Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive'

[candycorn]

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.

Homosexuals are not allowed to marry whom they love. Heterosexuals are.
As always, you are wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Homosexuals are not allowed to marry whom they love. Heterosexuals are.
As always, you are wrong.

Homosxuals are allowed to marry anyone they love who is: 1) a member of the opposite sex, 2) not related to them, 3) over the age of consent.
Just like anyone else.
Fail.

 

[Seawytch]

Perry isn't the only one trying to "have it both ways" (which is kinda funny considering their stances on marriage equality). Quite a few of the clowns in the GnOP Presidential car tout "state's rights" while at the same time saying they want the Federal Government to regulate consenting adult relationships.

How can you be for state's rights AND support a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting marriage equality? (other than by being a hypocritical flip flopper, of course)

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Homosexuals are not allowed to marry whom they love. Heterosexuals are.
As always, you are wrong.

Homosxuals are allowed to marry anyone they love who is: 1) a member of the opposite sex, 2) not related to them, 3) over the age of consent.
Just like anyone else.
Fail.

The rabid right (those devoid of thinking skills like our Rabbi here) claim that same sex marriage will be damaging to the institution of marriage. And yet they would see people marrying those they do not love. What could cause a greater type of destruction to marriage than that?

If you want to preserve marriage as whatever typer of institution you think it should be, why not concentrate your repressive energy to rolling back "no-fault" divorce laws?

Otherwise, your bigot slip is showing again, dear.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Forget about the religious aspect! The state doesn't care if you're married in a church, a synagogue, an ashram, a kibbutz, a mosque, in the Vatican with a high mass or on a roller coaster at Cedar Point. To be 'legally' married, one must obtain a marriage license. With that license, one can then go to whatever priest, shaman, rabbi, imam or Justice of the Peace and have that marriage sanctified.

The issue is: should states prohibit issuing marriage licenses to consenting adults no matter what their sexual orientation happens to be? Can states restrict the right to access the protections instantly available to couples under the marriage contract because that couple happens to be homosexual? If so, why? Are homosexual acts illegal? If they are not, why the prohibition?

 

[The Rabbi]

Homosexuals are not allowed to marry whom they love. Heterosexuals are.
As always, you are wrong.

Homosxuals are allowed to marry anyone they love who is: 1) a member of the opposite sex, 2) not related to them, 3) over the age of consent.
Just like anyone else.
Fail.

The rabid right (those devoid of thinking skills like our Rabbi here) claim that same sex marriage will be damaging to the institution of marriage. And yet they would see people marrying those they do not love. What could cause a greater type of destruction to marriage than that?

If you want to preserve marriage as whatever typer of institution you think it should be, why not concentrate your repressive energy to rolling back "no-fault" divorce laws?

Otherwise, your bigot slip is showing again, dear.

Who wants to see people marrying those they do not love, fucktard?
You've been wrong in every post on this subject. Do everyone a favor and go inspect a toilet or something.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Homosexuals are not allowed to marry whom they love. Heterosexuals are.
As always, you are wrong.

Homosxuals are allowed to marry anyone they love who is: 1) a member of the opposite sex, 2) not related to them, 3) over the age of consent.
Just like anyone else.
Fail.

So...it IS gender discrimination.

 

[Lovebears65]

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?

He didn't back track...he first said it was fine with him because it's NY's business, not his. He never said it was fine with him about gay marriage...just that NY wasn't his business. Then pointed out that states should use their own rights to decide, and that gay marriage wasn't fine with him. So for his state, he wouldn't want it.

Does it hurt to talk out of both sides of your mouth like that?

Because we know Obama never does that.. RIGGGGGGGGGHT

 

[konradv]

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?

He didn't back track...he first said it was fine with him because it's NY's business, not his. He never said it was fine with him about gay marriage...just that NY wasn't his business. Then pointed out that states should use their own rights to decide, and that gay marriage wasn't fine with him. So for his state, he wouldn't want it.

Try and explain that to your typical rightwing Christian. After all, we've still got people running around saying that Gore claimed to have invented the internet!

