E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSProminent Republicans have signed a brief supporting the Supreme Court challenge to California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.
Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman's endorsement of same-sex marriage rights on Friday is the latest high-profile example of a sea change within the conservative movement toward gay rights.
A trickle of GOP leaders have begun to back the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry, and activists at the conservative movement's signature gathering this week express tolerance for Republicans who support same-sex marriage, even if they personally disagree.
Portman, an influential senator whom Mitt Romney almost selected last year as his running mate, announced that he had changed his position toward same-sex marriage because one of his sons is gay.
"I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn't deny them the opportunity to get married," the Ohio senator wrote in an op-ed for the Columbus Dispatch.
He's not the only high-profile Republican to back marriage rights for same-sex couples, either.
Jon Huntsman, a GOP presidential candidate in 2012 who had endorsed civil unions, said this year that he supports marriage rights. Furthermore, he framed it in conservative terms.
Related: Portman announces his support for same-sex marriage
"There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love," he wrote.
And Theodore Olson, a former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, has been one of the lead attorneys challenging California's Proposition 8, a ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage in that state. (Portman fretted in his op-ed that a court decision might hamper the political movement toward legalizing gay and lesbian weddings.)
Brendan Hoffman / Getty Images, file
Sen. Rob Portman attends the 2012 Fiscal Summit on May 15, 2012 in Washington.
And Fred Malek, a Republican power-broker, told NBC News this week that conservatives shouldn't feel threatened by gays and lesbian couples who wish to marry.
"I've always felt that marriage is between a man and a woman, but other people don't agree with that," he said. "People should be able to live their lives the way they choose. And it's not going to threaten our overall value system or our country to allow gays to marry, if that's what they want to do."
In response to the Portman endorsement, a spokesman for Republican House Speaker John Boehner said, "Senator Portman is a great friend and ally, and the Speaker respects his position, but the speaker continues to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."
It was a sentiment echoed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who said, "As a matter of personal religious conviction, I've always believed in marriage, I believe in the traditional marriage between a man and a woman. But again, I think Senator Portman is entitled to his positions, and you know we are a party of diversity and, I think, of respect."
Gay rights is an issue that has changed rapidly in just a few years. President George W. Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and President Barack Obama had said he did not support same-sex marriage when he was first running for office in 2008.
But Obama completed his "evolution" on gay rights (hastened by Vice President Joe Biden's inadvertent pronouncement of support for same-sex marriage) and announced his support for marriage rights last year. Romney had re-iterated his opposition to gay marriage at the time, but declined to use it as a cudgel versus Obama, calling same-sex marriage a "tender" issue.
There's still resistance, though, to the issue. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, R, received a loud cheer on Thursday at this week's Conservative Political Action Conference when he said: "Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot."
Nonetheless, the broader change reflects broader public opinion. A plurality of Americans — 47 percent — said they support same-sex marriage, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released earlier this month. Forty-three percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Looking inside of those numbers, independents back marriage rights by a 12-point margin, and nearly a quarter of Republicans — 23 percent — said they support same-sex marriage.
But while the GOP has been slower to embrace same-sex marriage, the party's internal struggle toward same-sex marriage was on display this week at CPAC.
While a gay Republican group, GOProud, was formally barred from sponsoring CPAC this year, an informal discussion organized by conservatives who support same-sex marriage was one of the most popular on the confab's first day.
Prominent Ohio conservative Sen. Rob Portman, once considered for Mitt Romney's running mate, is speaking out about gay marriage in support of his son, who is gay.
The split is undeniably generational, too; young conservatives here at CPAC are much more inclined to support same-sex marriage, even if they don't personally support it.
"I would say that the majority of my friends — it's not so much that we agree with it, it's just that we don't care," said Gabe Snyder, a 20-year-old college student from North Carolina in attendance at CPAC. He said he personally opposes same-sex marriage, but believed that a generational change was afoot.
"I think this generation coming up is going to be different from our parents," said Snyder.
And Renee Knight Leberry, from South Carolina, who also personally opposes same-sex marriage, said that she didn't think Portman's conservative credentials were diminished at all by his pronouncement on Friday.
"I respect him; it's his choice, and as a Christian conservative, I respect anybody's choice. That's his son, and he loves his son. I don't think it would be right to judge him for supporting his son."
This story was originally published on Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:48 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
I would consider myself pretty conservative and peronally could care less about what people do in their bedrooms.
I wish the GOP would take this attitude. I realize some are starting to, but I want to see the party platform to be more tolerant towards people's personal lives (i.e.; more libertarian).
The GOP is not changing its stance on gay marriage rights. However, once SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage, then the Republicans will say "We always supported gay marriage".
Michael Bachmann is next to endorse gay marriage having married a gay man herself.
Most Republicans I know in real life support equal marriage rights. It's just that in the public eye, they have to pander to that Bible Belt base to get the votes.
I hope this is a turning point in the divisiveness of our 2-party system. I'd love to see a moderate candidate who runs on a platform of equal parts social justice and fiscal responsibility.
"I'd love to see a moderate candidate who runs on a platform of equal parts social justice and fiscal responsibility."
So you are a Democrat.
The GOP is not changing its stance on gay marriage rights. However, once SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage, then the Republicans will say "We always supported gay marriage".
I seriously doubt that, if history is any guide they'll scream, "Judicial Activism!" and set of campagning for a constitutional amendment to reverse it.
That's right Marco, you're not a bigot. You're just one of those who would rather force your personal beliefs on everyone else so that you can be happy! It's fine that you don't want to believe that everyone should have the freedom to choose for themselves! Well, unless you say it's okay first.
Most people who support traditional marriage between a man and woman are too intimidated to speak their true opinion because of the hostile reaction from those that disagree.
If it was put to a national vote, I imagine the majority of people in this country would vote in favor of traditional marriage.
....I'm right, and your not!" great point tjohn..
You're just one of those who would rather force your personal beliefs on everyone else so that you can be happy!
and you pushing yours on us is ok? yawn.. liberal logic 101. the world seriously doesn't revolve around you no matter how many times your mom tells you...
The net result may be the same, but personally, the 'process' of how someone moves on the position means something to me. Portman's reason still comes across as extremely selfish to me. Written in this context, if your son was not gay, then you would care 2 sh*ts about their rights.
You don't support a "right" because YOU have someone that is affected it. You support a "right" because it is a right, if you have know anyone affected by it or not.
By this approach, I find it funny then that these same GOP members don't agree with people needing food stamps or any other State assistance, because we all know someone who is on public assistance, so therefore by Portman's own logic, we should be in favor of it.
If my son ever told me he liked getting railed in the pooper I would disown him...
The GOP needs to take a much more libertarian approach to "gay marriage". They need to take on the side that the govt should NOT be in the marriage business and theirfor can not define marriage. They can keep their base happy by pushing that marriage be a seen a the religious aspect of a union and support each church to set who can be married in their eyes.
On the govt side (ie tax and benefits) they should support the govt to allow any two of age citizens to join in a CIVIL (govt) union.
When I was married 2 years ago, i had to fill out two applications, one for my wifes church, one for my county.
Chip D,
The government should not be in the marriage business nor define marriage. Equal benefits should be for any couples (of any gender) joined in civil unions.
You are absolutely RIGHT about that and thanks for saying it.
Better late than never, I suppose. Hard to believe this was the civil rights party not so long ago.
Silverton stated: If it was put to a national vote, I imagine the majority of people in this country would vote in favor of traditional marriage.
I totally agree with that, in fact it has been put to a vote in numerous states and the majority has voted in favor of traditional marriage. But the losing side in CA don't believe the people of CA so they go crying to the Supreme Court.
However, I believe the Supreme Court will overturn DOMA and rule that Prop 8 in CA is unconstitutional. Then the liberals will praise the Supreme Court and tell everyone how great they are.
laughable. portman exits the tent of elmer gantry's circus, because now his son informs the father "please don't forsake me with your stance that comes from those within that tent." I do hope his son will look at his father with just a bit of distrust. ya just cant put trust with those in that tent.
I agree dogs and feel the same way myself. People's personal lives are just that, their personal lives. It's not up to me or anyone else but themselves to decide how to live their lives or who to marry.
Sons of bitches can't flush the teabags down the toilet fast enough. The storm's over, welcome to the Republican Rainbow.
I'm conservative, and a pretty live-and-let-live kind of guy... two viewpoints here... one group wants the rights that other have... shared property, inheritance, power of attorney, dependent bennies, etc... the other is protecting a term that has deep significant meaning to their religions... very simple solution... create an equivalent legal status and let the gay/lib population call it anything but "marraige"... if the right won't go for it, then it IS about denying equal rights... if the left won't go for it, then it IS about attacking religion...
The GOP, as a party, will NEVER endorse marriage equality. If they do that they will eventually lose the votes from the religious right and they depend on those votes to keep whatever is left of their party afloat. The religious right might never vote for a liberal, left of center political candidate but if they simply withheld their votes from republicans it would be disastrous. One of the reasons Romney lost so handily was that the evangelical religious right was so cool towards his Mormonism. They just never got motivated. The GOP will not be able to do much with individual republican politicians but acceptance of gay marriage will never become a party tenet.
