What should Romney/Republicans do about gay marriage?

[level.eleven]

Its official. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus calls for a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.

RNC Chair Reince Priebus says GOP supports constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

 

[level.eleven]

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.

Certainly the latter. So much so it calls for amending the Constitution of the United States of America. I can't think of a stronger governmental force for change than that.

 

[peloe16]

as a strict conservative it amazes me how republicans preach a limited small government but cant stay out of marriage....or are forced to make a stance on the matter. im not gay, and i am against gay marriage as a christian, but i don't think the govt should decide either way. where the mix up comes is the finances. when there is a marriage, partnership, or whatever, the taxes and dependents give people more money. and thats what govt is worried about.

all about the benjamins $$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Its official. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus calls for a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.

RNC Chair Reince Priebus says GOP supports constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

On the one hand, as said in another thread, the republican leadership only cares about getting and retaining power. They're not necessarily conservatives at heart. On the other hand, for all the people that say there's no difference between the 2 parties....

You have to give them credit in that they're proposing this by following the amendment provisions of the constitution. Agree with it or not, at least the people and the states will have the opprtunity to speak to this amendment proposal. The liberals long since gave up on the constitution and decided their desired change will only come about by packing courts with judges that agree with them and legislating from the bench.

 

[J_Wales]

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.

 

[GBuck]

Its official. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus calls for a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.

RNC Chair Reince Priebus says GOP supports constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

Certainly the latter. So much so it calls for amending the Constitution of the United States of America. I can't think of a stronger governmental force for change than that.

So you're okay with this?!

 

[theweakerbrother]

They should butt out of the marriage business. Gay or straight.

Yes. I keep hammering this home to both my liberal and neo-con friends.

The government keeps showing up to every wedding, just like the drunk uncle that no one invited. He stumbles in, steals some of your wedding gifts and splits without even shaking your hand.

Christ was invited to be an integral part of my wedding ceremony, Uncle Sugar was not but Uncle Sugar showed up anyway.

Dems demand that they want to extend marriage to something where it is not normally defined both by tradition or religious practice. I know that lawsuits will be filed to gain ground by the ultra left in the guise of discrimination for church denomins, pastors/preachers/wiccan covens (et al.) for refusing to marrying people or allowing their building to be used for opposing world views.

Neo-cons want to reserve the sanctity of marriage for two opposing genders but have no problem with ole' wife swapping, cheating on the Mrs., open marriage allegations a la Newt or.

Marriage is a personal and sacred union. Or maybe for you, it isn't. Fine. I respect your right to define it however you want. Just keep the government OUT of it. And don't tax me to do it, either.

 

[OneBadV8]

In my opinion, govt needs to give the term "marriage" back to the church. They need a new term to describe the ability to filed taxes jointly and share benefits. Call them civil unions if you want. But a marriage should be from a church and this no longer becomes an issue at all.

 

[J_Wales]

Yes. I keep hammering this home to both my liberal and neo-con friends.

The government keeps showing up to every wedding, just like the drunk uncle that no one invited. He stumbles in, steals some of your wedding gifts and splits without even shaking your hand.

Christ was invited to be an integral part of my wedding ceremony, Uncle Sugar was not but Uncle Sugar showed up anyway.

Dems demand that they want to extend marriage to something where it is not normally defined both by tradition or religious practice. I know that lawsuits will be filed to gain ground by the ultra left in the guise of discrimination for church denomins, pastors/preachers/wiccan covens (et al.) for refusing to marrying people or allowing their building to be used for opposing world views.

Neo-cons want to reserve the sanctity of marriage for two opposing genders but have no problem with ole' wife swapping, cheating on the Mrs., open marriage allegations a la Newt or.

Marriage is a personal and sacred union. Or maybe for you, it isn't. Fine. I respect your right to define it however you want. Just keep the government OUT of it. And don't tax me to do it, either.

Well said!

 

[J_Wales]

In my opinion, govt needs to give the term "marriage" back to the church. They need a new term to describe the ability to filed taxes jointly and share benefits. Call them civil unions if you want. But a marriage should be from a church and this no longer becomes an issue at all.

The new term should be abolish the income tax.

These friggin statist pigs need to be put back in their cage.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yes. I keep hammering this home to both my liberal and neo-con friends.

The government keeps showing up to every wedding, just like the drunk uncle that no one invited. He stumbles in, steals some of your wedding gifts and splits without even shaking your hand.

