctly we abstain from talking about it. No one’s hiding anything. If the media thinks so then Phooey on them. Who cares what they think?

  • Bill S

    No. It is most certainly not a civil rights issue. Civil rights protects people for what they are, not for what they choose to do. There is no proof that homosexuals are anything more than those who choose to participate in deviant behavior. They don’t get special rights for that.

    • exitsfunnel

      I mostly try to stay out of the gay marriage threads because I’ve wearied of the same exchanges over and over again, but that line of argument just seems so bizarre to me. Do you really think that there is no inborn component to homosexuality? That the only difference between you and say Richard Simmons, is that Richard Simmons just arbitrarily decided to be gay instead of straight?

      • Bill S

        Show me the money.

        • exitsfunnel

          That’s not really responsive Bill. I’m asking you, just intuitively, you don’t think that there is some inborn difference between you and Richard Simmons with respect to your sexuality? Frankly, I can understand acknowledging that there is an inborn component and still being opposed, which is the position that most opponents take now. But the idea that we’re all wired up equally and some of us just make one conscious decision while other make another, just seems prima facie crazy to me if for no other reason that it implies that I could have decided to be gay when I know quite well, that I never could have.

          • lineholder

            Sorry, exits, but I’ll go with God’s definition of “unnatural desires” on this one in a heartbeat before I’ll buy into the crutch of “being born that way” that I hear a lot of homosexuals using.

          • Bill S

            Intuitively I think that libertarians are idiots also, but it doesn’t make it that way. There is no proof. It doesn’t exist. I know plenty of effeminate males, and they’re not all flaming homosexuals.

    • damnyankees

      Isn’t religion something people do, not something they are? I’m pretty that’s a civil right.

      • Bill S

        Yeah, but it happens to be one explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Oddly, I haven’t found a clause stating that there should be no law prohibiting marrying whoever or whatever you want to.

  • Bill S

    By the way: based on my research, you are a Democrat troll (Donation to Al Gore? Really?) who has chosen to come in here to spew. Don’t come back

  • Viet71

    Amen, plumely.

    There are battles worth fighting and battles best avoided in the election season. Everyone here who wants conservaive candidates to win knows what those battles are. Politicians who don’t know shouldn’t be running.

    • plumely

      I just feel they botch the question everytime it is thrown at them.

      • sudomakeme

        Which is because the party doesn’t have a unified answer. On this or anything, so everybody is shooting from the hip blindly trying to get out of it. As we have seen, that doesn’t always end up so well when badgered by the media. Stupid things slip out.

        • plumely

          Well, i am with you, we need to have a unified answer on it and it is either one of two things. Say it is a State’s rights issue or flat out say we directly oppose SSM so there, what the hell are you going to do about it? And further more end of freakin discussion.

          • sudomakeme

            I agree. I think we need to set our position and say exactly that, but get an alternative option to offer so they can’t beat us up saying we’re rotten mean bigots. State the position then we can move on.

    • ruckus

      The election season has come and pass, so what are you talking about?

  • bananapouch

    The biggest hypocrisy in the DOMA case is the death tax issue… if we had our way, this tax would be long gone, but liberals are now trying to use it to repeal DOMA. Why aren’t they screaming “make the wealthy pay their fair share!” etc.