- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
Presidential Election: 2012
- Thread starter Omnis
- 3,780 comments
- 157,148 views
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
Are you saying that there hasn't been heavy resistance agianst gay marriage in America?
Note, and I should probably have written this first, GENERALIZATION. I'm not as ignorant as to think that all Americans are of the opinion that gay marriage is wrong. But from what I've understood it's been a hot and controversial topic in the USA for quite some time.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
Keef
Premium
- 25,166
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Obama's stance on gay marriage means nothing to me. The fact that he "changed his mind" on the subject only a few months before the election is what means something to he. He's done it for political gain and nothing more.
Romney is against gay marriage because he's an idiot.
Despite being personally religious, Ron Paul thinks marriage should not be a government matter and therefore anybody should be able to marry whoever they want without Federal oversight into the matter.
Romney is against gay marriage because he's an idiot.
Despite being personally religious, Ron Paul thinks marriage should not be a government matter and therefore anybody should be able to marry whoever they want without Federal oversight into the matter.
Keef
Premium
- 25,166
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
- 9,058
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
The government has no business in people's personal lives Keef.
In theory that is. I just find it ironic that the anti-gay people are usually in the anti-big government boat. If the government does indeed bring about legislation prohibiting various forms of marriages (gross civil rights murder IMO), then wouldn't that result in bigger government anyway?
In theory that is. I just find it ironic that the anti-gay people are usually in the anti-big government boat. If the government does indeed bring about legislation prohibiting various forms of marriages (gross civil rights murder IMO), then wouldn't that result in bigger government anyway?
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Except the government, federal or state, treats marriage as a separate issue from other contracts. When I do contracts and other legal documents I go to my lawyer or a notary public. This includes even things like powers of attorney, living will, financial will, business agreements, trade, etc. All done in my attorney's office with no government employees there in an official capacity. When I got married though I had to get a special contract from the courthouse, we had to sign a sworn statement that we were not blood relatives, the person who issued it had to sign as a witness to that statement, then at the ceremony it had to be signed by me, my wife, the officiant (priest in our case), and two witnesses (best man and maid of honor). Upon completion of all that and a wait for approval I received a certificate declaring my marriage was officially recognized by the Commonwealth of Kentucky.Danoff
Plain and simple, it should be a simple contractual agreement that works like any other and is federally protected via equal protection, but it isn't treated as such and is handled on a state level as something different. So long as that continues my statement is true. It shouldn't be, but from a government standpoint it is. The system is broken, not my view of how it works.
And trust me, just seeing what I do from where I work now that isn't all that is broken, nor is it the only place where federal and state jurisdiction is muddled beyond recognition. Not even my manager can tell you where the money and instruction is coming from for each project without referencing his chart posted above his monitor, and he's been in this job for five years.
It's more likely to give him victory. If you look at the polling data I linked earlier you will see that for the first time ever that a majority support gay marriage in polls.EncyclopediaIf Obama's statement on gay marriage is what's going to make him lose, America is a pretty sad country.
Edit: Not directed towards sensible Americans of course.
And that is why I think all gay marriage supporters should be pissed that he did this now. He's had four years (more if you count his campaign and time as a Senator) to declare this. He only now chooses to do it when it is safe. The man has no conviction about this nor did he stick to his guns in the face of strong opposition. He is not brave, as some have said, but rather a fracking coward who only sticks his neck out when it is safe. If I were gay I'd likely be offended. I'd still be happy he said it now, but I wouldn't trust him to be concerned about my best interest.
There was, but not now. It took only about 30 years from the time people in this country began to even realize there were gay people all around this country. In comparison to black people and native Americans this has been a speedy process toward legal equality.Encyclopedia
Considering religion is the main problem holding things up here I have to say I'm surprised it went as fast as it has. I still know Catholics that refuse to use birth control of any form and I grew up in a Southern Baptist church that used grape juice for communion because alcohol was the first step on the road to sin, even crappy wine served a half ounce at a time three times a year.
