True conservatism. Gay marriage.

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm a Republican and I am going to a gay wedding tomorrow. I have no problem with it. I believe people should all get tax breaks by filing joint returns. I believe in monogamy and faithfulness. I have never been harmed by a gay. My only complaint used to be that when you met the perfect guy, he was always gay.

There we go again, admitting that gay marriage is about the money, not the "love".

It can't be about both?

Marriage is never about love if you involve the government.

 

[jtpr312]

Must disagree with the OP. I am also a Conservative and am a firm beleiver in the Constitution, AS WRITTEN, not as intrepreted by the 9 or so whores in DC of the Supreme Court. In other words, I believe in the Constitution, not Court Precedence and I must say, that right now, gays have the SAME EXACT rights as EVERY OTHER citizen in this nation, therefore it cannot be a 14th amendment issue. RIGHT NOW, gay men have the SAME EXACT right to marry as straight men do, the right to marry whatever woman will have them and gay woman RIGHT NOW have the same exact rights that straight woman have, which is the right to marry any man that will have them. To use the 14th amendment as a protection for gay marriage is therefore a false and bogus argument without even touching on the intent of the Founding Fathers. What gays want is the right to redifine marriage to mean and include their particular unions and this is NOT any right protected by the 14th amendment. As for the premise that just because it wins in court can't mean they're all activist judges, I ask why not? The only ones that have ever ruled in favor of it are politically liberal or left leaning judges.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People that go out of the way to declare themselves something almost always are exactly the opposite of what they claim.

I agree.

That is because I am smarter than you, which is why I can make you look stupid and you have to wait until I actually say something stupid before I look stupid.

Point made.

I am smarter than you, which is why I pointed out the first time that you tried to outsmart me that you weren't worth my time.

That still hurts, doesn't it?

 

[squeeze berry]

The SCOTUS has determined that legal, civil marriage (the license) is a fundamental right on no less than three occasions.

You sign your posts advertising that you are a fool? That's very self aware of you.

There is no right to a license...Ever....Period.

A license is permission granted by a second or third party.

You can find a copy of Black's Law Dictionary and look it up for yourself.

No one said anything about a ‘right’ to a license; there is, however, a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.

Because there is no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples from a given state’s marriage law, a marriage license is issued based on those criteria, not because the couple has a ‘right’ to a license.

straight people can't marry someone of the same sex either in most states

that's equal

 

[Shelzin]

People that go out of the way to declare themselves something almost always are exactly the opposite of what they claim.

I agree.

That is because I am smarter than you, which is why I can make you look stupid and you have to wait until I actually say something stupid before I look stupid.

Point made.

I am smarter than you, which is why I pointed out the first time that you tried to outsmart me that you weren't worth my time.

That still hurts, doesn't it?

*blink*blink*

People that go out of the way to declare themselves something almost always are exactly the opposite of what they claim.

I still agree.

 

[Oddball]

There is no right to a license...Ever....Period.

A license is permission granted by a second or third party.

You can find a copy of Black's Law Dictionary and look it up for yourself.

No one said anything about a ‘right’ to a license; there is, however, a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.

Because there is no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples from a given state’s marriage law, a marriage license is issued based on those criteria, not because the couple has a ‘right’ to a license.

Marriage low requires a license to gain access to all benefits.

Before you start blathering about common law marriage, those only exist in 16 states, 6 of which no longer recognize them as legal, and 1 only allows it for inheritance purposes.

That proves that marriage is not a right, the right is access to the licensing process.

I say nonsense...Were I in one of those states and felt the desire to get married under common law contract, I'd sue the state under the provision of Article 1, Section 10 (No state shall...pass any bill...or law impairing the obligation of contracts... ), to do so and the state would have no case.

But this isn't about the law...It's about getting privileges and benefits from gubmint and other third parties...Period.

 

[squeeze berry]

No one said anything about a ‘right’ to a license; there is, however, a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.

Because there is no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples from a given state’s marriage law, a marriage license is issued based on those criteria, not because the couple has a ‘right’ to a license.