Of course they could surprise the hell out of me and actually stand up to the radical right wing evangelicals but...nah...
AG99 -- It's been at least 60 years since the impotent republican party in the south had a positive thought on civil rights of any kind.
YOU can define marriage any way you want FOR YOURSELF. The government should not be defining personal choices for us. Sometimes I am enamored by the contradictory behavior exhibited by politicians...on both sides.
Just last week the right was railing against the NY Gov who tried define what a person should drink. Get out of my person life! is what I heard over and over again. But not when it comes to those creepy homosexuals. Give me a break! Either you are FOR smaller, less intrusive government, or you're not. You can't pick and choose which intrusions you'll allow for everyone other than yourself.
The biggest threat to marriage is not whether two men or women want to get married, that actually strengthens marriage the biggest threat to marriage is divorce and people NOT getting married. When the GOP tackles these issues then I would personally believe they care for more than their own stint at power.
Marriage is not the sole property of the christian religion, I myself am religious but I still have the intelligence and open mindedness to understand that if an atheist gets married with no mention of God, they are still married, if a Hindu gets married in accordance to their religion then they are married, we don't call for a special name for the marriage of Atheists or non-Christians,. Wanting to designate some "other" name for the marriage of two people merely becasue they are of the same sex really does hint at a prejudice streak.
The more people who enter into marriage regardless of the gender make up, or religious beliefs strengthens society as a whole. Trying to take that away is at the very least un-american.
One person with a homosexual son does not signal a shift. How stupid.
Same sex marriage is neither a political issue or a religious one. What two consenting adults, do behind closed doors is their business. Yes, I believe people are born gay and law or religion can change that.
Homosexuality is another slight of hand, politicians use to keep from doing the country's real business. Creating jobs, education, rebuilding our infrastructure and peace in a world, where there has been none, since I can remember.
Rob Portman is a parent, of a gay son. Big deal! People should be able to live their lives, in peace. If families can maintain civility, I would hope our nation and our world would follow. It is time, to accept what some consider frailties in others and each one of us, learn to look inward. We all have imperfections, in which we need to change.
To Mr Portman's son, I wish you well. I was told by a clergyman that wishing others well, even if you are not friends, or agree on everything, is the sincerest form of love. I am not a religious person because none of the religions have it right. But my spirit is alive and kicking. All of us have spirit and it will be seen when we cross over. Beauty, kindness, giving, sharing and all the other needs, one human being needs to give to another. That is how we will be judged. To all my fellow man, I wish you well.
When Cal rove and company put together the buisness Republicans and the the social conservatives to form the modern Republican party it seemed like winning combo for them. and for a while it worked. Now the more moderate Repubs ae stuck with these extremist like an anchor around thier neck . Cant live with them, cant survive with out them.
That is essentially the problem, but not for the reason people completely understand. The problem lies in the fact that people that lean right don't want to associate themselves with the far right, but people that lean left seem to have no issue with associating with the extreme left. So a moderate left-wing (if they still exist) will still vote for the leftwing nutball because of party, whereas the right-to-center fiscal conservative doesn't want to deal with the rightwing extremist.
My most recent congressional election was perfect proof of that. The barely conservative republican lost to the extreme liberal democrat (who bankrupted the capital city as mayor) strictly because he was a dem, the state dems wouldn't cross the lines even for a moderate but were happy to vote in a crooked extremist, strictly because of party.
Hell, the Liz Warren/Scott Brown race is a nationally known, perfect example.
This is more of yet another piece of evidence that the left (mostly the media and those who refuse to watch anything but liberal media) are completely wrong on what those "evil Republicans" think. Even with the existance of the Log Cabin Republicans, the left continues to apply negative stereotypes to an entire group of people in order to shine a negative light on those who don't vote the way they do.
Sure, there are those on the right who are completely against gay marriage. There are those on the left and in the center who feel that way too. There are people on the left who are 100% intolerant of any religious view that involves Jesus. We're human being invidividuals, not a Borg hive mind. If you believe every horrible thing you hear about another group of people and apply it across the board, you are, by definition, a bigot.
"Don't force priests to perform the ceremony" does not equal being against gay marriage completely, nor does it prove bigotry. "I disagree with the president" does not equal racism. Most of the left has become so intolerant of other points of view that they have become the largest hate group in the world.
From now on you will hear a lot of the GOP "changing their position" on many things via lip service and empty promises all for the sake of getting elected/re-elected, but don't be fooled for one second to think that as soon as they gain/re-gain power that they wont pizz backwards before the last piece of confetti has fallen! Of course, that's exactly what the democrats do as well.
seriously, its about damn time they woke up!
I don't care what they do in their bedrooms. But I do care that a small portion of the population are trying to change the culture and traditions of our country.
In my view republicans are not conservative as conservative believe in individual freedom to live as one wishes. Government mandates and programs force one to live under the rules set by others which is opposed to the propaganda of diversity that is advanced by the left. Liberty has little to do with the agenda of either party.
@fedup. You are the voice on reason on here. Great post!
"How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people."
-Walter E. Williams
Dogs80 - It is "I couldn't care less."
Bruteforce
Coming from a hetrosexual WHITE man I'm sure..... you are what's wrong with this country Brute
It's simple, The GOP want's to win elections and this issue is killing them!!! You can't be against Abortion and Marriage equality and still win national elections anymore! There was a time when a majority of Americans didn't believe in Marriage equality but the pendulum has moved to the other side now!!!
You have to hand it to the Gay Community, they have truly worked hard in changing the mind set of many Americans and it has worked and or is working!
Don't believe me? Pollsters have actually been asking about this question for decades now. The results show the trend. Either get on board or be thrown off the ship.
Look for yourself!
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/do-most-americans-agree-with-romney-on-gay-marriage/
"Do ‘Most Americans’ Agree with Romney on Gay Marriage?"
Fedup,
I think I know what you are trying to do here, but want to respectfully disagree with you. If the left wont go for it does NOT make it about attacking religion. By your logic, only those couples that have a religious ceremony, that are heterosexual, should have a marriage then. If you don't have a religious officiant then it's not marriage?
I would like to offer a counter point to some of the arguments here.
1. (Argument) Create Civil Unions for gays and lesbians with all the rights. While that sounds ok on paper, what you also have here is people saying that any two people should be able to enter into a civil union. So the thought behind that is this: "Gay relationships aren't equal to marriage. It's just two people shacking up." It's still elevating "traditional" marriage over other relationships and will allow for situations like: "We only service married couples." It leaves so much opportunity for abuse. Also, this basically leaves it open for the dreaded incest marriage fears. A brother and sister can enter a Civil Union then. By keeping the LGBT community out of participation, it creates the very climate that many are fearing including gays and lesbians in marriage.
2. (Argument) Portman only cares because his son is gay. It has been my experience that most people who are staunchly against homosexuals and gay marriage don't know anyone personally that is gay. I applaud Portman for coming out and saying he was wrong. Did it take his son coming out to him? Yes. But so what? Truth is that it takes most homosexuals decades to accept themselves yet we expect heterosexuals with built in bias to change overnight. It takes a "wake up action" to happen sometimes.
3. (Argument) You're shoving it down my throat! No! You are. Can we all just grow up here? There are extremes on both sides that have absolutely no room for compromise or the ability to see another persons point of view. I would like to point out something to those against gay marriage and can't understand why gays wont settle for Civil Unions. When we look at the recent history of the treatment of gays and lesbians in our country, can you not understand why the idea of separate but equal might seem like a slight or that there is mistrust that it wont be used in a way to be discriminatory? Gays and lesbians have had to fight very hard for the position in this country and even with our lives.
Judy, very well said! This is just another issue our politicans use to steer us away from the real issues, jobs, economy, healthcare, housing crisis.
And, it is time the GOP quit catering to the religious extremists.
Zavier weed
Things change the USA of today is not like the USA of 100 years ago however the core traditions and culture still exist. Marriage as a tradition will still be there it will still involve two people falling in love and getting married. I see an expansion of this tradition and culture as well as a change.
I think the real tradition and culture of this country is one of inclusion and equality, that should rule supreme, it allows those who chose to get married to do so with out prejudice and those who chose to follow a certain religion to also without prejudice.
DO we not consider in the USA the vibrant and unique marriage ceremony of the Indian culture a marriage? Even though the ceremony and words exchanged are outside what some would call the tradition and culture of the USA. Then why does the same not apply in your world for two men or woman, why so resistant?
Brute, what about your daughter?
Fedup, there is no need to change the term marriage or come up with a new term. The fact is that churches won't be forced to perform marriages for the gay and lesbian segment of our population. They are private organizations and have the right to not to perform these ceremonies. It will be up to each church to decide from within...
So its not a war on religion at all...it is about legal rights and allowing consenting adults to enjoy the benefits heterosexuals enjoy through marriage.
There is actually no need to change the word marriage to civil unions, as the church don't own the word.
I'll stay married, and the religious peoples can be holymatrimonied if they so wishes.
Actually, Jo, there is a lot of truth in that.
Just being married in the eyes of human law does not necessarily mean that it is holy matrimony.