Christ was invited to be an integral part of my wedding ceremony, Uncle Sugar was not but Uncle Sugar showed up anyway.

Dems demand that they want to extend marriage to something where it is not normally defined both by tradition or religious practice. I know that lawsuits will be filed to gain ground by the ultra left in the guise of discrimination for church denomins, pastors/preachers/wiccan covens (et al.) for refusing to marrying people or allowing their building to be used for opposing world views.

Neo-cons want to reserve the sanctity of marriage for two opposing genders but have no problem with ole' wife swapping, cheating on the Mrs., open marriage allegations a la Newt or.

Marriage is a personal and sacred union. Or maybe for you, it isn't. Fine. I respect your right to define it however you want. Just keep the government OUT of it. And don't tax me to do it, either.

Excuse me, gotta ask? You have a FEDERAL marriage license? I got married by a military chaplain in a military chapel on a military reservation, but my marriage license reads "Fayetteville, NC". The only input the federal government has in the concept and definition of "marriage" is what they insert themselves into by the action of the federal court system. As has been pointed out, 32 states have declared that "marriage" is defined as between one man and one woman. THAT's the will of the people. The federal government doesn't need to get involved - and should stay out of - the question of the definition of marriage; the states have already expressed the will of the populace; sometimes with amendments to their state constitution, sometimes with state law defining marriage. And a couple of states have voted to allow homosexual marriage. Let those who wish to be married to persons of the same sex move to the states which allow it; let those who don't approve move out of the states which don't express their preferences.

Now, can we go back to the state of the nation's economy? Please?

 

[hornadylnl]

Excuse me, gotta ask? You have a FEDERAL marriage license? I got married by a military chaplain in a military chapel on a military reservation, but my marriage license reads "Fayetteville, NC". The only input the federal government has in the concept and definition of "marriage" is what they insert themselves into by the action of the federal court system. As has been pointed out, 32 states have declared that "marriage" is defined as between one man and one woman. THAT's the will of the people. The federal government doesn't need to get involved - and should stay out of - the question of the definition of marriage; the states have already expressed the will of the populace; sometimes with amendments to their state constitution, sometimes with state law defining marriage. And a couple of states have voted to allow homosexual marriage. Let those who wish to be married to persons of the same sex move to the states which allow it; let those who don't approve move out of the states which don't express their preferences.

Now, can we go back to the state of the nation's economy and how Romney isn't going to fix it? Please?

Fixed it for you.

 

[cobber]

The federal government doesn't need to get involved - and should stay out of - the question of the definition of marriage...

Agreed, but it looks like someone rose to Obama's bait.

 

[Pocketman]

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.

Yes please.

... Dems demand that they want to extend marriage to something where it is not normally defined both by tradition or religious practice. I know that lawsuits will be filed to gain ground by the ultra left in the guise of discrimination for church denomins, pastors/preachers/wiccan covens (et al.) for refusing to marrying people or allowing their building to be used for opposing world views.

Neo-cons want to reserve the sanctity of marriage for two opposing genders but have no problem with ole' wife swapping, cheating on the Mrs., open marriage allegations a la Newt or.

Marriage is a personal and sacred union. Or maybe for you, it isn't. Fine. I respect your right to define it however you want. Just keep the government OUT of it. And don't tax me to do it, either.

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.

In my opinion, govt needs to give the term "marriage" back to the church. They need a new term to describe the ability to filed taxes jointly and share benefits. Call them civil unions if you want. But a marriage should be from a church and this no longer becomes an issue at all.

Marriages for churches and "legal unions" (term already used in Defense of Marriage Act) for all those (straight or gay) who want to share fiscal, survivorship rights, property, etc..

AND - Leave these decisions up to the states!

 

[IndyDave1776]

Read the Constitution. Do what it says. Don't do what it doesn't say. Problem solved.

 

[GBuck]

 

[Expat]

Now, can we go back to the state of the nation's economy? Please?

But the whole purpose of Obama injecting this in to the campaign at this point is to get us off the economy. We all drool when we hear the bell.

 

[IndyDave1776]

But the whole purpose of Obama injecting this in to the campaign at this point is to get us off the economy. We all drool when we hear the bell.

Pavlov would be proud!

 

[level.eleven]

Agreed, but it looks like someone rose to Obama's bait.

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

 

[level.eleven]

So the Republican position is as follows.

Leave marriage to the states.
We are pursuing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to revoke this power from the states.