Marriage low requires a license to gain access to all benefits.

Before you start blathering about common law marriage, those only exist in 16 states, 6 of which no longer recognize them as legal, and 1 only allows it for inheritance purposes.

That proves that marriage is not a right, the right is access to the licensing process.

I say nonsense...Were I in one of those states and felt the desire to get married under common law contract, I'd sue the state under the provision of Article 1, Section 10 (No state shall...pass any bill...or law impairing the obligation of contracts... ), to do so and the state would have no case.

But this isn't about the law...It's about getting privileges and benefits from gubmint and other third parties...Period.

my thoughts on the subject has always been that anyone with brains would shack up and avoid marriage.

The contract is binding, like an anaconda.

 

[kaz]

I am a registered libertarian

If you're a libertarian, why do you support government marriage at all?

 

[Dissent]

Briefly. I am very conservative. I am a registered libertarian,(although i do not like Ron Paul because 1.he's a phony 2.I am not an isolationist. 3. he is a racist 4.his foreign policy can only be explained by the fact that he is an anti-semite) I got my conservatism honestly, I was raised by liberals and when i was young i was a registered democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. When i began debating politics online i did well, because i am very clever, but soon realized that because i didn't actually know anything i was either going to have to stop pretending i did, or go ahead and find out everything there was to know about the subject. I was sure this endeavor would only further solidify my liberal beliefs. I was wrong. I became a conservative as a side-effect of wanting to know the truth.

I am a lifelong atheist. I can not remember ever feeling any other way. I am no longer an anti-religious jerk, as in my youth(not coincidentally when i was also a lib )

Conservatives are WRONG about the issue of gay marriage. It is a departure from our commitment to the constitution and as such, it opens us up to the accusation of being less than genuine and only defending our precious constitution when it suits us. Just like the left does.

The "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment is clear and has been interpreted (an "originalist" interpretation) to mean that all citizens are to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law(govt). As such, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the federal govt to deny two homosexuals the right to marry as long as it is granting that right to heterosexuals. That is all. It is clear and undeniable.

Why do you think gay marriage always wins in court? They can't ALL be activist judges, can they? And why do you think Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? Because, as written, the constitution supports gay marriage. That's why.

I will attempt to counter a few of the objections that are sure to be raised.
1.)slippery-slope. No. The equal protection clause would not support polygamy. If the federal govt wants to limit the number of spouses allowed, the constitution would not be violated. No one would be being denied their "civil rights" as the denial would not be based on any identifiable characteristic, they are not being denied based on gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. etc. Nor would it support bestiality or any of the other absurd slippery-slope arguments.

2.)The GLBT agenda. As i said, i am a conservative. I oppose this organization and work to counter their agenda on a daily basis, as do most conservatives.

3.)Special Rights. This is a rare case where the right they are seeking is not a "special right" but the exact same right as their fellow Americans enjoy. If the government was not in the business of sanctioning marriage, there would be no issue here. Which is probably the best answer in the end. However, since that is unlikely to happen, the constitution must be upheld and conservatives need to practice what I preach P) and have the courage and integrity to defend the principle of liberty in a case where it may be offensive to their own personal sensibilities. Do not tell me they can have civil unions with all the same legal rights. Unfortunately for you, they have every right to demand the same thing as heterosexuals have, even in name. They have every right to demand that it not only be the same thing, but also that it be called the same thing. Separate but equal is not equal.

4.)the Sanctity of marriage. that is a joke. I am 40, my wife is 38. We have been married 22 yrs. When my son was born she was 15 and i was 17, we have 3 children now and plan to be married till we die. I have lived my belief in the sanctity of marriage. So until some of you conservatives start suggesting criminal penalties for adultery, divorce, or maybe making separate checking accounts illegal, i don"t want to hear about the sanctity of marriage. Brittany Spears and Madonna have done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than homosexual could ever hope to. So in a world of underwater elvis weddings, this argument needs to be dropped.