Has anyone ever noticed how self rightously biggoted many in the GOP can be, until a particular matter directly involves them. Then they can divorce and remarry with impunity, support their gay (friend, son, daughter, you name them), support someone they know who gets an abortion, even state that they support the black politician (as long as he votes the way we tell him to.)
What matters most is that these temporarily insane people do return to rationality. Hopefully, they convince some of their friends to leave they asylum with them.
RossJ ... you make some excellent points. We should applaud Portman, not criticize him. At one time, we appreciated people who changed their positions on the basis of more information. Now, we call them flip-floppers. If no one ever changed his/her position on an issue as a result of receiving more information, our society would be even more polarized than it is now.
Don't get me wrong. In the interest of moving forward, I'm glad that Portman saw the light.
What pisses me off is that it took his own son to do it.
Why is it that these people have such an impossibly difficult time putting themselves in other's shoes? This applies to gays, the poor, illegal immigrants, the elderly, other religions, other countries, other ethnicities... you name it! It shouldn't take a family member to see other viewpoints and to muster up some understanding, if not empathy.
So, yes, this is great. But try using what you've learned about your capacity to be WRONG and applying it to other issues... for just one second... imagine being poor, a minority in the inner city, an immigrant. For here's one fact you CANNOT escape: but for nothing but absolute dumb-ass LUCK, you were born WHEN, WHERE, and WHO you are.
I agree, LMarcT. Most people can't make the connection to real people unless they actually know somebody that it applies to. They seem to be empathy-challenged.
I have been saying this for a long time: The GOP lost the initiative when they succombed to the Evangelical social agenda.
Oh good grief! How typical. Oppose something passionately when it only affects the personal rights of others. But when it affects you personally, change your mind.
This is modern Republicanism in a nutshell (with extra emphasis on the syllable "nut"). By some perverse measurement of personal character we are supposed to respect and applaud changes of fundamental policy which is entirely based only in self interest?
I'm not buying it. We should point out hypocrisy when we see it, not praise it? Give us a break.
there is more to this. I never saw this guy before, but one look and i'm thinking he just might come out of the closet.
"Allen - Omaha
The net result may be the same, but personally, the 'process' of how someone moves on the position means something to me. Portman's reason still comes across as extremely selfish to me. Written in this context, if your son was not gay, then you would care 2 sh*ts about their rights.
You don't support a "right" because YOU have someone that is affected it. You support a "right" because it is a right, if you have know anyone affected by it or not.
By this approach, I find it funny then that these same GOP members don't agree with people needing food stamps or any other State assistance, because we all know someone who is on public assistance, so therefore by Portman's own logic, we should be in favor of it."
Wow, my reaction exactly!
Silverton,
You'd be wrong. The majority of people support gay marriage...
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/support-for-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/
And by the way we don't vote on civil rights, we're a Republic, and the concept of "states rights" in regards to civil rights has been null and void since we passed the 14th Amendment and incorporated the BOR to the states.
Yeahm you're absolutely right. Next thing you know they'll be letting people of different races marry each other. Or let people of different races use the same public facilities.
Can't have that, can we?
Portman is the poster child for the word "hypocrite". Would he change his mind about entitlements if he went broke and needed help? Would he change his mind if his health insurance company denied him coverage for treatment or refused to cover him at all because of a previous condition? Does it take a personal connection for him to establish a position in favor of something? Great way to stand by your convictions!!!!!!
Sarah,
I didn't say let's put it to a national vote. I said IF it were put to a national vote ...
I only say that because in the past when states have allowed citizens to vote on the issue, allowing gay marriage has never passed to my knowledge.
Btw, I have stated this before, but if gays wish to marry, I consider that their business, not mine, though I agree with the poster that said the government should stay out of the marriage business and/or defining marriage.
Isn't it great that standing against equality for your fellow citizens is an unpopular stance?
It's a good thing equal rights should never be put to popular vote.
SEA.....SEA.....SEA ???
Another great article by a Progressives opinion media.
Must have been taught at a Progressive Wisconsin high school or proof read by Media Matters or the East Wing of the White House.
Next article: bashing the Pope or another religious attack.
Lol.. there are few things more hilarious than when someone "corrects" something that isn't wrong. "Sea change" is a phrase that means great change... sorry, Ido. Perhaps you should worry a bit more about your own schooling.
Ido is shorthand for "I don't know nothing"
I have the perfect solution to the gay marriage issue. My solution involves no new taxes, no regulations, no new government agencies, and no government oversight at all. It seems to me that “small” government” conservatives should be all for it if, in fact, they want small government. So here is my solution ---
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, R,
Ahhh, yes it does
Correct, sreeeeminglib. Gay people getting married has no affect on anyone else whatsoever and when the sole motivation for someone to want to deny rights to others is "because I don't want them to", that's bigotry.
@sreeeeminglib: No it does not. Rubio's beliefs -- nor mine -- are not rooted in hate nor bigotry. Grow up pup. You too Dale. If it is the will of the people, then so be it. Rubio nor I have to agree -- nor any one for that matter have to agree.
Do you believe that gays have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?
...but when the rubber meets the road as far as those beliefs are concerned and a someone believes that same-sex couples should not be entitled to the same legal rights of marriage as heterosexual couples then there is a problem, wouldn't you say?
Could someone give me a Constitutionally based reason why gays should not have equality of marital status?
Thanks.
Ah so his 1st Amendment rights to free speech should not be heard and that he shopuld be labeled a racist bigot is that what you are saying sounds to me like you are saying he has no rights to express his beliefs. I see quotation marks around what he said so I take it that it is an accurate reprt of what he said and if I can read correctly he states that the State should have the right to define marriage no where in that statement do I see where he says what is his definition of marriage he was just expounding that the Founding Fathers thought that states should be allowed to create there own laws free of Federal Goverment intervention
He has the right to express his views, smartman, we have the right to react to what he said.
Bigotry is bigotry. If Rubio doesn't like the charge, he shouldn't engage in the behavior.
Oh and smartman? The Founders did NOT believe that states should create their own laws free of government intervention. That is why we no longer have the Articles of Confederation.
smartman1, Rubio has the right to express any belief he wants. He does NOT have the right to back legislation to deny these rights to others.
Ben, the "will of the people" is meaningless. Slavery was once the "will of the people" too. The public has, very rarely, every supported civil rights for minorities in masse. It has almost always been the courts, on Constitutional grounds, that has to force equality to the people.
Ah so he should give up his first amendment right to free speech and go sit quietly in the corner and not say a word or as you say it the behavior. Welcome to Nazi Germany RIGHT NewDawg
Dale actually the Declaration of Independence took up the matter of slavery with the original line of Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness original life liberty and the ownership of proprerty and the northern abolitionist read into this correctly that it would keep slavery into perpetuity and the south wanted in the line lift as his and it was hotly debated and the line life liberty and the pusuit of haappiness was the compromise.again another one who wants right for everybody except for those who dont expoiund his view OH SHOULD I BE ALLOWED TO SAY THAT DALE AS I DONT THINK YOU WANT ME TO SAY ANYTHING THAT YOU DONT AGREE WITH
I don't think saying states should be able to define what constitutes a marriage is being a bigot. I'm personally for gay marriage, but I understand the term "marriage" has a specific religious connotation to it for many people. So, they feel the government is attempting to force them to change their religious beliefs. I don't agree with that position, but I can see where someone may think that way.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will rule DOMA is unconstitutional and we can put this issue behind us...
Let them marry and enjoy their unnatural lifestyle but it should not be recognized as a way to receive the same benefits as the natural way of marriage, a woman and a man.
The benefits are the driving force behind this, not just the legalities.
Hmmm, I need smaller words for "smartman". Let's try.
Quoting me: "He has the right to express his views." That means, smartman, he can say what he wants.
Quoting me: "we have the right to react to what he said:. That means, smartman, that we can say what we want.
Quoting me "If Rubio doesn't like the charge, he shouldn't engage in the behavior." That means, smartman; act like a bigot, be called a bigot. Now. How does that translate to " he should give up his first amendment right to free speech and go sit quietly in the corner and not say a word or as you say it is the behavior."
Word of advice, "smartman," punctuation is your friend. Learn to use it.
Dale R. 01 . . .
Great post! And yes, Portman changed his tune when he realized what life would be like for his son. Why on earth are people so afraid of gay marriage?
smartman1
No one suggested he should give up his right to free speech. After all, the government isn't coming to arrest him for it. He can say what he likes, when he likes unless it's an issue of public safety.
But others have the right to react to what he says. In the case of this, many people are exercising their right to free speech in suggesting they believe he is a bigot.
Or do you only believe it goes one way? Rubio can say what he likes, but NewDayDawning is a Nazi for saying what he likes? Chill out with the mental gymnastics.
Then perhaps, kkwilson: there should be no marital financial benefit to marriage for any couple.
Thanks, Repojam, 60 year old married woman here, that has never understood why gays can't marry.
