Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive'

[The Rabbi]

No he didn't....you need to read it again and THINK about what's being said. It's not that hard to understand!

Candycorn is a simpleton. There are no nuances. Just black and white.
Sad that people really cannot think for themselves.

FWIW, Perry's stance is principled--you support the right of something even if you oppose the actual thing. Santorum is correct philosophically though.
Really they are both right. And either one would make a better president than Obama.

People laugh at what they don't understand.

 

[ShackledNation]

Santorum is simply incorrect. States have the Constitutional right to decide marriage law, not the federal government. This is why he is faring miserably in the polls.

 

[ShackledNation]

Candycorn is a simpleton. There are no nuances. Just black and white.
Sad that people really cannot think for themselves.

FWIW, Perry's stance is principled--you support the right of something even if you oppose the actual thing. Santorum is correct philosophically though.
Really they are both right. And either one would make a better president than Obama.

People laugh at what they don't understand.

By saying he is correct philosophically, what exactly do you mean? The philosophy that the 10th amendment only matters when Santorum says it does?

 

[Missourian]

Here's the 64 thousand dollar question.

I agree with Perry...if the citizen of New York and Massachusetts want to OK gay marriage, that's their decision...as long as New York and Massachusetts reciprocate.

Meaning that they agree that Missouri if the citizens of Missouri and Oklahoma don't want gay marriage, that they respect that.

BUT, and here's the big but...without DOMA, wouldn't NY same sex marriages carry over to Missouri?

 

[bodecea]

Candycorn is a simpleton. There are no nuances. Just black and white.
Sad that people really cannot think for themselves.

FWIW, Perry's stance is principled--you support the right of something even if you oppose the actual thing. Santorum is correct philosophically though.
Really they are both right. And either one would make a better president than Obama.

People laugh at what they don't understand.

No...people laugh when they understan how silly Santorum is.

 

[bodecea]

Here's the 64 thousand dollar question.

I agree with Perry...if the citizen of New York and Massachusetts want to OK gay marriage, that's their decision...as long as New York and Massachusetts reciprocate.

Meaning that they agree that Missouri if the citizens of Missouri and Oklahoma don't want gay marriage, that they respect that.

BUT, and here's the big but...without DOMA, wouldn't NY same sex marriages carry over to Missouri?

I think it would be fun to have states reject each others' marriage licenses don't you?

 

[GHook93]

Good for Perry! Fuck Santorum the guys a tool!

 

[candycorn]

Can someone explain Perry's position to me? It would seem that as an ardent "Federalist" he supports the right of New York to legally recognize gay marriage even as he disagrees with their decision to do so.

However, he also has no opposition to DOMA, and in fact supports a federal amendment to ban gay marriage. This seems to be the same position that Bachmann took in the debate, and which I find completely confusing. How can he support the right of states to define marriage while also support a Constitutional ban on the same? Is there a consistent underlying philosophy?

More likely, I think the politicians are trying to have it both ways, as usual. It's funny how the ardent Constitutionalists tend to be the very ones who seem to dislike the Constitution the most, based on how many amendments they want to add to it: no gay marriage, no flag-burning, no direct election of Senators, no new taxes, etc.

PS: If anyone has thought of a way to boost Santorum's electoral chances to measurable levels, they're keeping it to themselves.

Any answer you get is contingent upon the circumstances and how the answer will benefit him politically.

In short, he's just another politician. No better and in some ways, much worse.

 

[Dot Com]

Santorum & Perry LOLOL. Just having their names in the news hurts the Republican primary line-up. Thanks.

 

[Nosmo King]

I still don't understand what, specifically, Li'l Ricky finds so damn 'destructive' about same sex marriage. I would like Li'l Ricky to lay out his case against same sex marriage. Let us see how bigots rationalize while vying for the biggest political prize on the planet.

 

[grunt11b]

Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive' - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com

Rick Santorum’s identified a new way to boost his presidential prospects: attack Rick Perry for his position on gay marriage.

“When someone who is a serious candidate for president is doing things that will be destructive not just for the Republican Party, but for the country, I’m going to point that out any chance I get,” Santorum told POLITICO.

Late last month, Perry deferred to a states’ rights argument in declining to oppose New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, saying the law was “their business, and that’s fine with me.” Though he backtracked slightly the following week, saying “it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue,” but that “obviously gay marriage is not fine with me,” Santorum isn’t satisfied.

The former Pennsylvania senator, whose own opposition to same-sex marriage is perhaps his best known policy position, was the first presidential contender to pounce on Perry’s comments.

I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

Marriage is not covered by the constitution, therefore it is left to the states. I agree with Perry on the issue, it is a states issue. Me personally, I could care less who marries who, but not at the expense of our constitution and how it was intended to be enforced.
Gay marriage is being used by the left as a vehicle for future agendas. If they can circumvent the constitution through gay marriage, they will surely circumvent it for other purposes. The sad thing is that gay people cannot see they are being used by the left in the way that they are.