 

[bodecea]

He didn't back track...he first said it was fine with him because it's NY's business, not his. He never said it was fine with him about gay marriage...just that NY wasn't his business. Then pointed out that states should use their own rights to decide, and that gay marriage wasn't fine with him. So for his state, he wouldn't want it.

Does it hurt to talk out of both sides of your mouth like that?

Because we know Obama never does that.. RIGGGGGGGGGHT

 

[Caroljo]

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?

He didn't back track...he first said it was fine with him because it's NY's business, not his. He never said it was fine with him about gay marriage...just that NY wasn't his business. Then pointed out that states should use their own rights to decide, and that gay marriage wasn't fine with him. So for his state, he wouldn't want it.

Try and explain that to your typical rightwing Christian. After all, we've still got people running around saying that Gore claimed to have invented the internet!

Well I'm sure i would be concidered a "typical rightwing Christian"...and I understood it, so i don't think there's a problem with that!

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

Forget about the religious aspect! The state doesn't care if you're married in a church, a synagogue, an ashram, a kibbutz, a mosque, in the Vatican with a high mass or on a roller coaster at Cedar Point. To be 'legally' married, one must obtain a marriage license. With that license, one can then go to whatever priest, shaman, rabbi, imam or Justice of the Peace and have that marriage sanctified.

The issue is: should states prohibit issuing marriage licenses to consenting adults no matter what their sexual orientation happens to be? Can states restrict the right to access the protections instantly available to couples under the marriage contract because that couple happens to be homosexual? If so, why? Are homosexual acts illegal? If they are not, why the prohibition?

Forget about the religious aspect? That would mean ignoring half of the issue. What does marriage even mean without religion? Why should you have to go through government to determine if you are married or now? It is because government can determine marriage that discrimination of policy results. This is as clear as day. If you remove the authority of government to define marriage, then we would not even be having this discussion.

When people talk about marriage rights, they are talking about benefits granted by government. These benefits should be granted through civil unions, not marriage licenses that try to control the social institution of marriage. Marriage and legal benefits should be completely separated. The issue is much bigger than you make it to be. This is about the validity of the marriage license altogether. As long as it exists it will always be discriminatory in nature. The marriage license attempts to regulate culture through government, and should be done away with.

Give me one good reason why government should be allowed to define marriage.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Forget about the religious aspect! The state doesn't care if you're married in a church, a synagogue, an ashram, a kibbutz, a mosque, in the Vatican with a high mass or on a roller coaster at Cedar Point. To be 'legally' married, one must obtain a marriage license. With that license, one can then go to whatever priest, shaman, rabbi, imam or Justice of the Peace and have that marriage sanctified.

The issue is: should states prohibit issuing marriage licenses to consenting adults no matter what their sexual orientation happens to be? Can states restrict the right to access the protections instantly available to couples under the marriage contract because that couple happens to be homosexual? If so, why? Are homosexual acts illegal? If they are not, why the prohibition?

Forget about the religious aspect? That would mean ignoring half of the issue. What does marriage even mean without religion? Why should you have to go through government to determine if you are married or now? It is because government can determine marriage that discrimination of policy results. This is as clear as day. If you remove the authority of government to define marriage, then we would not even be having this discussion.

When people talk about marriage rights, they are talking about benefits granted by government. These benefits should be granted through civil unions, not marriage licenses that try to control the social institution of marriage. Marriage and legal benefits should be completely separated. The issue is much bigger than you make it to be. This is about the validity of the marriage license altogether. As long as it exists it will always be discriminatory in nature. The marriage license attempts to regulate culture through government, and should be done away with.

Give me one good reason why government should be allowed to define marriage.

So....people have to have religion in order for their marriage to have meaning?

 

[The Rabbi]

Homosexuals are not allowed to marry whom they love. Heterosexuals are.
As always, you are wrong.

Homosxuals are allowed to marry anyone they love who is: 1) a member of the opposite sex, 2) not related to them, 3) over the age of consent.
Just like anyone else.
Fail.

So...it IS gender discrimination.

Get your head out of the carpet.
There is no discrimination. A member of the opposite sex can be a male or a female.
You lose this battle every single time. I am surprised you'd want to embarass yourself again.