Actually, "smartman" you are another one who does not understand the right to free speech. Free speech does NOT mean speech without consequences. If you look at the Amendment, it says that CONGRESS shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't say if you open your mouth, and spout stuff that other people don't like, they can't rip you for it. Rubio opened his mouth, people didn't like it, and told him so. That was the "consequence" of his "free speech". His "right to free speech" as guaranteed by the First Amendment has not been abridged.
newdayDAWNING...RETURNED
I'll apologize for my previous post which suggested you were a 60 year old married man who never understood why gays cannot marry. :)
I do not see a hateful word used by Rubio in his text but the LEFT as per their Modus Operendi label him a bigot a hateful word because he disagrees with you. If i am not correct in a democracy the majority rules and at last count 32 of 34 states have voted with defining marriage as between a man and woman I unfortunately live in a state that did not let me exercise the right to vote on this and instead had 7 judges appointed judges rule for the majority
Stating an opinion about marriage equality doesn't necessarily make someone a bigot.
Spreading and repeating unsubstantiated false witness about a group does make you a bigot. I have no problem with Rubio's stance, providing that he does not fall back into declaring that all gay people are predators and pedophiles.
I'm OK with someone stating they are uncomfortable with marriage equality. Most gay citizens (like myself) took some time to develop a healthy view of their God-given sexual orientation. Many heterosexual citizens also had to go through a paradigm shift. These take time. There was a time when some thought (and used the Bible as justification) that persons of color were cursed by God. Once again, it will take time for the paradigm shift to sink in.
The path to equality needs ot start by stopping the name calling (on both sides), it just fuels the hate and bias.
Oh, I dunno. Department stores might have to hire extra help in their bridal registry departments....
No harm no foul Repojam:
About our conversation yesterday. I'm thinking you are right. Christie needs the far right to get through the primary process, and I had forgotten that element.
Have a good weekend.
"Smartman" ... while you may be correct that "majority rules", you obviously don't know that we do not live in a democracy. We live in a federal republic.
First the 1st amendment only applies to the govenrment suppressing free expression, private citizens have no obligation to let you speak your mind. However, I don't see how reacting negativily to anything you say is an attempt to suppress your free speech. If you make a statement and I feel that statement makes you a bigot I am perfectly free to say so. On the other hand if you feel I am unfairly labelling you you can argue that case as well, or simply go sit in a corner and shut up if that is your wish as well.
Rubio knows that the issue evokes strong emotion on both sides, if he can't take the heat then he needs to stay out of kitchen, and not make statements on the subject.
@smartman1
Sometimes the majority is simply wrong. The reason we have courts is to vet an issue against the constitution, up to the supreme court, regardless of what the majority may want. Laws are struck down or upheld based on its constitutionality. Be glad we live in such a society where the majority rule is not the final rule.
First Amendment rights have nothing to do with moral judgements. No one is suppressing his right to make bigoted comments and it's anyone's First amendment right to call him out on it. The First Amendment is about rights, not morality. A little something conservatives need to learn. Don't mistake the Constitution with your bible.
Jrschw-HB CA -
How do you live with yourself not just calling people, now meaningless, words because you don't see eye to eye with them?
Seriously though, great post, I think that's the point smartman1 has been less eloquently attempting to get across. I wish there were more people like you that didn't just fall back on the hateful rhetoric and labeling, like calling people racists and bigots or homophobes just because they may not see things exactly your way.
I think most of the defensive backlash is there because of people like some above who will call someone a bigot, racist or whatever they desire no matter how inappropriate it is in relation to the discussion. I certainly saw nothing bigoted in what Rubio said He simply stated that he sees a word to mean something different than others may, but his definition has also been the standard for a very long time.
Your middle-of-the-road, rational civilty is also why the extremists won't rate you up, funny how that works isn't it, people here hate non-extremists.
If it were 1913 instead of 2013 Rubio would be saying the same thing about interracial marriage. That is assuming of course they would even let Rubio be a member.
Rubio within the GOP/ 'bagger CPAC is like a black guy within the Mormon church and a token effort at best.
False argument, like most of them. Not wanting interracial marriage had nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage. It was strictly out of racism and not wanting blacks to breed with whites.
smartman1: "If i am not correct in a democracy the majority rules"
In the case of the United States, you are NOT correct. This is not just a simple democracy, this is a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy. The majority rules only if what the majority decides is in accordance with the Constitution.
Yes I believe in equal rights for all.
Hes not simply a bigot for what he says but for what he believes and how he votes
honestdebate, Rubio is simply toeing the party line, that is my point. And couching his argument as traditional marriage doesn't change the fact that it is bigotry regardless of how it is worded.
honestdebate
Its strictly out of homophobia that he does not support gay marriage and the states right talking point is pure bs
Actually I believe it is more in-line with believing abortion is murder. Just because some people don't see it that way, doesn't mean it isn't true. It doesn't mean it is true, but it does mean they have a strong conviction that it is. Basically people are attacking him for believing something becasue they don't agree with what he believes.
I've already explained people like you that liberally throw out words in an attempt to make someone look much worse than their true position. People like you have removed any meaning to words like homophobia, racist, bigotry sexist, etcetc.
If this were applied to interracial marriage, would you feel the same way? Why or why not? What if Alabama decided to make it illegal for whites and blacks to marry? Hey, states rights right?
Already explained the difference, sorry.
So sombody is beyond reproach when they believe somthing strongly enough? I know people who believe the earth was made in six days and that it's only 6 thousand years old yet people don't have the right to criticize them for it?
Homophobia is bigotry plain and simple. There are no rational underpinnings for denying same sex couples to marry. It is objected to simply because of other people's distaste for gays. That, my friend, is bigotry.
And as I said, you'd make the same type of argument to argue for abortion. It is sexist, it isn't murder just becasue people believe it. It is not objected to because of distaste for guys with eevryone, some people could care less about gays or have gay friends, yet those same people don't agree with men marrying men, sorry if you don't like that being true, but it is.
We can argue as much as we want this is going to be resolved by SCOTUS.
Also those who claim bigotry is free speech well yes it is you are right, however you are all missing the fundamentals of free speech. We may have the right to express ourselves how ever we wish. but, you should also remember that free speech does not put you above reproach, above questioning and above criticism, free speech also comes with responsibilities and consequences.
honestdebate
"some people could care less about gays or have gay friends, yet those same people don't agree with men marrying men"
Then those people simply shouldn't marry their own gender. If you don't believe in it, don't do it. But denying someone else the right just because you don't personally believe in it is bigotry. A Christian does not believe in judaism, but for a Christian to deny a jew the right to practice judaism simply because they don't personally believe in it is bigotry.
So these guys are all against gay marriage until it effects someone in their family....nice.
Again, using bigotry incorrectly does not help your argument.
honestdebate
So what is your definition of a bigot?
Because by your rational only a self confessed bigot is actually a bigot
See, here's the problem with the "I'm not bigoted, I just don't want to change the definition of marriage" argument. A definition is (by, um, definition) a form of tautology, because it is a premise, not a conclusion. You can literally define anything as anything. It's a construct to help us understand the world in simpler terms. But it is not the reality of the world itself.
Allow me to demonstrate by defining "sturmp" as "the definition of marriage", "kwakoo" as "your beliefes" and "groul" as "the big bang", and continue.
Relying upon sturmp to deny same-sex marriages doesn't make any sense. We created sturmp; we can make it be whatever we want. Sturmp has no existence independent of our need for it. It's not like sturmp was sitting out there in space billions of years ago, just waiting for groul to happen. There is no analog to it in the natural world. Sturmp exists because we say it exists.
Of course, you might counter that your particular deity says sturmp has to be just this, not some other thing, and definitely not THAT. But now you are making a religious argument and not a legal or traditional one. You're not actually talking about sturmp anymore, you're talking about kwakoo, and while you are certainly entitled to believe anything you want, kwakoo have absolutely no place in the application of law. To say otherwise is to say that kwakoo should trump someone else's beliefs. The only way to describe that is "un-American".
Dan, your theory must be the explanation for why the left feels they can change the defintions of words daily to mean what they desire. Like bigot.
To a leftist, bigot means, 'anyone that doesn't agree with me' to a rational person it means, 'someone that portrays hatred towards a group'
At no point did Rubio imply in any way he doesn't like gays, he just stated that he doesn't believe in gay marriage.
& i will give them over to a reprobate mind
flbikerchick......hahahahaaaaaaaaa....very good! But that would be good for the economy, no? LOL
honestdebate
To this Republican a bigot is a term applied to anyone who has no valid argument nor reason to repress equality in another group other than who they are.
There is no logical reason to prevent marriage equality, zip, nada. This "tradition" argument is ridiculous if we held dear to all our traditions we'd still be living in our traditional cave houses eating raw meat and do our traditional bowing to the sun god before bed.
That's great, you like to redefine words too then. That doesn't mean that is what bigot means. I guess you like the left calling everyone that doesn't see everything their way bigots, racists, homophobes, haters, sexist, etc etc. You should keep encouraging them then if you like it.
"Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot."