 

[ShackledNation]

Why is it that we have combined the private social matter of marriage with government privileges and formed the marriage license? We should abolish the marriage license entirely, and replace it with civil unions. Marriages should be left to private individuals and their churches, and government benefits can be conferred through civil unions. As a Catholic, marriage outside of the Church means nothing. The only reason any Catholic obtains a marriage license is to get the legal benefits associated with it. But obtaining a marriage license from government would not make one married according to the Church. Other religions likely have similar opinions. Heard of separation of church and state? Separate the social matter of marriage from the legal matter of civil unions and none of this would even be an issue.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Who fucking cares. I don't give a shit about some stupid marriage ideal or gay agenda or abortion fight. That will all be a moot point if we don't elect someone with at least half a clue about how to get our economy on track. We can address social issues when our very way of life isn't threatened.

 

[Nosmo King]

Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive' - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com

Rick Santorum’s identified a new way to boost his presidential prospects: attack Rick Perry for his position on gay marriage.

“When someone who is a serious candidate for president is doing things that will be destructive not just for the Republican Party, but for the country, I’m going to point that out any chance I get,” Santorum told POLITICO.

Late last month, Perry deferred to a states’ rights argument in declining to oppose New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, saying the law was “their business, and that’s fine with me.” Though he backtracked slightly the following week, saying “it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue,” but that “obviously gay marriage is not fine with me,” Santorum isn’t satisfied.

The former Pennsylvania senator, whose own opposition to same-sex marriage is perhaps his best known policy position, was the first presidential contender to pounce on Perry’s comments.

I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

Marriage is not covered by the constitution, therefore it is left to the states. I agree with Perry on the issue, it is a states issue. Me personally, I could care less who marries who, but not at the expense of our constitution and how it was intended to be enforced.
Gay marriage is being used by the left as a vehicle for future agendas. If they can circumvent the constitution through gay marriage, they will surely circumvent it for other purposes. The sad thing is that gay people cannot see they are being used by the left in the way that they are.

Don't you answer yourself in the first two lines of your post? You acknowledge same sex marriage isn't mentioned in our constitution. And, I'm assuming you understand that things not mentioned in the constitution are not to be tried on a constitutional basis but a civil basis. So, the constitution is moot in your argument.

That begs the question: what political agenda? Since there's neither threat nor challenge to the constitution, how are these mysterious and, in your opinion no doubt, nefarious ways "the left" circumventing the constitution?

You see the Gay community being used as pawns and dupes, yet the Gay community has successfully lobbied for first class citizen status rather than the second class status imposed upon them by a repressive, chastity-driven, bigoted minority of the pseudo-righteous.

No one thinks legislating morality is a wise move.

 

[ShackledNation]

Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive' - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com





I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

Marriage is not covered by the constitution, therefore it is left to the states. I agree with Perry on the issue, it is a states issue. Me personally, I could care less who marries who, but not at the expense of our constitution and how it was intended to be enforced.
Gay marriage is being used by the left as a vehicle for future agendas. If they can circumvent the constitution through gay marriage, they will surely circumvent it for other purposes. The sad thing is that gay people cannot see they are being used by the left in the way that they are.

Don't you answer yourself in the first two lines of your post? You acknowledge same sex marriage isn't mentioned in our constitution. And, I'm assuming you understand that things not mentioned in the constitution are not to be tried on a constitutional basis but a civil basis. So, the constitution is moot in your argument.

That begs the question: what political agenda? Since there's neither threat nor challenge to the constitution, how are these mysterious and, in your opinion no doubt, nefarious ways "the left" circumventing the constitution?

You see the Gay community being used as pawns and dupes, yet the Gay community has successfully lobbied for first class citizen status rather than the second class status imposed upon them by a repressive, chastity-driven, bigoted minority of the pseudo-righteous.

No one thinks legislating morality is a wise move.

The marriage license will always have the affect of legislating morality. If you truly want to stop legislating morality, you have to do away with it and replace it with a civil union soley for government purposes. The social action of marriage should be left entirely up to individuals in society and their Churches. Government should not be a party in the social aspect of marriage.

 

[Nosmo King]

Marriage is not covered by the constitution, therefore it is left to the states. I agree with Perry on the issue, it is a states issue. Me personally, I could care less who marries who, but not at the expense of our constitution and how it was intended to be enforced.
Gay marriage is being used by the left as a vehicle for future agendas. If they can circumvent the constitution through gay marriage, they will surely circumvent it for other purposes. The sad thing is that gay people cannot see they are being used by the left in the way that they are.

Don't you answer yourself in the first two lines of your post? You acknowledge same sex marriage isn't mentioned in our constitution. And, I'm assuming you understand that things not mentioned in the constitution are not to be tried on a constitutional basis but a civil basis. So, the constitution is moot in your argument.

That begs the question: what political agenda? Since there's neither threat nor challenge to the constitution, how are these mysterious and, in your opinion no doubt, nefarious ways "the left" circumventing the constitution?

You see the Gay community being used as pawns and dupes, yet the Gay community has successfully lobbied for first class citizen status rather than the second class status imposed upon them by a repressive, chastity-driven, bigoted minority of the pseudo-righteous.

No one thinks legislating morality is a wise move.

