What should Romney/Republicans do about gay marriage?

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The RNC and the Republican presidential candidate? Is that who took the bait?

Dude! This is your thread. Are you part of RNC? Are you assigned by one of the campaigns to come here and create distractions like this?

 

[Bunnykid68]

The economy is fine, what are you guys arguing about?






Guess I could of used purple

 

[88GT]

There are 4,260 mammals on the planet, and only man is homosexual?

Strictly speaking, the Bonobo chimpanzees have been observed in homosexual pairings. Interestingly enough, the female has been known to flip around to face the male at the last minute too so that she can be properly stimulated. Just thought I'd throw the exception to the rule out there.

Eliminating preferences and inequities in the income tax system by abolishing it and replacing it with something like the Fair Tax (or better yet returning to the system authorized by the States in the Constitution before adopting the Sixteenth Amendment) would address the inequitable taxation of income not only for those that choose the homosexual lifestyle, but for all citizens of the republic.

What about rights of survivorship, testate succession, spousal privileges/protections? The government recognition of marriage covers far more than the tax code problems. Not that I disagree with you, but your solution won't protect my rights as the spouse if my husband dies and no other means of verification of our union is in place.

The solution is rather simple. But people have to get their panties in a wad over a word. Two people of the same sex aren't married. Ever. But I see no reason why they should be barred from creating the same spousal legal protections if they so choose just because they both pee standing up (or sitting down).

 

[level.eleven]

The solution is rather simple. But people have to get their panties in a wad over a word. Two people of the same sex aren't married. Ever. But I see no reason why they should be barred from creating the same spousal legal protections if they so choose just because they both pee standing up (or sitting down).

It is, but the evangelical base of the Republican party, and I imagine a few throwback Democrats, won't allow this to happen. As a matter of fact. the position of the RNC is to make sure this never happens via an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[c3d4b2]

The answer to everything they bring up is we need to worry about the economy first. Everything else is a distraction......

 

[J_Wales]

What about rights of survivorship, testate succession, spousal privileges/protections? The government recognition of marriage covers far more than the tax code problems. Not that I disagree with you, but your solution won't protect my rights as the spouse if my husband dies and no other means of verification of our union is in place.

I suggest a will.

I do agree that there are a host of other areas in which the state should not be involved... inheritance tax, gift tax, and SS are a few.

We would be better served to put the state within its boundaries instead of asking it to expand its reach to meddling in private affairs even further.

 

[GBuck]

We would be better served to put the state within its boundaries instead of asking it to expand its reach to meddling in private affairs even further.

I'm very proud of you for saying "within its boundaries," rather than, "in its cage." The difference in the two can be HUGE when debating and trying to win people over.

 

[J_Wales]

The answer to everything they bring up is we need to worry about the economy first. Everything else is a distraction......

I would submit that even the economy is a distraction.

The top priority must be the protection of Lady Liberty.

All else will flow from that.

 

[Expat]

It is, but the evangelical base of the Republican party, and I imagine a few throwback Democrats, won't allow this to happen. As a matter of fact. the position of the RNC is to make sure this never happens via an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

I don't know if the RNC really wants that. It may just be another one of those issues they want to keep out there to keep the Christian right in line. They have paid lip service to the abortion issue for years as well. What have they ever actually done? I think some parts of that constituency probably like parts of Obamacare and the liberals income redistribution. But they aren't going to vote for baby killers and sodomites while there is a party standing against such immorality.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Strictly speaking, the Bonobo chimpanzees have been observed in homosexual pairings. Interestingly enough, the female has been known to flip around to face the male at the last minute too so that she can be properly stimulated. Just thought I'd throw the exception to the rule out there.



What about rights of survivorship, testate succession, spousal privileges/protections? The government recognition of marriage covers far more than the tax code problems. Not that I disagree with you, but your solution won't protect my rights as the spouse if my husband dies and no other means of verification of our union is in place.

The solution is rather simple. But people have to get their panties in a wad over a word. Two people of the same sex aren't married. Ever. But I see no reason why they should be barred from creating the same spousal legal protections if they so choose just because they both pee standing up (or sitting down).

If you got married at a church you would have proof. All the people that showed up, the person that married you, and if I am not mistaken, even the church requires you to have witnesses.

A couple can get married in a church without the States blessing if they choose, there is no law anywhere that says if you get married you are required to get a license.

Well, unless some of those old marriage laws that required a license to marry outside of your own race are still on the books.

Marriage licenses were only created to give permission to someone that married outside of their own race, at least in this great free country of ours.
Ok, maybe not the only reason.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It is, but the evangelical base of the Republican party, and I imagine a few throwback Democrats, won't allow this to happen. As a matter of fact. the position of the RNC is to make sure this never happens via an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Upon further review...