Translation:
I personally don't believe white women should be allowed to marry black men. It goes against my personal beliefs (i.e. religion, traditional views, stereotypes, etc.) Also, the Constitution says nothing about marriage being a right anyway, so why not just leave it to the states to decide rather than some activist court to make that decision for all of us? I mean, if they did, the sky would fall and we'd open not only the gates of hell, but also the doorway to cats marrying dogs where vows would be exchanged by barks and meows...it would mean "human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria." I don't want to see a white woman and black man walking down the street with their hands together...Its just not natural. Oh wait a minute, I just forgot to take my insulin (which was derived from genetically engineered bacteria and which I need to keep me alive). I mean, I would have to explain it to little Tyrone and Susie (i.e. I find that disgusting). I better cover their eyes first so I don't have to come up with an explanation of what they would see (i.e. my own personal discomfort). I mean, its not natural for those types of people to be living together because if god intended that, he wouldn't have made different races and put them in different parts of the world (which I reluctantly acknowledge as round). None of this makes me a bigot because I have my own religious and personal beliefs and I can put that out like a shield and if anybody criticizes me, I can claim infringement of my First Amendment rights to squash the other side. I don't need any facts...let the facts be damned!! I hope my state doesn't let these people marry...I would hate to think of all the problems it would create for the marriage between Joe and myself and the devaluation of our relationship. I would hate for Tyrone to come home from school and tell me that his best friend Nate's dad who raised him since he was barely a month old is struggling financially because his "partner" (or whatever you call "it") died and has an estate tax that he has to pay. How can I tell Tyrone that their "relationship" (or whatever you call "it) is/was wrong without having to break the subject to him in the first place...actually, how do I tell Tyrone that it would have been better and god's plan for Nate to stay in a foster home rather than get adopted by two guys? I mean aren't there enough straight couples out there who would take Nate in because everyone knows only straight couples make good parents? Well, I better say yes to traditional marriage when I vote next month.
Latisha (eyes rolling)
Fedup,
I've seen this argument so many times. But it misses the point.
If the ability to legally enter into a marriage contract is ONLY a religious term, then why are people who are not religious allowed to marry? Why are people who are of religions different than Christian religion allowed to marry? Are these not "marriages"? And if they're not marriages, why have the religious conservatives not taken issue with people of other religions or no religion using the term "marriage"? Why do they only care if gays use the term?
It makes clear then that the position and reasoning for having a separate term has nothing to do with religious meaning of marriage. It specifically has to do with making sure gays are treated differently. That's why us people on the "left" have a problem with a separate term.
But, many of us on the "left" would be completely okay with saying: If you care that much about the term marriage, fine. The legal phrase for entering into a civil "marriage" contract can be called "unions" and the religions can keep the word "marriage." Thus straight couples and gay couples would get the word "union" and people can call their religious ceremonies whatever they want. Thus, in the eyes of the law there is no need for separate but equal. All marriage contracts granted by a state are called "unions" regardless of one's sexual orientation.
This suggestion does exactly what you claim the issue is really about. The religious people can have their word marriage. And gay/lesbians' civil unions are called and treated the exact same way as straight people's civil unions.
Unless of course those who are against the "marriage" thing aren't actually arguing about religion or a word at all. They're arguing merely about denying civil marriage rights to gays and lesbians.
"Marriage" is a human construct, so it isn't "natural" at all. You can't point to a scientific principle that shows that "marriage" must exist in the universe. Same-sex marriage is no more and no less "natural" than heterosexual marriage.
If you really want traditional marriage, a bride's father would still be paying a groom's family a dowry, after betrothing her at the age of six. A woman would also surrender control over her property to her husband.
Hmm .. why aren't people complaining that we don't still do those things? Don't they care about traditional marriage? They seem awfully selective when it comes to a definition of "traditional."
honestdebate,
Our society redefines words in a legal context when it is realized that there is a problem with our definitions or certain parts of it are not necessary. Property owner used to mean "white males' Voter used to mean "white male property owner" then "white male", then "male." The definition of property used to include women (chattle) and black people. Over the course of hundreds of years, our society has changed these definitions for the betterment of those being unfairly harmed by them. Marriage is a government contract between individuals who vow to support and love each other. There is no reason to deny the right to enter into this contract to only opposite sex couples as the gender of the persons has nothing to do with their ability to uphold the tenants of the contract. It's simply a matter of changing the definition to not discriminate on the basis of the gender of the parties. Making the argument that the states should be able to make laws allowing this discrimination is a display of bigotry as they are saying that disallowing these individuals from entering into this contract (discrimination) is ok if that is what the majority want. But, as has been pointed out over and over again, our rights are not up to a majority vote.
honestdebate
"Again, using bigotry incorrectly does not help your argument."
Really? Do you want to explain how I'm using bigotry incorrectly? It's funny how you took that one little statement, but ignored everything else I said and the actual point leading up to that statement (i.e., the very context of my statement) to claim I'm using bigotry incorrectly. BACK TO THE CONTEXT OF MY POINT: If a Christian denies a jew the right to practice their religion on the basis that the Christian does not believe in judaism, how is that not bigotry? Same principle with gay marriage: If you deny a gay couple the right to marry on the basis that you do not believe in gay marriage, how is that not bigotry? If that's not bigotry, then what the hell is?
I still say, we should just get the states OUT of the marriage business and all is equal. What ever happened to separation of church and state? the state should only give co-habitation contracts to all equally.
I agree that Equality for all children would be most welcome. All God's creations should have the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The most innocent and the least able to defend themselves are the unborn who have a heartbeat and also have the right for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- rights that should trump anyone's right to murder that life. I as a Republican with no known gay family or ex-family member am willing to move to marriage equality (and let God judge them) if -- and this is where if you want one core principle compromised another must be given in good faith negotiations -- Democrats are willing to allow the unborn Life Equality. I am willing to reach across the aisle. Are you willing to grasp that hand?
Ben,
The two are unrelated. You don't get to "trade" rights. I understand that you may believe an unborn child has rights, but I (and many others) also believe that a woman has rights to make decisions about her own body. Abortion and the decision to have or not have one is an extremely difficult decision and one that should be left up to the woman whose body is involved in the situation, not the electorate who have no understanding of her situation. Many people (not all of course) who are pro-life believe exceptions should be made for the life of the mother, for rape and incest and some other exceptions -- which I think is great. But here's my problem with it -- why should we get to say "Okay, your reason is legitimate enough. Now you can make the decision about your body." Why does the electorate get to vote on WHEN a woman has a "good enough" reason to make a decision about her body? Especially when the electorate has literally NO understanding of each woman's situation?
I understand that many people believe an unborn child has rights. But, again, I think many people on both sides of the aisle also recognize that a person should have rights over their own body. That is as important a right as the right to life. How can someone consider themselves free if they are not even allowed to control their own body? To make medical decisions about their own body? So, I (and many others who are pro-choice) believe that such a difficult decision about whether one gets an abortion or not should be left to the person(s) involved. Not to an electorate who see it as little more than an abstract issue.
And again -- this has literally nothing to do gay marriage. I find it a little offensive actually that you would suggest that an equal rights issue is something that should be haggled over like a car. "Sure, I'll let people have equal rights, but only if you give me something.."
Plain and simple, bigotry and religion have no business in our government. You can be a bigot and be religious, but as political figure, you are suppose to put those things aside, and uphold the people's rights. To do otherwise, is a traitorous act.
"GOP sea change on gay rights?" Shouldn't that be see change?
Sea change is correct, per two dictionaries I looked at.
I learned something new today. Thank you.
"Sea change" means a marked transformation in public policy or opinion. Not sure of the origin. When I first read the sentence I thought it said "sex change". I thought the story was about to get a lot more interesting.
edit: Apparently it comes from a phrase in Shakespeare's "The Tempest". TIL.
It is a nautical term and relates to the way that sailors could tell of a change coming in the weather by the change in the sea state (or waves).
Clotho is correct that this old term has come to mean (among other things) a significant change in outlook of the public at large.
Turning of the tides so to speak?
Well for once thanks nbcnews for teaching me a new term. At first I thought it was another obvious typo or spelling error that got past the obviously missing (year long holidays ? I want his job !) editor.
Well, everyone is entitled to change their mind on this subject. Obama did a year ago.
did they really change theeir minds? or just their handling of it? This guy may have actually had a change of heart but i'm thinking the base party will not, does not etc.
did they really change their minds? or just their handling of it? This guy may have actually had a change of heart but i'm thinking the base party will not, does not etc.
Why is it straight people think being gay is only about the bedroom. It means the same thing as straight people, commitment, love, and raising a family. The bedroom is only a small part of it.
Now we agree.
I guess when "Talk to the Hand" does his wife in the rear, or she gives him a knobber, that's not disgusting.
Talk to the Hand has a wife? Well, they do say love is blind, but deaf, dumb and unable to smell?
Coming from a newby (or probably a rereg) I'll take that comment with grain of salt. And flbikerdick, stuff it (if you have a battery for it)
If those people are concerned with gays having sex, they should just let them marry. We all know what a marriage does to your sex life.
Just curious, TttH, why is it "disgusting"? I'm not gay, but I don't find gay sex "disgusting". I mean, I don't like the way fish(*) tastes, but I don't find fish disgusting, I just don't order it for dinner.
(*) To forestall the inevitable sophomoric joke: "Oh you don't like the way fish tastes? You MUST be gay! Nyuk nyuk nyuk"
It's Strange !
