Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive'

[bodecea]

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?

The important thing is that both potential Presidential nominees for the rational Republicans are against FANTASY marriages that are not only immoral, and promote perversion ....... but violate the meaning of the English word "marriage".

...Hey...just because you can't get a mate......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, I advocate taking the time, money, and effort to change our laws so government does not define marriage and so all couples can obtain equal benefits under the law.

The state can’t be ‘taken out of’ marriage, that’s ridiculous – the states write and monitor the contract laws – including marriage – to ensure compliance. Otherwise you’ll have contracts which are unfair to a given party, where someone may be taken advantage of.

And there’s no point in spending time and money on something that’s not broken, simply allow all equal access to a given state’s marriage laws per the 14th Amendment and all will be fine.

 

[ShackledNation]

No, I advocate taking the time, money, and effort to change our laws so government does not define marriage and so all couples can obtain equal benefits under the law.

The state can’t be ‘taken out of’ marriage, that’s ridiculous – the states write and monitor the contract laws – including marriage – to ensure compliance. Otherwise you’ll have contracts which are unfair to a given party, where someone may be taken advantage of.

And there’s no point in spending time and money on something that’s not broken, simply allow all equal access to a given state’s marriage laws per the 14th Amendment and all will be fine.

Marriage is between two individuals, and the state is not one of them. George and Martha Washington did not need government to marry. The only religion that supports the state as a necessary party in marriage is the religion of statism. Current marriage licenses are unfair to a given party, so your argument is moot. Not to mention a civil union could be granted conferring the same benefits to all couples, in line with the 14th amendment. I suggest you read my earlier posts, because I have already detailed information regarding my position and I do not feel like restating it. Replacing the marriage license with civil union contracts is the best way to uphold both the 1st amendment and the 14th amendment.

Abolishing state marriage would raise a number of questions of the who-gets-what-when variety. Throughout much of history, marriage was a business contract, and though we eschew that notion in our romantic times, money is still pretty much what the legal paperwork is about: Who inherits, who gets dental benefits, who gets what when a relationship is dissolved.

If everyone had civil unions, there would be none of this "I'm insulted by homosexuals getting married!" BS. People could just get married within their church/synagogue/mosque/temple/place of worship in any way they saw fit, and get the tax breaks, shared custody rights, etc. through a civil union from the government. Also, certain churches, etc. that support gay marriage could offer gay marriages. Every adult would be allowed to get a civil union to any other adult they wanted, regardless of gender.

So far nobody has offered any argument against this position that is not a type of logical fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Considering the issues this nations faces, this is the pointless idiocy the right concerns itself with: changing marriage law when no change is needed.

Of course if you get Americans paying attention to this nonsense substantive issues will go unnoticed, to the advantage of the right.

 

[ShackledNation]

Considering the issues this nations faces, this is the pointless idiocy the right concerns itself with: changing marriage law when no change is needed.

Of course if you get Americans paying attention to this nonsense substantive issues will go unnoticed, to the advantage of the right.

First of all, nobody said marriage law should be the primary focus at this point in time. You brought that up yourself.

Second, is not the call for gay marriage also a call to change marriage law? One coming from the left?

I support a solution that is fair to everyone and gives all citizens equal protection under the law as demanded by the 14th amendment. There is no good reason to allow government to define marriage, thus allowing it to discriminate.

 

[gautama]

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?

The important thing is that both potential Presidential nominees for the rational Republicans are against FANTASY marriages that are not only immoral, and promote perversion ....... but violate the meaning of the English word "marriage".

...Hey...just because you can't get a mate......

Sorry LEZBO Queenie......I'm one of the "normals" as opposed to you sexually perverted "abnormals".

And, since it is YOU, by bringing into question my "mate" and thus my "family"....... I will gladly respond that I have a non-fantasy marriage. A non-fantasy wife, and two non-fantasy children.

BTW, how are things in La La Land where you are SPARTACUS and a dickless "husband" ?????

 

[candycorn]

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?

So what is the difference between Obama not supporting Gay marriage but ending the defense of DOMA? Is such destructive as your headline claims?

It's actually worse as the executive branch is charged with enforcing the laws, not making them. But Obama decides which laws he wants to enforce and which he doesnt.

Bush had something like a billion "signing statements" all saying he was signing laws but would not enforce them. Although he did come quickly to the aid of Scooter Libby....who was found guilty of a felony.

Dumbass.

 

[The Rabbi]

So what is the difference between Obama not supporting Gay marriage but ending the defense of DOMA? Is such destructive as your headline claims?

It's actually worse as the executive branch is charged with enforcing the laws, not making them. But Obama decides which laws he wants to enforce and which he doesnt.

Bush had something like a billion "signing statements" all saying he was signing laws but would not enforce them. Although he did come quickly to the aid of Scooter Libby....who was found guilty of a felony.

Dumbass.

Can you cite one instance of Bush not enforcing laws he signed?
What does Scooter Libby, who was not convicted of any actual crime, have to do with anything?
Obama started the war in Libya, for your information.