Romney's real swipe at gay marriage

[Katzndogz]

A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman would take ratification of 2/3 of the states. Would 2/3 of the states ratify such an Amendment? If just the states that voted against gay marriage already voted for ratification it would pass. It would pass in states that haven't voted against gay marriage but had it imposed on them.

If it is true that the "vast majority" of people support same sex marriage, then there's no problem whatsoever with putting it up as a Constitutional Amendment.

Correction- An amendment would take approval of 2/3rds of BOTH houses of Congress, and then 3/4 of the states.

More to the point, amending the constitution shouldn't be because you don't like the law. I would recommend that you look up the whole prohibition thingee, and see how well that worked out. A bunch of dumb, bible thumping assholes made alcohol illegal by playing on anti-immigrant sentiment during WWI, got a dumb amendment passed, and 15 years later, everyone had to admit they screwed up and repealed it.

There is no law, nor should there be, prohibiting homosexual conduct. Such a law would be abhorrent and reprehensible. Forcing the majority to recognize the legitimacy of such relationships are the issue, not the existence of such relationships.

 

[Shelzin]

If it is true that the "vast majority" of people support same sex marriage, then there's no problem whatsoever with putting it up as a Constitutional Amendment.

Yes there is... All men are created equal. It's the federal governments job to assure that. By making a law such as this it's not assuring that all men are created equal.

The people are equal. The relationships are different. I never saw anything in any document that says "all relationships are created equal".

Eh... In order for all men to be equal they must have all the same rights afforded to one, to be afforded to all.

Now I don't believe the federal government should have anything to do with marriage myself. But since it does, then... Hey... It has to afford equal rights.

 

[hortysir]

Forget about Ann. During his RNC speech, Mitt said, “As president, I will protect the sanctity of life,” Romney said. “I will honor the institution of marriage, and I will guarantee America’s first liberty: the freedom of religion.”

Not to mention the fact that the Republican platform calls for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Interesting how he highlights the freedom of religion but has no problems forcing his religious views on gay marriage on the whole country

Freedom of religion is a one-way street?

who knew?

 

[hortysir]

Shocking. A man who believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

It is when it's proceeded by "freedom of religion"

Then it's just downright stupid.

What religion is supportive of gay marriage?




All you people do realize that there are commas and the word 'and' in Romney's statement, right?

That it's 3 separate points that do not, necessarily, have to be tied to one another????

 

[hortysir]

Yes there is... All men are created equal. It's the federal governments job to assure that. By making a law such as this it's not assuring that all men are created equal.

The people are equal. The relationships are different. I never saw anything in any document that says "all relationships are created equal".

Eh... In order for all men to be equal they must have all the same rights afforded to one, to be afforded to all.

Now I don't believe the federal government should have anything to do with marriage myself. But since it does, then... Hey... It has to afford equal rights.

Sore from all that bending over backwards?

 

[Shelzin]

Shocking. A man who believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

It is when it's proceeded by "freedom of religion"

Then it's just downright stupid.

What religion is supportive of gay marriage?

Mine. A gay persons. *shrugs* I'm sorry man that was kind of dumb.

All you people do realize that there are commas and the word 'and' in Romney's statement, right?

Sure.

That it's 3 separate points that do not, necessarily, have to be tied to one another????

I understand that too. Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion.

Feel free to address the "all men created equal" point

 

[Shelzin]

The people are equal. The relationships are different. I never saw anything in any document that says "all relationships are created equal".

Eh... In order for all men to be equal they must have all the same rights afforded to one, to be afforded to all.

Now I don't believe the federal government should have anything to do with marriage myself. But since it does, then... Hey... It has to afford equal rights.

Sore from all that bending over backwards?

Huh?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Wrong, he supports gays, fags and quears!

The Romney Files
Click the link to see a newspaper article with romney on it.

1. Romney: "There's something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation. When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he's seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights, he's seen as a centrist and a moderate." Read entire 1994 article HERE.

Romney's Log Cabin Republican Letter 10/6/94: Letter to the Log Cabin Republicans. Romney promised to work on "gay and lesbian youth issues" and take steps "that will lead to gays and lesbian serving openly and honestly in our nation's military." Romney supports gays serving in the US military.