I'm straight and a big defender of equal rights for all, yet never do I think about all the graphic stuff that peoples like Talk to the hand seems to think about.
You know if they wanted to have sex they would just have sex, no need to be married for that, the fact that they want to marry has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with love.
But yet you focus on the sex part.
Very strange indeed !
lol ''Straight People'' You mean ''Normal People'' Where all these ''Gays'' going to get these families from??
you guessed it from............... Straight people !! If gay is soooo wonderful why cant you have yur own kids?????? hahahahahahaahaha
A lot of people can't have their own kids biologically-what's that got to do with ANYTHING. And oh, btw, gay people are just as able to have children biologically as anyone else.
So Joe, where do gay people come from? Straight parents! hahahahahahaahaha
I'll believe something is happening when significant numbers of Republicans who don't have gay family members start changing their position.
What was George Burns right about? I did love the man and his work.
As a Simpsons fan, I'm thinking it might be a quote from Bart:
"George Burns was right: show biz is a horrible bitch goddess."
George---just once I'd like to see someone like Portman support gay marriage because it is the right thing to do, not because he wants it for his son.
FRom the GOP perspective, the "right thing to do" would for him to have completely disavowed his son.
As a number of commenters here have said they would do.
No, it is not a "sea change" or a systemic one. It is simply a few individuals in the GOP who are less crazy than others, changing their mind on an issue that affects them personally. Had Portman's son not "come out" it is extremely doubtful Portman would have said what he did.
Sad but true. He just pulled a Cheney.
When did Obama change his mind? Doesn't seem like it was too long ago either.
Sure he would of. He's probably been feeling up his son since he was a baby!! LMAO
Tacky had to get his dig in, go figure. Go over and comment about Senator Menendez(whoops he is an icon) for the sheeple!
Is there a real point in your otherwise irrelevant post? Menendez is under investigation for financial improprieties. Whose "icon" is he? Not mine. What does that have to do with Portman's stance on gay marriage. its not even apples and oranges. More like wrenches and bunny rabbits.
Words do have meaning. Marriage is one man and one woman, it is biological, it is what we are. Civil unions, with all of the rights of a marriage guaranteed, OK, but don't use the word marriage.
Can you please give me a Constitutionally based reason why equality of marital status should not be afforded to gay families?
Whatever you say, doesn't matter. Attitudes are changing so fast, nothing will stop gay marriage to be mainstream. Evolve or go back to your bunker with your guns.
All John Di lotsanumbers is saying is, it's okay to be a civil union and have all the rights of being in a committed relationship. Just don't call it marriage. Civil union is just fine.
Why can't there be anything sacred anymore? We can recognized those who are commited to each other and give it a different nomenclature. Why does traditional anything always threaten you libs?
Just like the other day with the finding of a new pope. You all were so sh!tty over the "tradition" of finding a new head of something you really don't care about you couldn't post fast enough to denigrate it. It is a multiple lane highway we are on. And you are the ones of tolerance and acceptance. Methinks only as it applies to your vision of an "evolving" and "progressive" world.
Kind of like "Separate but Equal" right, Talk?
Well, unless you're King Solomon, or someone like that.
Talk to the Hand.... some traditions are worth abandoning... like slavery, treating women and children as property, "eye for an eye", sons are preferred to daughters, women always make better parents, .... This could be a very long and interesting list.
Not even close NDDR. Damn you libs can never take anything at face value and not read your agenda into it to prove your superior intellect.
And jrschw-HBCA okay so you are saying we should just get rid of the term marriage and come up with a whole new all encompassing "word" to please everyone. Yes I can see it now, our great grand kids sitting around saying "Man can you believe our ancestors really got married instead of (fill in the blank)".
My goodness, Talk, you are losing control.
Would you please elucidate for all of us what the difference might be?
...except that it is "Separate But Not Equal".
Call it whatever you want, we unfortunately have DOMA...and that will be heard in the Supreme Court this year with United States v Windsor.
"OK, but don't use the word marriage"......to be consistent with the your sanctity of marriage, I imagine that you agree that divorce should be illegal. If divorce is allowed then there goes the sanctity of marriage, right?
Wait a minute. What if you aren't religious and you get "married"? Would that be considered a civil union since it wouldn't be done in a church and there is no religious affiliation? Do you believe that a civil union would have the same benefits as being married? Newday, I think you are right, this is turning into separate but equal.
I think so too.
oops. bubblegum
John,
I understand that you believe that, but it does not make it fact. Fact: marriage arose as a vehicle for property conveyance. Later, religious ceremonies were added, holy matrimony. Your church cannot marry you without a license from the government for a reason. Marriage is simply contract law. Once legally married, you will remain married absent a judgment for dissolution from a judge. Period. It is a legal construct, arising in contract law, that enables property conveyance and laws of inheritance, among other benefits that arose subsequently under law.
As a contractual relationship, many benefits are accrued. Now, all men being equal and availed of liberty, all men should be able to enter into this personal contract with the consenting adult of their choice. If your church doesn't like it, then they won't give their ceremony in addition to the civil ceremony proscribed by law. No big deal.
Ro Mar,
Thank you-very clear and concise. It really is that simple!
Interesting observation. Here in Colorado the objection Republican legislators keep making to a civil unions law here is that it's too much like marriage.
Because of course, two people willing to devote their entire lives together don't deserve anything better than a "civil union".
You are correct. Words do have meaning. Which is why gay couples are fighting for the word "marriage", in order to call their significant others "husband" or "wife".
What's sad is that Sen. Portman would have had no problem denying equality to gay couples if his son never came out...I have no respect for this man.
@Pat, I believe the senator will lose sleep over you not respecting him. Bet you respect Menendez though now don't you?
Yo dog---got a little "brolove"going on for the Senator? C'mon man, fess up.
Sometimes it takes something hitting close to home for opinions to change. Have some tolerence for the guy...you are probably one of those libs that preach tolerance to others but don't return the favor. And remember, President Obama only recently gave his support to marriage equality but I'll bet you didn't have such disrespect for him.
Opinions can be wrong, but they are there and they don't change overnight. Maybe this is a step in the right direction and other republicans will follow suit. I'm a social moderate (borderline liberal), but I will always vote republican because of my fiscal conservatism and belief in small government. I think it's a nice change for a republican to break away from the party on a social issue.
I think that it is great when people progress the way that Obama, Portman and even Cheney have. The difference here is that Portman and Cheney only changed their minds about the subject when if effected their family's rights.
"I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married,"
OK, so why not open up the idea of a "partner contract" (call it marriage if you insist) and this contract could be entered into by any two people (including siblings, parent-child, etc). No sexual connotation at all involved.
I would like a different contract and legal definition for heterosexual marriage which is the only legitimate kind.
Based on what Constitutional mandate, Prolife?
Is there a constitutional mandate for marriage at all? I didn't realize the constitution even addressed the issue.
We are talking about equality Pro life. What is the Constitutional reason to deny equality of status for gay citizens?
Why is it that these "defenders of the Constitution" never seem to know what's actually in it?
Got me, flbikerchick.
"What is the Constitutional reason to deny equality of status for gay citizens?" Your issue is meaningless from a constitutional point of view: Marriage is never dealt with in constitutional law and for most of our history has been a religious ceremony and contract.
What you really want is the legal contract, correct with benefits, inheritance and asset protection. I mean you could have a contract with your mom which would automatically confer the rights to you.
But there is no reason to restrict this to two people. Any number of adults and even siblings could marry.
So equality is not an issue addressed in the Constitution?
And you agree that all marital tax benefit gained from marriage should be eradicated and it should just be a "legal contract between two people."
That would definitely remove the equality issue.
You willing to give those benefits up?
There's not necessarily anything unconstitutional in Pro life's statement. He's talking about word-play. I think he's saying get rid of the word itself and just call it what it is, a legally binding contract between two individual to share responsibilities and property in a 50/50 manner. You could get a certificate of hapbounted (a word I just invented) that means two individuals of consenting age, 18 for contracts and since being hapbounted is a legal contract between two individual just like being married was, regardless of gender or familial relationship, agree to be bound together in a legal 50/50 manner in regards to property and responsibility in a very real and legally binding manner. See, problem solved. And yes, it would apply to any benefits whether governmental or private in nature, such as Insurance.
Or....we could just call it marriage.
DING-DING-DING!!!
You just said the magic word...CONTRACT!
If marriage was just about the religious ceremony then why do you need a marriage license and witnesses? Because you are entering a legal agreement and not just a religious one.
"You willing to give those benefits up?" - you can just leave the tax benefits for any two people in a contractual partner relationship.
Just leave marriage as a religious ceremony since that is what it has been all along. I don't want to be associated with queers so I want my relationship called something different from theirs.
Why so threatened?
...and, really, "queers"? Feel free to join us in 2013.
SCOTUS in Loving v Virginia disagrees with you.
SCOTUS also disagrees with you in Reynolds v United States.
But marriage is not just a religious ceremony. What about people who have no religious affiliation, would they fall under the "queer" contract or could they actually be married??
Didn't take long to shake prolife into a bigoted statement did it?