 

[Missourian]

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.

The guy who HOLDS the office today in a bigot, by your definition.


Barack Obama either opposes gay marriage or is a bald faced liar.


Call him a bigot...he HOLDS the office of President of the United States.

[youtube]73oZ_pe1MZ8&NR=1[/youtube]



[youtube]N6K9dS9wl7U[/youtube]

Obama: "Marriage is a matter of state law"

Holy crap, that's exactly what Perry said.

Please...end the hypocrisy.


​

 

[Missourian]

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.

Homosexuals are not allowed to marry whom they love. Heterosexuals are.
As always, you are wrong.

I love four women equally...why am I not allowed to marry them all?

 

[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.

The guy who HOLDS the office today in a bigot, by your definition.


Barack Obama either opposes gay marriage or is a bald faced liar.


Call him a bigot...he HOLDS the office of President of the United States.

[youtube]73oZ_pe1MZ8&NR=1[/youtube]



[youtube]N6K9dS9wl7U[/youtube]

Obama: "Marriage is a matter of state law"

Holy crap, that's exactly what Perry said.

Please...end the hypocrisy.


​

I'm asking Li'l Ricky Santorum to explain what he finds so destructive.

 

[Missourian]

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.

The guy who HOLDS the office today in a bigot, by your definition.


Barack Obama either opposes gay marriage or is a bald faced liar.


Call him a bigot...he HOLDS the office of President of the United States.

[youtube]73oZ_pe1MZ8&NR=1[/youtube]



[youtube]N6K9dS9wl7U[/youtube]

Obama: "Marriage is a matter of state law"

Holy crap, that's exactly what Perry said.

Please...end the hypocrisy.


​

I'm asking Li'l Ricky Santorum to explain what he finds so destructive.

Ah...One too many Rick's in this primary race.

Sorry bout that.

 

[ShackledNation]

Forget about the religious aspect! The state doesn't care if you're married in a church, a synagogue, an ashram, a kibbutz, a mosque, in the Vatican with a high mass or on a roller coaster at Cedar Point. To be 'legally' married, one must obtain a marriage license. With that license, one can then go to whatever priest, shaman, rabbi, imam or Justice of the Peace and have that marriage sanctified.

The issue is: should states prohibit issuing marriage licenses to consenting adults no matter what their sexual orientation happens to be? Can states restrict the right to access the protections instantly available to couples under the marriage contract because that couple happens to be homosexual? If so, why? Are homosexual acts illegal? If they are not, why the prohibition?

Forget about the religious aspect? That would mean ignoring half of the issue. What does marriage even mean without religion? Why should you have to go through government to determine if you are married or now? It is because government can determine marriage that discrimination of policy results. This is as clear as day. If you remove the authority of government to define marriage, then we would not even be having this discussion.

When people talk about marriage rights, they are talking about benefits granted by government. These benefits should be granted through civil unions, not marriage licenses that try to control the social institution of marriage. Marriage and legal benefits should be completely separated. The issue is much bigger than you make it to be. This is about the validity of the marriage license altogether. As long as it exists it will always be discriminatory in nature. The marriage license attempts to regulate culture through government, and should be done away with.

Give me one good reason why government should be allowed to define marriage.

So....people have to have religion in order for their marriage to have meaning?

You misunderstand the question. Maybe spirituality would be a better word. For example, two atheists will not get married in any church. Putting aside legal and economic benefits, what exactly can government legitimately give them? Any other benefits would be of a strictly private and cultural matter.

I think you should focus on a more important question. What is one good reason why government should be allowed to define marriage? Why should government offer a marriage license in the first place?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

The guy who HOLDS the office today in a bigot, by your definition.


Barack Obama either opposes gay marriage or is a bald faced liar.


Call him a bigot...he HOLDS the office of President of the United States.

Obama: "Marriage is a matter of state law"

Holy crap, that's exactly what Perry said.

Please...end the hypocrisy.


​

[/CENTER]

I'm asking Li'l Ricky Santorum to explain what he finds so destructive.

Well why don't you fucking ask him yourself since I doubt Senator Santorum (to you, sonny) posts here?