 

[JoeB131]

A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman would take ratification of 2/3 of the states. Would 2/3 of the states ratify such an Amendment? If just the states that voted against gay marriage already voted for ratification it would pass. It would pass in states that haven't voted against gay marriage but had it imposed on them.

If it is true that the "vast majority" of people support same sex marriage, then there's no problem whatsoever with putting it up as a Constitutional Amendment.

Correction- An amendment would take approval of 2/3rds of BOTH houses of Congress, and then 3/4 of the states.

More to the point, amending the constitution shouldn't be because you don't like the law. I would recommend that you look up the whole prohibition thingee, and see how well that worked out. A bunch of dumb, bible thumping assholes made alcohol illegal by playing on anti-immigrant sentiment during WWI, got a dumb amendment passed, and 15 years later, everyone had to admit they screwed up and repealed it.

There is no law, nor should there be, prohibiting homosexual conduct. Such a law would be abhorrent and reprehensible. Forcing the majority to recognize the legitimacy of such relationships are the issue, not the existence of such relationships.

But you see, there WERE such laws, on the books for a very long time, doing exactly that.

Until they were all ruled unconstitutional by Lawrence vs. Texas.

And that's the problem. Once you've declared there's nothing illegal about the conduct, you really dont have a legal standing to deny them a marriage license.

So, yeah, there is a constitutional case to be made, based on Lawrence and another ruling, Roemer, that if homosexual conduct is consitutional protected, then denying them marriage licenses is unconstitational.

(I Personally don't agree with this argument, and have reservations about the courts making laws, but I think both parties lost their virginity on that one a long time ago.)

Conversely- the other way it happens in all 50 states is that DOMA, which clearly is unconstitutional, is overturned. Then Texas has to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts the way it recognizes drive through marriages from Nevada.

At that point, the states that are banning it will say, "Hey, there's money being made, and we aren't making it!"

 

[Shelzin]

A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman would take ratification of 2/3 of the states. Would 2/3 of the states ratify such an Amendment? If just the states that voted against gay marriage already voted for ratification it would pass. It would pass in states that haven't voted against gay marriage but had it imposed on them.

If it is true that the "vast majority" of people support same sex marriage, then there's no problem whatsoever with putting it up as a Constitutional Amendment.

Correction- An amendment would take approval of 2/3rds of BOTH houses of Congress, and then 3/4 of the states.

More to the point, amending the constitution shouldn't be because you don't like the law. I would recommend that you look up the whole prohibition thingee, and see how well that worked out. A bunch of dumb, bible thumping assholes made alcohol illegal by playing on anti-immigrant sentiment during WWI, got a dumb amendment passed, and 15 years later, everyone had to admit they screwed up and repealed it.

There is no law, nor should there be, prohibiting homosexual conduct. Such a law would be abhorrent and reprehensible. Forcing the majority to recognize the legitimacy of such relationships are the issue, not the existence of such relationships.

I absolutely agree. Which is why the Federal government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. If you think it does I'm listening.

 

[Shelzin]

Wrong, he supports gays, fags and quears!

The Romney Files
Click the link to see a newspaper article with romney on it.

1. Romney: "There's something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation. When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he's seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights, he's seen as a centrist and a moderate." Read entire 1994 article HERE.

Romney's Log Cabin Republican Letter 10/6/94: Letter to the Log Cabin Republicans. Romney promised to work on "gay and lesbian youth issues" and take steps "that will lead to gays and lesbian serving openly and honestly in our nation's military." Romney supports gays serving in the US military.

Old Romney New Romney still can't agree.

 

[rightwinger]

Forget about Ann. During his RNC speech, Mitt said, “As president, I will protect the sanctity of life,” Romney said. “I will honor the institution of marriage, and I will guarantee America’s first liberty: the freedom of religion.”

Not to mention the fact that the Republican platform calls for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Interesting how he highlights the freedom of religion but has no problems forcing his religious views on gay marriage on the whole country

Freedom of religion is a one-way street?

who knew?