The question was prolife, and I do expect an answer. If you are willing to deny one group of taxpaying benefits that you receive through the status of "marriage" then you must also be willing to deny yourself those same benefits.
Are you willing to forego the tax benefits you receive?
Me thinks prolife protests to much. ;)
Demonstratably false! Marriage is a civil institution under the law, and marriage has always been a civil institution. There is no recorde anywhere, in the entire history of civil or common law, that requires religious approval or ceremony for a marriage to be legally valid. Besides, you seem to confuse the legal concept of marriage with the religious concept of Holy matirmony.
It's called marriage.
The law disagrees!
Yes, there is. Refer to the SCOTUS case: Loving v. Virginia (1967), which deemed marriage to be a "basic civil right."
What does sex have to do with marriage?
Marriage is marriage, regardless of the participants. If a marriage is recognized and validated by the government, then it's a legal, legitimate marriage!
Wrong! Marriage predates religious involvement by thousands of years. Nor does religion own the word marriage.
I don't want to be associated with
queersblacks, so I want my relationship called something different from theirs.Sounds very similar to the arguments made by bigots opposed to interracial marriage, doesn't it? You don't own the word marriage either! Besides, how does gay marriage possibly affect you or yours?
Coorporate America has known the wisdom of providing same sex benefits for a long time. It's because they need to retain good workers. It's a no brainer for them. The world is changing and the GOP hasn't been changing with it. It's time to stop descriminating against Americans on all levels. Same sex marriage is no threat to America. Rove and the political attack folks have used this as a get out the vote issue for conservatives for a long time. Everyone knows gay and lesbian people and are not threatened by them. They are behind the times and will not be able to stem the tide for equality that is growing in our country. It's time to be for people and not against them. It's tim,e to stop dividing our country and time to start bringing it together for equality for everyone.
NOT REALLY. Cheney, Bush, Portman and the likes are coming to a late conversion because someone in the family came out as gay or lesbian.
Interesting non dilemma, in my opinion, about gay couples 'marrying'. On the one hand, we have the religious opposition for whatever reason. On the other, we have the rule of law related to civil agreements and contracts.
If, for example, the Catholic Church opposes two people of the same gender marrying, so be it. But what right does the Church, or any other institution, have to oppose that same couple from entering a legal contract through a civil procedure?
Exactly. The Catholic Church opposes divorce, but that is still legal in all 50 states.
Christianity is oppossed to worshipping anyone other than GOD, but they don't opposse people of other religions excercising their freedom to do so (well, they might oppose it, but not by legislation). Likewise, it would be wrong to legislate against gay marriage for religious reasons. Gay marriage is no more a threat to them than a Buddhist worshipping in a temple in Kansas City.
Whoa, there! That sounds pretty threatening to me!
Barry-NJ, if either one is a threat to you, I would suggest you not leave your house, make sure the blinds are pulled, perhaps wear some tin foil on your head.
My mother is a Buddhist and just the thought of her meditation being a threat to anyone is pretty funny.
"On the one hand, we have the religious opposition for whatever reason. "
...Purhaps the whatever reason is because the bible has homosexuality listed as a sin. It's obvious you have no knowledge of the Bible. Besides, marriage is and has been defined as a union between a man and a women and recently the liberals, gays and other are so intolerant of what marriage has been for hundreds of years and demand to change it. They are the ones that are intolerant of religion, customs, ect, ect, and they demand change! They can have their same sex unions, I do not care, but two people of the same sex getting legally tied together is not marriage. Call it civil union, or some other term, but do not DESECRATE what marriage is!!!
The Bible is irrelevant to the law. Please stop trying to interject it into a discussion of civil marriage.
If you think that marriage has remained unchanged for hundreds of years, you don't know history.
Considering the current divorce rate (especially in the Bible belt), heterosexuals have done a pretty good job of that already. How could gays do any more to "desecrate" (another religious term) marriage?
TnDan24,
"Christianity is oppossed to worshipping anyone other than GOD, but they don't opposse people of other religions excercising their freedom to do so (well, they might oppose it, but not by legislation). Likewise, it would be wrong to legislate against gay marriage for religious reasons. Gay marriage is no more a threat to them than a Buddhist worshipping in a temple in Kansas City."
Your argument sounds nice, problem is that activist gays, leftists, Regressive progressives, and Mr Portman are not listening.
A Christian lady was fined nearly $7,000 for refusing to photograph a gay ceremony in New Mexico!!!
The New Mexico Supreme Court is going to hear the case.
Search MSN Bing "Christian persecuted photographer" and read for yourself.
This is the tip of the iceberg.
Bing "Christians persecuted in America" and get a eyeful of story after story of all the wonderful liberals persecuting Christians.
Just because MSNBC, Yahoo, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. are not telling you and others about how gays persecute Christians does not mean it does not exist.
David,
This "Christian lady" was actually a business that the state defined as "doing business with the public" who therefore, was violating the anti-discimination law of that state by using her personal religious beliefs to not provide services to certain members of the public. You know, kind of like the restraurants that wouldn't serve black people in the South circa 1950? Your chosen religion is meant to define how you live your own personal life. It has no place in business, law, or how other people live their lives.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/06/christian_photographers_sued_f.php
So is eating shellfish and wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics. Do you also obey Leviticus concerning those, too? And if not, why not?
The GOP don't have a mind so how can it change it?. With our Democrats and Republicans it is like "if you like it then I hate it" or vice versa. Organized kaos
Ah, insults from the Obamabot deadbeat parasite corps.... how special...
"If, for example, the Catholic Church opposes two people of the same gender marrying, so be it. But what right does the Church, or any other institution, have to oppose that same couple from entering a legal contract through a civil procedure?"
The church has no right to set the laws for the society as a whole. But I would like a separate contract and definition for hetero marriage: I would never want my legitimate marriage to be confused with a Que$r marriage.
Unless your wife looks like a man or your husband looks like a woman, that's pretty unlikely regardless of any legal posturing.
While the Catholic Church may not set the laws for society as a whole, it certainly must be steadfast in its defense of God's Law. If you don't like the position of the Church, go join Obama's "church" and get that meaningless secular humanist line.
That's easy ... as a Catholic you are already familiar with the terms (others are not so familiar with the difference). Marriage should be the legal "contract" conferring all rights, "matrimony" is the optional religious blessing if it is so desired by the couple.
I think that marriage should be available without restriction to either gay or hetero couples, while matrimony should be based on the beliefs of that particular religion.
That should really solve the problem.
BTW That would also make a gay marriage as "legitimate" as yours! Which it should be.
"I think that marriage should be available without restriction to either gay or hetero couples, while matrimony should be based on the beliefs of that particular religion."
Agree.
Marriage is a civil contract. You must first hie yourself off to the county clerk to get a license. In some states, those licenses are denied gay couples. You are saying, that you support that being changed are you not?
So, then refer to your heterosexual, religious ceremony as "matrimony," and let everyone else have "marriage." If you think a word makes a marriage valid or invalid, yours is probably already in trouble.
And how less equal would gays/lesbians be if their joining was called "life partnership"?? Exactly the same legal status... just no secular assault on religion or the traditional nuclear family... institutions that have been in place for millenia... but then that woudn't serve the Left's "destroy religion" agenda would it? To have truly morally bankrupt mindlessly following Obamabots, you need to eliminate the two institutions that carry objective values from generation to generation... the family and religion... the monsters that are shooting each other in Chicago and all of the other urban welfare ghettos, and the legions of deadbeat parasites with no work ethics, are prime examples of what you end up with when you eliminate both...
". In some states, those licenses are denied gay couples. You are saying, that you support that being changed are you not?"
I support opening it up completely but not limiting to couples: it could be a contract between a woman and two men for example or 2 men and two women.
Fed Up, the fact that you want to keep the word "marriage" exclusively for straight couples, because it is somehow a special institution, means calling gay marriage something else would make it not be equal. And, I don't see how you can call marriage a religious institution since there are no religious requirements for marriage.
Then prolife, you agree that marriage is not exclusive to a man and a woman. My goodness, the progress we have made with you today.
The GOP really needs to stop appealing to the religious right regarding moral issues. They've alienated pretty much everyone over the past decade, so I guess they need to start somewhere.
The religious right is a powerful voting block and you have really gotten our ire up over gay marriage.
Gays are disgusting
I don't know prolife. I kind of think hatred and bigotry are disgusting.
By the way, about that powerful voting block? YOU LOST!
" YOU LOST!"
we lost this time...there is always a next time.
Isn't that what you said the LAST time?
Sorry, but I think the country has moved toward equality on this issue. Once that starts, it never goes back.
Sorry. But, on the issue of gay rights, the religious right is on the losing side of history. Of course, conservatives should be used to being on the losing side of history ... voting rights for women, civil rights, women's rights, etc....
Bigots are worse.
Remember Obama did not win a single state that required proper photo ID before voting. In my opinion Obama only won due to fraud! Many have since been convicted of voting multiple times for Obama. The POS could not win without fraud!
Of course, there are two explanations for that: 1) states that required photo ID most likely were conservative and wouldn't have voted for Obama under any circumstances or 2) photo ID requirements suppressed many legal voters who would have voted for Obama if their rights hadn't been usurped.