Try to imagine the boost to the conservative movement this might bring. At some point, the religious conservatives, who i love and defend, are going to have to agree to let the constitution govern and leave their faith at home. The freedom of Religion is under assault. I will be there to defend it with you. But maybe you should consider our founding and the significance of how our founders handled it. When it came to the Declaration of Independence, a document that was very personal to the men who wrote and signed it, they paced their God prominently. We are a judeo-christian nation in founding. But when it came time for those same men(largely) to write a governing document for our nation, they left their God out. I will be there to dispel the myth of "separation" , to underscore the fact of "shall make no law", but on this matter i feel you religious conservatives are doing the movement a dis-service.


Jeffrey

Ya lost any credibility soon as you went on your rant about RP...even the dumbest of the dumb here don't believe that horseshit. oh and the state has no right or need to be in marriage at all. Its to be a voluntary contract between people.

 

[Bfgrn]

Briefly. I am very conservative. I am a registered libertarian,(although i do not like Ron Paul because 1.he's a phony 2.I am not an isolationist. 3. he is a racist 4.his foreign policy can only be explained by the fact that he is an anti-semite) I got my conservatism honestly, I was raised by liberals and when i was young i was a registered democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. When i began debating politics online i did well, because i am very clever, but soon realized that because i didn't actually know anything i was either going to have to stop pretending i did, or go ahead and find out everything there was to know about the subject. I was sure this endeavor would only further solidify my liberal beliefs. I was wrong. I became a conservative as a side-effect of wanting to know the truth.

I have found that the truth has a very liberal bias. We don't argue opinions here. We argue facts. What is called conservatism today is dogma driven doctrinaire. It is better labeled narcissism.

We are all born conservative...self centered and fearful. It is only when we mature that we learn that other people matter and others are worthy of trust and love. The ones that never develop remain conservative.

I look forward to exposing your false assumptions with the truth.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

That is rich.

You are the single most dogmatic poster on this board. Even William Joyce is more likely to use facts than you are, and he is an avowed racist.

I always present facts on your threads and you have always failed to refute any of them.

 

[squeeze berry]

I have found that the truth has a very liberal bias. We don't argue opinions here. We argue facts. What is called conservatism today is dogma driven doctrinaire. It is better labeled narcissism.

We are all born conservative...self centered and fearful. It is only when we mature that we learn that other people matter and others are worthy of trust and love. The ones that never develop remain conservative.

I look forward to exposing your false assumptions with the truth.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

That is rich.

You are the single most dogmatic poster on this board. Even William Joyce is more likely to use facts than you are, and he is an avowed racist.

I always present facts on your threads and you have always failed to refute any of them.

since you like to quote British PMs

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
-- Winston Churchill

 

[Bfgrn]

That is rich.

You are the single most dogmatic poster on this board. Even William Joyce is more likely to use facts than you are, and he is an avowed racist.

I always present facts on your threads and you have always failed to refute any of them.

since you like to quote British PMs

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
-- Winston Churchill

Quotes Falsely Attributed

These quotes make for good story-telling but popular myth has falsely attributed them to Churchill.

"Conservative by the time you're 35"

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

Quotes Falsely Attributed

As I said...I always present facts and you right wingers have always failed to refute any of them...

game, set, match...

 

[AmyNation]

There we go again, admitting that gay marriage is about the money, not the "love".

It can't be about both?

Marriage is never about love if you involve the government.

So you're not married, and have no intention of ever getting married?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree.


Point made.

I am smarter than you, which is why I pointed out the first time that you tried to outsmart me that you weren't worth my time.

That still hurts, doesn't it?

*blink*blink*

People that go out of the way to declare themselves something almost always are exactly the opposite of what they claim.

I still agree.

I didn't go out of my way to declare myself intelligent and able to use other people's words against them, did I? All I did was point to a single poster, you, that I am smarter than that poster. If you were half as smart as you think you are you would know the difference.

Feel free to pretend you won though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one said anything about a ‘right’ to a license; there is, however, a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.