Congratulations, you just discovered why I haven't voted for either party in nearly a decade. I want smaller government, not big religious government or big socialized government.sumbrownkid
- 29,980
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
You don't get tax breaks or tax incentives when trading baseball cards or soccer stickers.
I'm not justifying what they're doing or saying that it's right because I find taxes confusing enough to understand, but as long as the government is doing things like that with marriage, they'll want to keep abreast of any developments.
- 31,714
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
Paul should run as an independent. I know he won't win the elections, but he sure as hell would make some people frown when he takes 15-20% of the votes.
And on the subject of marriage. Who gives a crap about that? I don't need to get married to show love for my girlfriend, we've been together for 12 years now. It's the same, except for the signatures, and the rings.
And on the subject of marriage. Who gives a crap about that? I don't need to get married to show love for my girlfriend, we've been together for 12 years now. It's the same, except for the signatures, and the rings.
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I thought that too, but I can definitely see the appeal of not running as an independent. There's no way that Ron Paul would score 15% of the vote in a three way election - he'd be lucky to score 5%.
Ironically, he would probably pick up as much as 40% of the vote if he were to somehow secure the Republican nomination over Romney, but against Romney and Obama, he'd be wasting his time, money and his and his son Rand's reputations.
But, by shaking things up at the RNC, Paul has every chance of being able to influence GOP policy for many years to come. It is perhaps a shame that an independent or third party is not likely to be much of a credible force in US politics for the foreseeable future, but that is all the more reason to focus efforts on trying to influence the GOP itself rather than taking them on in a head to head fight. From the looks of it, Ron Paul is having more success than just about anyone when it comes to challenging the GOP status quo.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Because the government behaves differently toward married people (out of recognition of the contract). The IRS treats married people differently. The ER treats married people differently. The county jail treats married people differently. Private industry has, as a result, begun to rely on government recognition of this particular contract as well.
I know what you're going to say - that the government shouldn't be involved in all of these things. But the practicality of the situation is that all of those things are not going to get fixed anytime soon. In the meantime gay people have some serious handicaps try to deal with the government without being able to marry.
My sister just went through the process of separating with her wife of 8 years. I can tell you what a nightmare it is to not have the government recognize the marriage. None of divorce law applies to her, and yet she and her now ex-wife desperately need it. As it is, they're going through a protracted legal battle that will do no one any good. This is the reality of refusing gay people the ability to get a legally recognized marriage. Almost everything to do with the state, from taxes to divorce is just that much more difficult.
And for what? To violate equal protection? We can make the other reforms too. In the meantime we should legally recognize gay marriage.
I thought we were talking about who's issue it should be.
Regardless, states are not allowed to violate equal protection.
constitution
What you describe is unconstitutional. I understand that you're not advocating it as the proper course of action or something that you support. Unequal treatment of state law is forbidden. Which means the issue of whether to to offer gay people the ability to marry is, as a fact of constitutional law, not a state's right.
The state can still process the marriage contract. But it has no choice on whether to offer it to some people and not others. No one would argue with me if the issue was not allowing black people to marry vs not allowing gay people to marry.
GTsail
Premium
- 2,472
- Florida
- GTsail2/GTsail3
I agree. According to Wikipedia, the last US law criminalizing interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1967 (Loving vs Virginia).
Loving vs Virginia
The US Supreme Court ruled that the Virginia law violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.
Respectfully,
GTsail
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
And tax incentives, health care coverage, etc. Trust me, so long as government believes it gets to be involved in interpersonal relationships it matters.Dennisch
My initial statement was explaining why Obama's support means nothing right now.Danoff
If we were discussing whose issue it should be I won't even say it should be a contractual issue. It is a personal relationship issue. Done. At most, recognize that a spouse is a next of kin.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
I concur.
I feel this sells the legal construct of marriage a little short. It's not just about the personal relationship, but also the intermingling of finances, guardianship (as you point out), parental legal responsibilities and rights, it's factored into suitability to adopt, suitability to obtain a loan, and establishes legal requirements after divorce such as custody, division of property, or even alimony.