The marriage license will always have the affect of legislating morality. If you truly want to stop legislating morality, you have to do away with it and replace it with a civil union soley for government purposes. The social action of marriage should be left entirely up to individuals in society and their Churches. Government should not be a party in the social aspect of marriage.

The state protects the contract provided by the marriage license. The state protects the contract by requiring a legal dissolve of the contract. It's divorce court.

Churches sanctify marriage. How, where, why and for whom is the church's concern.

The real question is: should states continue to deny the access to contract law for consenting adult citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation? Are homosexual acts a criminal offense in and of themselves? If not, the various states are legislating morality and denying American citizens access to legal protections as provided automatically with a marriage license.

 

[ShackledNation]

Don't you answer yourself in the first two lines of your post? You acknowledge same sex marriage isn't mentioned in our constitution. And, I'm assuming you understand that things not mentioned in the constitution are not to be tried on a constitutional basis but a civil basis. So, the constitution is moot in your argument.

That begs the question: what political agenda? Since there's neither threat nor challenge to the constitution, how are these mysterious and, in your opinion no doubt, nefarious ways "the left" circumventing the constitution?

You see the Gay community being used as pawns and dupes, yet the Gay community has successfully lobbied for first class citizen status rather than the second class status imposed upon them by a repressive, chastity-driven, bigoted minority of the pseudo-righteous.

No one thinks legislating morality is a wise move.

The marriage license will always have the affect of legislating morality. If you truly want to stop legislating morality, you have to do away with it and replace it with a civil union soley for government purposes. The social action of marriage should be left entirely up to individuals in society and their Churches. Government should not be a party in the social aspect of marriage.

The state protects the contract provided by the marriage license. The state protects the contract by requiring a legal dissolve of the contract. It's divorce court.

Churches sanctify marriage. How, where, why and for whom is the church's concern.

The real question is: should states continue to deny the access to contract law for consenting adult citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation? Are homosexual acts a criminal offense in and of themselves? If not, the various states are legislating morality and denying American citizens access to legal protections as provided automatically with a marriage license.

But why are states providing such a contract law in the first place that involves a religious matter? The legal matters of a marriage license can be handled by civil union contracts (such as joint filing, inheriting social security, etc).

Marriage is legally defined as the union of a male and a female. As such, and with respect to it economic benefits, it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of the 14th Amendment. Marriage is a religious ceremony endorsed by a Priest of some sort (and there are churches that accept gay marriage). A civil union is private contract between two citizens endorsed by the Government. Current law tries to combine the two as one.

It has become a foundational belief of our society that people of faith should be allowed to believe whatever they want. In turn, their "rights to belief" as provided by the First Amendment must be protected. Therefore, I cannot morally justify forcing them to allow the "marriage" of people they see unfit to do so - they cannot legally be required to change their religious ceremonies as it would violate their "freedom". Instead, what society can do - and in my opinion morally must do - is remove any economic and social benefits granted to a discriminatory contract or belief system. Therefore those people that still wished to be "married" after receiving a civil union for the socio-economical benefits, and who are allowed to under the tenants of that particular religion, can do so knowing that the "sanctity" of their marriage is intact while society at large avoids supporting such "protected" discrimination.

It should be readily apparent that this contention is the only logical course of action as it would both promote both a necessary and required equality under the law - a Constitutional obligation we have to uphold - and simultaneously would also reaffirm the rights of religions and their followers to be intolerant. I don't see why this is a bad idea.

 

[The Rabbi]

Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive' - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com





I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

Marriage is not covered by the constitution, therefore it is left to the states. I agree with Perry on the issue, it is a states issue. Me personally, I could care less who marries who, but not at the expense of our constitution and how it was intended to be enforced.
Gay marriage is being used by the left as a vehicle for future agendas. If they can circumvent the constitution through gay marriage, they will surely circumvent it for other purposes. The sad thing is that gay people cannot see they are being used by the left in the way that they are.

Don't you answer yourself in the first two lines of your post? You acknowledge same sex marriage isn't mentioned in our constitution. And, I'm assuming you understand that things not mentioned in the constitution are not to be tried on a constitutional basis but a civil basis. So, the constitution is moot in your argument.

That begs the question: what political agenda? Since there's neither threat nor challenge to the constitution, how are these mysterious and, in your opinion no doubt, nefarious ways "the left" circumventing the constitution?

You see the Gay community being used as pawns and dupes, yet the Gay community has successfully lobbied for first class citizen status rather than the second class status imposed upon them by a repressive, chastity-driven, bigoted minority of the pseudo-righteous.

No one thinks legislating morality is a wise move.

Do you understand WTF you're talking about?
The 10th Amendment states all powers not delegated to the Feds are reserved to the states or the people. Marriage is clearly one of those powers, which is why states have regulated it.
Ans last I checked gays had exactly the same rights as anyone else.

 

[Toro]

There is no contradiction in what Perry said.

 

[candycorn]

Marriage is not covered by the constitution,

If they can circumvent the constitution through gay marriage...

Unique...they can circumvent something that "isn't covered".

You guys are something else.