Because there is no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples from a given state’s marriage law, a marriage license is issued based on those criteria, not because the couple has a ‘right’ to a license.

Marriage low requires a license to gain access to all benefits.

Before you start blathering about common law marriage, those only exist in 16 states, 6 of which no longer recognize them as legal, and 1 only allows it for inheritance purposes.

That proves that marriage is not a right, the right is access to the licensing process.

I say nonsense...Were I in one of those states and felt the desire to get married under common law contract, I'd sue the state under the provision of Article 1, Section 10 (No state shall...pass any bill...or law impairing the obligation of contracts... ), to do so and the state would have no case.

But this isn't about the law...It's about getting privileges and benefits from gubmint and other third parties...Period.

Which is why they need access to the license.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have found that the truth has a very liberal bias. We don't argue opinions here. We argue facts. What is called conservatism today is dogma driven doctrinaire. It is better labeled narcissism.

We are all born conservative...self centered and fearful. It is only when we mature that we learn that other people matter and others are worthy of trust and love. The ones that never develop remain conservative.

I look forward to exposing your false assumptions with the truth.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

That is rich.

You are the single most dogmatic poster on this board. Even William Joyce is more likely to use facts than you are, and he is an avowed racist.

I always present facts on your threads and you have always failed to refute any of them.

Keep believing that.

 

[Oddball]

Marriage low requires a license to gain access to all benefits.

Before you start blathering about common law marriage, those only exist in 16 states, 6 of which no longer recognize them as legal, and 1 only allows it for inheritance purposes.

That proves that marriage is not a right, the right is access to the licensing process.

I say nonsense...Were I in one of those states and felt the desire to get married under common law contract, I'd sue the state under the provision of Article 1, Section 10 (No state shall...pass any bill...or law impairing the obligation of contracts... ), to do so and the state would have no case.

But this isn't about the law...It's about getting privileges and benefits from gubmint and other third parties...Period.

my thoughts on the subject has always been that anyone with brains would shack up and avoid marriage.

The contract is binding, like an anaconda.

What's truly pathetic here is how far the left has fallen.

I remember the '60s...Do your own thing!...Love the one you're with!...La-la-la-live for today!..Throw off The Establishment!

Institutions like marriage were just another entrapment by the bourgeois, Beaver Cleaver & Donna Reed, conformist throwbacks to the 1940s...The"liberals" of that day had no time for such antiquated concepts as the modem nuclear family....Way too neanderthal, man!

Now it's all about begging The Establishment for privileges and benefits....Whatta bunch if losers.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Briefly. I am very conservative. I am a registered libertarian,(although i do not like Ron Paul because 1.he's a phony 2.I am not an isolationist. 3. he is a racist 4.his foreign policy can only be explained by the fact that he is an anti-semite) I got my conservatism honestly, I was raised by liberals and when i was young i was a registered democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. When i began debating politics online i did well, because i am very clever, but soon realized that because i didn't actually know anything i was either going to have to stop pretending i did, or go ahead and find out everything there was to know about the subject. I was sure this endeavor would only further solidify my liberal beliefs. I was wrong. I became a conservative as a side-effect of wanting to know the truth.

I am a lifelong atheist. I can not remember ever feeling any other way. I am no longer an anti-religious jerk, as in my youth(not coincidentally when i was also a lib )

Conservatives are WRONG about the issue of gay marriage. It is a departure from our commitment to the constitution and as such, it opens us up to the accusation of being less than genuine and only defending our precious constitution when it suits us. Just like the left does.

The "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment is clear and has been interpreted (an "originalist" interpretation) to mean that all citizens are to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law(govt). As such, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the federal govt to deny two homosexuals the right to marry as long as it is granting that right to heterosexuals. That is all. It is clear and undeniable.

Why do you think gay marriage always wins in court? They can't ALL be activist judges, can they? And why do you think Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? Because, as written, the constitution supports gay marriage. That's why.