I get what you're saying, but I think marriage as a legal institution is ridiculously practical.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
None of those situations are unique to marriage. I feel that any form of cohabitation (lacking a better term, but I don't mean this applies to just living together) where personal (as in separate from profit-seeking business agreements) finances become intermingled should allow for all the benefits marriage has. If I have a plutonic roommate for years and we share rent, utilities, food, etc why can't I add them on my health plan or long or short term disability plans? If they become I'll and are unable to work and/or have large medical expenses I am affected just the same as if they were a spouse. Same thing with taxes. Marriage allows tax incentives through joint filing and other things. Is our situation not the same financially? Wouldn't I possibly have a more intimate knowledge of their medical wishes than their mom who has lived 200 miles away for the past 15 years? Then when we part ways we have a legal system that is far more adept at dealing with our finances if we cannot come to an agreement.Danoff
But as with all things, it should be our choice to declare financial union. We can gain the benefits but have to deal with a more difficult separation system or not declare it and just go our separate ways when we chose to, unless one of us feels that we are financially slighted somehow.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Oh, I'm sure I could give them some meanings. Might not be AUP appropriate, but I could find something.Danoff
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/kei...obama-in-west-virginia-democratic-primary.php
Ok, I should not laugh but really, it is that bad on all sides.
Ok, I should not laugh but really, it is that bad on all sides.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/kei...obama-in-west-virginia-democratic-primary.php
Ok, I should not laugh but really, it is that bad on all sides.
Wow, so some democrats also prove what I thought already, both parties can easily be one in the same at any given time. Sad part is let's be desperate, instead or logical/rational. I can't stand Obama but, this is worse and shows a prime exampe of "lesser of evils".
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
I guess it could be looked at as a lesser of evils, it's also a statement of discontent, which imo is a huge waste of time and effort.
Watching the Sunday morning talking heads, they're cranking up the Obama vs. Romney now, trying to make the gay marriage a huge issue with little success. Stephanopoulos pandered to Barney Frank as he is set to marry in June or July(whatever) but he had little to say, if it was a huge voting issue you can bet Barney would have been all over it.
Next on the docket, women. Specifically how the economy is effecting them, it's always a major concern to grab the female vote I suppose, so it goes like this; Cutting entitlements will hurt women vs. Obama economy is so bad it hurts everyone. It's my opinion the general group of voting women are not confident with Obama, whether that means Romney votes remains to be seen.
No speak of Obama care, and very little of Iraq/Afghanistan, never mind that little man behind the curtain lol.
I tried to listen to Senator Feinstein support the tsa but could not stomach it.
Watching the Sunday morning talking heads, they're cranking up the Obama vs. Romney now, trying to make the gay marriage a huge issue with little success. Stephanopoulos pandered to Barney Frank as he is set to marry in June or July(whatever) but he had little to say, if it was a huge voting issue you can bet Barney would have been all over it.
Next on the docket, women. Specifically how the economy is effecting them, it's always a major concern to grab the female vote I suppose, so it goes like this; Cutting entitlements will hurt women vs. Obama economy is so bad it hurts everyone. It's my opinion the general group of voting women are not confident with Obama, whether that means Romney votes remains to be seen.
No speak of Obama care, and very little of Iraq/Afghanistan, never mind that little man behind the curtain lol.
I tried to listen to Senator Feinstein support the tsa but could not stomach it.
- 2,529
- G-D Luxembourg
- GTP_Vince_Fiero
I do believe a lot of people miss that there is an economical/defense impact. Marriage used to be to stimulate the creation of families and the growth of population. This gives a country productive means and the possibility to mobilize people in case of security threats.
In current (European) terms, if you want to avoid to import Muslims since you have not sufficient people to support your growth, you should stimulate large families.
My stance is indeed that the removal of marriage and it's advantages out of the legal part and moving it to the religious part makes most sense. Let the Christians celebrate their unions and the Homosexuals as well, there is no reason the one should tell the others what to do. Using global growth should be the solution for the other issues, not stimulating families.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