There is no legal justification not to acknowledge gay marriage

Only religious objections

 

[hortysir]

It is when it's proceeded by "freedom of religion"

Then it's just downright stupid.

What religion is supportive of gay marriage?

Mine. A gay persons. *shrugs* I'm sorry man that was kind of dumb.

All you people do realize that there are commas and the word 'and' in Romney's statement, right?

Sure.

That it's 3 separate points that do not, necessarily, have to be tied to one another????

I understand that too. Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion.

Feel free to address the "all men created equal" point

"NO LAW" regarding........

 

[Katzndogz]

Correction- An amendment would take approval of 2/3rds of BOTH houses of Congress, and then 3/4 of the states.

More to the point, amending the constitution shouldn't be because you don't like the law. I would recommend that you look up the whole prohibition thingee, and see how well that worked out. A bunch of dumb, bible thumping assholes made alcohol illegal by playing on anti-immigrant sentiment during WWI, got a dumb amendment passed, and 15 years later, everyone had to admit they screwed up and repealed it.

There is no law, nor should there be, prohibiting homosexual conduct. Such a law would be abhorrent and reprehensible. Forcing the majority to recognize the legitimacy of such relationships are the issue, not the existence of such relationships.

But you see, there WERE such laws, on the books for a very long time, doing exactly that.

Until they were all ruled unconstitutional by Lawrence vs. Texas.

And that's the problem. Once you've declared there's nothing illegal about the conduct, you really dont have a legal standing to deny them a marriage license.

So, yeah, there is a constitutional case to be made, based on Lawrence and another ruling, Roemer, that if homosexual conduct is consitutional protected, then denying them marriage licenses is unconstitational.

(I Personally don't agree with this argument, and have reservations about the courts making laws, but I think both parties lost their virginity on that one a long time ago.)

Conversely- the other way it happens in all 50 states is that DOMA, which clearly is unconstitutional, is overturned. Then Texas has to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts the way it recognizes drive through marriages from Nevada.

At that point, the states that are banning it will say, "Hey, there's money being made, and we aren't making it!"

You don't see a difference between protecting private consensual conduct and forcing others to accept the normalization of that conduct. I do. States should not only be free to make their own laws, which may recognize legal marriages between brothers and sisters if they choose, but to reject such unions imported from other states if they so choose.

California does not recognize a common law marriage even if the couple comes from a state that does. It works quite well.

 

[rightwinger]

A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman would take ratification of 2/3 of the states. Would 2/3 of the states ratify such an Amendment? If just the states that voted against gay marriage already voted for ratification it would pass. It would pass in states that haven't voted against gay marriage but had it imposed on them.

If it is true that the "vast majority" of people support same sex marriage, then there's no problem whatsoever with putting it up as a Constitutional Amendment.

Correction- An amendment would take approval of 2/3rds of BOTH houses of Congress, and then 3/4 of the states.

More to the point, amending the constitution shouldn't be because you don't like the law. I would recommend that you look up the whole prohibition thingee, and see how well that worked out. A bunch of dumb, bible thumping assholes made alcohol illegal by playing on anti-immigrant sentiment during WWI, got a dumb amendment passed, and 15 years later, everyone had to admit they screwed up and repealed it.

There is no law, nor should there be, prohibiting homosexual conduct. Such a law would be abhorrent and reprehensible. Forcing the majority to recognize the legitimacy of such relationships are the issue, not the existence of such relationships.

There are no laws forcing you to acknowledge gay marriage. You are free to hate anyone you want. If you don't like married gays.....don't acknowledge them

What you can't do is force the government to accept your views

 

[ScienceRocks]

4. The "Gay Youth Pride" Proclamation Romney Hopes Conservatives Never Read:


http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/GayYouthProclamation.pdf

Romney issues "Proclamation for Gay Youth Pride Day" two years as Governor of Massachusetts!

Mitt Romney still proudly states his support for "gay rights." What did this mean for youth in Massachusetts while he was Governor?

Gov. Romney's banner at Youth Pride 2005.
[MassResistance photo.]