The constitutional amendment thing is just a ploy to fool us ignorant, hate mongering, evangelicals that the republican establishment is serious about stopping gay marriage. They also know that passing an amendment is next to impossible. So by appearing to be doing something to placate us homophobes, theyre really just playing along with the gay agenda. We're such suckers, doncha know.

I'm thinking "open marriages" ought to be next to be normalized and legitimized.

 

[88GT]

I suggest a will.

Again, that's only part of the answer. The will only covers the part of the legal relationship once one of the parties dies.

If you got married at a church you would have proof. All the people that showed up, the person that married you, and if I am not mistaken, even the church requires you to have witnesses.

A couple can get married in a church without the States blessing if they choose, there is no law anywhere that says if you get married you are required to get a license.

Well, unless some of those old marriage laws that required a license to marry outside of your own race are still on the books.

Marriage licenses were only created to give permission to someone that married outside of their own race, at least in this great free country of ours.
Ok, maybe not the only reason.

I'm not talking about marriage. I'm talking about the historic common law state recognition of the legal union between a man and a woman that has been formally codified via the "marriage" license and the complete compliment of rights and privileges that go with that relationship. Besides, my comment that you quoted was in direct response to the income tax "solution" which isn't one. Your reply is a whole different direction.

 

[J_Wales]

Again, that's only part of the answer. The will only covers the part of the legal relationship once one of the parties dies .

Just as contracts can and should govern matters while the parties are alive.

I've got to tell you... I want the state out of my bedroom and that of my neighbor's. Before long the state will be regulating and taxing the act of flipping over for maximum stimulation.

 

[88GT]

Just as contracts can and should govern matters while the parties are alive.

I've got to tell you... I want the state out of my bedroom and that of my neighbor's. Before long they will be regulating and taxing the act of flipping over for maximum stimulation.

No kidding. But changing/eliminating the income tax won't do a damn bit of good.

 

[GBuck]

Just as contracts can and should govern matters while the parties are alive.

I've got to tell you... I want the state out of my bedroom and that of my neighbor's. Before long the state will be regulating and taxing the act of flipping over for maximum stimulation.

Thank you for giving me something to add to my signature.

 

[theweakerbrother]

Yes please.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am not aware of any movement to force, or even encourage, churches to participate in gay marriages.

How it could play out: Washington’s gay marriage bill: a frontal attack on religious freedom | Cry, Beloved Country

State sides with lesbian couple in fight against Ocean Grove association | NJ.com

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

It could be potentially prosecuted under the guise of "discrimination."

I'm just as much against the state recognizing heterosexual marriages as I am them recognizing homosexual ones. What business does the government have establishing anything to do with marriage?

 

[theweakerbrother]

The solution is rather simple. But people have to get their panties in a wad over a word. Two people of the same sex aren't married. Ever. But I see no reason why they should be barred from creating the same spousal legal protections if they so choose just because they both pee standing up (or sitting down).

This.

 

[J_Wales]

No kidding. But changing/eliminating the income tax won't do a damn bit of good.

Not so 88GT.

The income tax code has gone FAR beyond raising revenue to execute those duties delegated by the States to the state in the Constitution and morphed into a tool for manipulating the behaviors of the citizenry and advancing political agendas.

Abolishing the income tax system would go a long way towards removing from the hands of statist pigs a tool for controlling the behavior of citizens.

 

[strahd71]

How it could play out: Washington’s gay marriage bill: a frontal attack on religious freedom | Cry, Beloved Country

State sides with lesbian couple in fight against Ocean Grove association | NJ.com

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

It could be potentially prosecuted under the guise of "discrimination."

I'm just as much against the state recognizing heterosexual marriages as I am them recognizing homosexual ones. What business does the government have establishing anything to do with marriage?

this and: some of the hate speech legislation talk has been interpreted by some (rightly or wrongly) to apply to the church and its stance on gay marriage being considered hate speech, and that anyone who preaches against homosexuality will be charged with a hate crime, evangelicals while not only believing it is a sin also fear the legitimizing same sex marriage will open the door for this kinds of attack on free speech since it has happened in other countries

Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin - Telegraph

http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/07/15/canadian-pastor-fined-after-speaking-against-homosexuality/

Swedish Pastor Faces Jail for Preaching against Homosexuality - Research - Chalcedon

and honestly it doesnt seem all that unlikely that this could happen here given the climate

jake

 

[J_Wales]

Thank you for giving me something to add to my signature.

You are more than welcome. Next thing you know the central state will kill folks for withdrawing.