When the SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage, your defeat will be final!
It appears that there is a disturbing movement of the GOP toward being junior Democrats. That won't work. They will never be able to out liberal the Democrats regardless of how many of their core beliefs they abandon.. If this trend continues, I will leave the Republican Party.
With your theocratical thinking I'm sure the Taliban would love to have you.
It would appear for some GOP, especially the younger crowd, that the marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-only thing was NOT a core value.
We've been weeding out the RINOs... like the cornhusker kickback bozo without whom Oblundercare wouldn't have been possible... and the two ditz's in Maine are next in the crosshairs... Collins and Snowe... one down... and of course the Libtards like Kay Hagan in NC... going DOWN in '14... that turd voted for Oblundercare AND Cap and Tax...
So it's impossible to be a secular Republican?
It used to be the party of the "big tent." It is is party that ended slavery, brought down corporate monopolies, built the Interstate Highway System, and passed the Civil Rights Act. Whatever happened to that ideal?
Democrats want to destroy the GOP, and the religious right and neoconservatives are eagerly helping them do it.
I'm sure that makes you very happy. But, just remember, when you're done there will be so few people left that the Republicans will never again win a national election.
But, I should ask you why YOU think that you get to determine who is a Republican? As far as I'm concerned, I'm a true Republican and the rest of you, with your backward, taliban-like ideology are the real "RINOs" here.
So Harry, where do you place Christ in all this? The Christ Consciousness is past left through infinity and beyond.
Take off those boots, go barefoot and kiss your enemies, Toots. You wanna talk scripture? You wanna live scripture?
This is what it's all about: Love your enemies as yourself. Treat others the way you would like to be treated.
Get your head out of the Old Testament and read Christ's words. Read them and listen to them with your soul. Not your mind. Your soul. It's a matter of consciousness.
I think inroads are being made, but the majority of the Republicans will continue to treat this as a religious-based argument. It stands on no other merit...
Wow, I was wrong, they can learn.
Nah, they're just desperate for votes.
The first 3 letters of their party, is "CON". Their unpopularity over these issues have them worried about their "JOB".
Put the two together and you get CON-JOB.
CONJOB more aptly applies to the Liar-in-Chief... who started his "career" no doubt as a three card monte dealer...
Actually, though it would mean little or nothing to you, I am in the good company of the Holy Scriptures and the Catholic Church. Of course, I realize that this is an MSNBC forum so the likelihood of encountering a individual with strong beliefs, other than having no beliefs at all, is unlikely.
Harry, thanks for the backhanded insult.
Objectivity is not a religious mantra.
Harry, you do understand that Catholic doctrine is irrelevant in the laws of the United States?
Harry, I think you need to study up on the Very Catholic idea of a "well formed conscience"! Seems there was a time when the Church advocated that the sun revolved around the earth............
Harry, sounds like you long for the return of the Inquisitions.
Hey Harry... hugged an altar boy lately??
That's item #3 on the GOP platform for 2016.
I am tired of the rhetoric, every time some ones kid comes out as being a homosexual, they change their views. It does not matter if your the son of some politician, a politician , movie star or even the president of a country. Being a homosexual has to do with one thing how you achieve sexual gratification. This is a moral issue not a political or civil rights. Who you choose to have sexual relations with is a choice. You can love your friend, neighbor , pet or your neighbors young kids, but once sex becomes involved it changes the whole moral situation. A lot of people will say coessentiality changes everything, well if you work on someone (something) long enough they will eventually agree to the satisfaction. Our brain works off of endorphins for a reward booster, if you trigger this rush in someone they will seek out that reward again. If a child going thru adolescence is exposed to drugs as an adult they will seek out that rush even more so . Please think about the children when it comes to any of these moral questions, they have enough problems dealing with the chemical changes going on in there bodies. Please stop the name calling also it is childish, there is no such thing as a homophobe.
Wow, your interpersonal relationships must be deeply unsatisying.
So, zimeroo, we can extrapolate from what you say that being heterosexual is only about achieving sexual gratification?
Really?? Did you ever hear of a little thing called procreation. It is morally natural for a man and woman to be together. Do not even try to put all the scientific influence and how in nature other animals engage in homosexual type activity. To compare humans to lesser intelligent creatures does not wash and because scientific advances have made it possible for people to conceive unnaturally just makes it easier for homosexuals to try and prove they have a legitimate station in human evolution
So if an individual cannot procreate, they cannot marry? Do you REALLY want to go there zimmeroo?
When did I ever mention marriage. all I am trying to get across is the moral implications. Where do we stand as humans. Do we make a stand to protect our childrens future, or do we allow the selfish views of a few to corrupt society ??
zimmer00:
"Selfish" views? One can argue denying homosexuals the right to same-sex marriage to protect your narrowly exclusive definition of marriage is selfish. Homosexuals have been around forever, yet society and children have survived as evidence that we are here today. War, poverty, disease, hunger are the true problems faced by society and our children, not the definition of marriage.
zimmeroo, what you don't seem to understand is that there are already millions of gays in committed relationships, many of them whom are parents, what would you propose to do about them?
How does marriage equality do anything to damage the future of our children?
Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated!
Why? Because your arguments don't hold up to established facts? That much is obvious!
Humans are animals and members of the animal kingdom. Perhaps if you didn't ignore the science that contradicts your views, you would know that. And procreation is irrelevant to the marriage issue.
By that *ahem* logic, so does being heterosexual. Or bisexual.
No, it's about civil rights, especially since marriage is a civil right!
But whom you are innately attracted to is not a choice. You seem to confuse behavior with orientation.
Some of us do: we try to teach children to be open minded and tolerant and understanding of others. It seems you think your brand of morality is the only valid one.
Sure there is, and I can name a few on this page alone.
gordy,
You truly need to get some therapy to work on your own personal phobias.
What would those be? Or are you just projecting?
Silverton,
It's obvious you are very passionate about your feelings and concepts on this subject. Might I suggest that just as you are passionate, this subject is passionate for others and they believe as strongly as you do. When I was a kid, I would sit in the pulpit and listen to my Pastor say, "Even animals know that homosexuality is wrong." It was a popular line of reasoning in the 80's. It was this reasoning that lead to the study of animals and their sexual behaviors. I would listen about Sodom and the stories of the Old Testament. That lead to further investigation into the history of the scriptures. What a lot of us notice is that as arguments are defeated and proved wrong, the arguments change. The evidence changes. You mention children. Did you know that LGBT youth are 4x's more likely to attempt suicide than that of their heterosexual peers? Do you know why that it is? Could it be from hearing things like how disgusting being gay is, how gays are wrong mentally, or the one I heard growing up, "It's better to be dead than gay."
This movement to vilify LGBT people has a consequence on adults. You create a closet culture where children grow up hearing that they are not wanted in society. They learn to hide and that they cannot participate in society. It has a price. Children grow up in a culture where they hate themselves because of attitudes such as are portrayed on these boards. Then, you want to blame those children, who turn into adults, for behaving exactly the way you have brought them up to be. Closed. Protective. Lost. Lonely.
rossj503,
I guess you have never read any of my other posts and just assume I am anti-gay.
I have a gay family member who is probably the most talented and successful individual in our family. In fact, one of my sons is named after him. I love him because of who he is, regardless of his gender preferences, and if he and I can love each other in spite of our differences, where lies the problem? I support separation of church and state and equal rights for everyone.
I am not sure where your conversation about gay children committing suicide is coming from here. I don't recall mentioning children anywhere. Perhaps you are addressing someone else in this thread?
But, since you wish to also discuss the scriptures, I will gladly do so.
Jesus DID speak out against homosexuality. In the book of Matthew, Jesus used the word porneus, which has been found engraved in several excavations of entrances to Roman brothels and means any kind of sex ... heterosexual, homosexual, pedophilia, beastiality, etc. Lacking a more accurate word when translated to English, it was changed to fornications (note the plural of "fornications"). So, when Jesus used the word porneus, he was referring to any kind of sex outside the traditional Jewish marriage of a man and a woman.
However, I did not write the New Testament, nor do I try to force my personal beliefs on others.
I merely try to follow the teachings of Christ myself, although I admit I am not very good at it. I would never dream of pointing my finger at someone else when I have been guilty of breaking plenty of "thou shalt nots."
The GOP is a coalition of haters and it appears to be coming apart at the seams. Bigotry against immigrants, gays, women, non whites and non christians just isn't a lasting political strategy.
It may not be politically smart, but let's face it sharky... If you ain't white buddy you and right!!
@sharky: Sad to admit it, but when I was a teenager and even into my twenties, I was really a delusional "if it feels good and is popular/a fad/ everyone's doin'it" self-centered idealist, I thought people were simply"categorized" a lot like you categorize people (except for gays; I always KNEW that was unnatural!), Then I grew up !
sharky, that is nothing more than your own small mind turning your "enemies" into stereotyped cardboard cutouts. It makes life easy to understand in your small mind.
You have no morals.
It's refreshing to see that some members of the Republican party are finally getting a clue when it comes to gay people. They've got a long way to go, but it's a good start.