I will attempt to counter a few of the objections that are sure to be raised.
1.)slippery-slope. No. The equal protection clause would not support polygamy. If the federal govt wants to limit the number of spouses allowed, the constitution would not be violated. No one would be being denied their "civil rights" as the denial would not be based on any identifiable characteristic, they are not being denied based on gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. etc. Nor would it support bestiality or any of the other absurd slippery-slope arguments.

2.)The GLBT agenda. As i said, i am a conservative. I oppose this organization and work to counter their agenda on a daily basis, as do most conservatives.

3.)Special Rights. This is a rare case where the right they are seeking is not a "special right" but the exact same right as their fellow Americans enjoy. If the government was not in the business of sanctioning marriage, there would be no issue here. Which is probably the best answer in the end. However, since that is unlikely to happen, the constitution must be upheld and conservatives need to practice what I preach P) and have the courage and integrity to defend the principle of liberty in a case where it may be offensive to their own personal sensibilities. Do not tell me they can have civil unions with all the same legal rights. Unfortunately for you, they have every right to demand the same thing as heterosexuals have, even in name. They have every right to demand that it not only be the same thing, but also that it be called the same thing. Separate but equal is not equal.

4.)the Sanctity of marriage. that is a joke. I am 40, my wife is 38. We have been married 22 yrs. When my son was born she was 15 and i was 17, we have 3 children now and plan to be married till we die. I have lived my belief in the sanctity of marriage. So until some of you conservatives start suggesting criminal penalties for adultery, divorce, or maybe making separate checking accounts illegal, i don"t want to hear about the sanctity of marriage. Brittany Spears and Madonna have done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than homosexual could ever hope to. So in a world of underwater elvis weddings, this argument needs to be dropped.

Try to imagine the boost to the conservative movement this might bring. At some point, the religious conservatives, who i love and defend, are going to have to agree to let the constitution govern and leave their faith at home. The freedom of Religion is under assault. I will be there to defend it with you. But maybe you should consider our founding and the significance of how our founders handled it. When it came to the Declaration of Independence, a document that was very personal to the men who wrote and signed it, they paced their God prominently. We are a judeo-christian nation in founding. But when it came time for those same men(largely) to write a governing document for our nation, they left their God out. I will be there to dispel the myth of "separation" , to underscore the fact of "shall make no law", but on this matter i feel you religious conservatives are doing the movement a dis-service.


Jeffrey

Getting married in a church, all proper like, isn't a right.

Going down to the JP and signing the contract is.

Marriage is specifically between man and woman, a civil union is a legal contract that is licensed by the state.

 

[Oddball]

Marriage low requires a license to gain access to all benefits.

Before you start blathering about common law marriage, those only exist in 16 states, 6 of which no longer recognize them as legal, and 1 only allows it for inheritance purposes.

That proves that marriage is not a right, the right is access to the licensing process.

I say nonsense...Were I in one of those states and felt the desire to get married under common law contract, I'd sue the state under the provision of Article 1, Section 10 (No state shall...pass any bill...or law impairing the obligation of contracts... ), to do so and the state would have no case.

But this isn't about the law...It's about getting privileges and benefits from gubmint and other third parties...Period.

Which is why they need access to the license.

No, they don't really need access to the license...They can get most of the benefits they claim to want (i.e. hospital visitation, child custody and other legal protections) through powers of attorney and trusts.

I chalk it up to basic laziness and cheapness.

 

[AmyNation]

I say nonsense...Were I in one of those states and felt the desire to get married under common law contract, I'd sue the state under the provision of Article 1, Section 10 (No state shall...pass any bill...or law impairing the obligation of contracts... ), to do so and the state would have no case.

But this isn't about the law...It's about getting privileges and benefits from gubmint and other third parties...Period.

Which is why they need access to the license.

No, they don't need access to the license...They can get most of the benefits they claim to want (i.e. hospital visitation, child custody and other legal protections) through powers of attorney and trusts.

I chalk it up to basic laziness and cheapness.

Yup, homosexuals are lazy and cheap.

It can't have anything to do with a feeling of injustice, the desire for acceptance and equal rights, or the hope to marry and raise a family like other Americans.