A disturbing call to celebrate "gay youth." In 2003 and 2004 Gov. Romney issued proclamations celebrating "Massachusetts Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day" urging "all the citizens of the Commonwealth to take cognizance of this event and participate fittingly in its observance." His Youth Proclamations resulted in parades/events led by sexual radicals and transgender activists.

Gov. Romney's Proclamation urging all citizens to celebrate "Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day" in May 2003:


---
Romney makes Bill Clinton look conservative.

 

[Eaglewings]

He's being honest about his position on gay marriage as compared to Obama who when running for the Illinois Senate was for gay marriage before he started running for a Federal Senate seat and the Presidency when he became against gay marriage before he needed a heavy cash flow from campaign donations to take a stand for gay marriage.

Whew. That gave me a brain cramp typing his positions.

I know what you mean, Romney has Never changed his stance on anything has he? Maybe he had a change of heart, or I guess Republicans can only do that.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Event by Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth

"Youth Pride Day" events were orchestrated by Romney's "Governor's Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth" and his Education Department supported "Safe Schools" programs-partially designed by Kevin Jennings, President Obama's former "Safe Schools Czar."


Students at 2004 "Youth Pride" advocating "gay marriage" - sponsored by Gov. Romney's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. [MassResistance photo.]


Boston Youth Pride: ‘Use your voice’
Just days before the "gay marriages" were set to begin in May 2004, Romney issued his second Youth Pride Proclamation. The Boston homosexual newspaper reported their community was grateful for Romney's support.

Though Romney had decided to run as a "conservative" for President by 2005, he still allowed his "Governor's Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth" to hold radical events. Youth Pride 2005 was emceed by "transgender warrior" Leslie Feinberg, who was also editor of the communist Workers World!


At Gov. Romney's Youth Pride 2005: Communist editor and "transgender
warrior" Leslie Feinberg (left of banner) leads the youth parade.
[Mass-
Resistance photo.]

Romney refused to cancel the 2006 Youth Pride event, even after warnings from MassResistance documenting its past excesses. At that event, adult predators were handing out cards soliciting boys for private parties in apartments. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/events06/youthpride06/may_13.html

The Romney Files

Obama maybe the conservative on this issue???

 

[Shelzin]

What religion is supportive of gay marriage?

Mine. A gay persons. *shrugs* I'm sorry man that was kind of dumb.

Sure.

That it's 3 separate points that do not, necessarily, have to be tied to one another????

I understand that too. Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion.

Feel free to address the "all men created equal" point

"NO LAW" regarding........

No law regarding what?

I think this is the first time we've butted heads. You didn't pick a real good topic to do it on. Fair warning... I'm going to force you into a corner to where you'll have to say that the government is going to have to give it's stamp of approval on a religion to make it legitimate. Otherwise the Church of Cunnilingus and Fellatio can marry whoever they hell they want legitimately. Which we both know it can't do because of "NO LAW" regarding..........

Unless of course you have some point against that.

Edit: What the government should do is recognize not marriage... It should recognize partnerships. That should make any logical person happy. the church says you are married... the government says you are "partners"

 

[Katzndogz]

Correction- An amendment would take approval of 2/3rds of BOTH houses of Congress, and then 3/4 of the states.

More to the point, amending the constitution shouldn't be because you don't like the law. I would recommend that you look up the whole prohibition thingee, and see how well that worked out. A bunch of dumb, bible thumping assholes made alcohol illegal by playing on anti-immigrant sentiment during WWI, got a dumb amendment passed, and 15 years later, everyone had to admit they screwed up and repealed it.

There is no law, nor should there be, prohibiting homosexual conduct. Such a law would be abhorrent and reprehensible. Forcing the majority to recognize the legitimacy of such relationships are the issue, not the existence of such relationships.

There are no laws forcing you to acknowledge gay marriage. You are free to hate anyone you want. If you don't like married gays.....don't acknowledge them

What you can't do is force the government to accept your views

But the government CAN force everyone who does not accept your views to adopt those views. Or, is a photographer not being sued under government laws for refusing to photograph a same sex wedding? Get rid of the mandates, then we have something to discuss. It took me five months of fighting a lesbian couple after I refused to paint their wedding portrait to get their case thrown out. No one should ever be put in that position.