GOP hopefuls remind Iowans they oppose Gay Rights

[Cecilie1200]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

How do you figure that? You are opposed to the right of sane, sober taxpaying American citizens to avail themselves of the protection afforded by contract law and you are not opposed to gay rights?

Walk me through your argument please.

Who says they can't avail themselves of contract law? I don't recall any state having a law that says homosexuals can't legally enter into contracts.

Write up a contract, sign it, move on with your life. Easy-peasy. Quit bothering other people to approve of and sanction you via government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

How do you figure that? You are opposed to the right of sane, sober taxpaying American citizens to avail themselves of the protection afforded by contract law and you are not opposed to gay rights?

Walk me through your argument please.

And what "rights" are gays bitching about now?

They have the same "rights" as the rest of us.

And, just when did opposition to same sex marriage equate to being against "gay rights".

When they decided to phrase it that way for propaganda purposes.

 

[bodecea]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

How do you figure that? You are opposed to the right of sane, sober taxpaying American citizens to avail themselves of the protection afforded by contract law and you are not opposed to gay rights?

Walk me through your argument please.

Who says they can't avail themselves of contract law? I don't recall any state having a law that says homosexuals can't legally enter into contracts.

Write up a contract, sign it, move on with your life. Easy-peasy. Quit bothering other people to approve of and sanction you via government.

#1. No one contract covers all the 1000+ rights, benefits, and protections given by a civil marriage license.

#2. Many states have passed laws expressly stating they will NOT recognize such legal contracts.

#3. So, you consider it equal when, because of the gender of one's partner, one group can get all these rights, privileges and benefits with rather inexpensive marriage license and the other group has to get lawyers and draw up multiple expensive documents that are not recognized everywhere to get part of the same rights, privileges and benefits?

 

[bodecea]

How do you figure that? You are opposed to the right of sane, sober taxpaying American citizens to avail themselves of the protection afforded by contract law and you are not opposed to gay rights?

Walk me through your argument please.

And what "rights" are gays bitching about now?

They have the same "rights" as the rest of us.

And, just when did opposition to same sex marriage equate to being against "gay rights".

When they decided to phrase it that way for propaganda purposes.

I find it appropriate that Wicked Jester puts the word Rights in " "...because he doesn't really think that it is a valid word when it comes to gay Americans. And you?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

How do you figure that? You are opposed to the right of sane, sober taxpaying American citizens to avail themselves of the protection afforded by contract law and you are not opposed to gay rights?

Walk me through your argument please.

Who says they can't avail themselves of contract law? I don't recall any state having a law that says homosexuals can't legally enter into contracts.

Write up a contract, sign it, move on with your life. Easy-peasy. Quit bothering other people to approve of and sanction you via government.

Virginia Constitution, Article 15a

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."​

The State constitution bars the government (here in Virginia) from recognizing the legality of a legal status of a contract if the intent of the contract is to "approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage."


In addition there are many things involving a spouse that cannot be duplicated with a simple contract.



>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

The sanctity of marriage died with no fault divorce.

The government should get out of marriage altogether. They have no right to determine who can and cannot get married.

They don't. They determine which relationships they will and won't officially recognize as marriages. And who else CAN determine what government will recognize besides government?

Don't try that semantic sleight-of-hand about "stopping people from getting married". No one's doing that.

DoMA is unconstitutional.

How so? Where does the Constitution say anything that is contradicted by the government defining legally-recognized and -sanctioned marriage as "one man, one woman"?

No more tax breaks for married couples.

Yes, because it will benefit everyone to make it more financially difficult to be married and have a family. By all means, let's discourage THAT sort of behavior.

No more marriage licenses, which are just a tax on marriage.

How much are YOU paying for marriage licenses? Where I live, it's basically a fee for processing. Big deal.

Let the churches decide who they are and are not going to marry and let the states recognize them for legal purposes.

And how about people who don't want to be married by churches? If you want to take government out of the loop, that pretty much lets out everyone else who can currently perform wedding ceremonies: judges, JPs . . .

How do you figure the state is going to "recognize them for legal purposes" without marriage licenses, Einstein? You DO realize that's what those licenses are for, right? To officially notify the various government agencies that the marriage exists? Kind of like filing the birth certificate after you have a baby? Am I ringing a bell here?

Oh, I know, you want to make marriage just a romantic little gesture, like buying flowers and candy on Valentine's Day: sweet and mushy, but basically meaningless.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The sanctity of marriage died with no fault divorce.

The government should get out of marriage altogether. They have no right to determine who can and cannot get married. DoMA is unconstitutional. No more tax breaks for married couples. No more marriage licenses, which are just a tax on marriage. Let the churches decide who they are and are not going to marry and let the states recognize them for legal purposes.

There only became a "sanctity of marriage" when people started do it for love. That's been fairly recent. Mostly, marriage has been for money or the consolidation of power. That's just "history".

And what's so damned "sanctified" about warm, squishy, transitory emotion? Honestly, I'd expect this sort of romance-novel bullshit from you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm all for same sex marriage. If people are really stupid enough to enter into a contract that's essentially economic slavery, more power to them.

BUT...

I am AGAINST a special, protected class. You should NOT have to be Gay or have to SAY you're Gay to marry a same sex partner. Heteros should also be able to marry same sex partners.

Why would they want to?

if i was old and my husband was dead and my older sister was alone as well, I would want to join in a union with her to manage our finances, be able to visit her in the hospital, make legal decisions together....etc...

basically for the perks and simplification that comes with a legal union of that sort....

Um, why wouldn't you be able to visit your own sister in the hospital? And what financial and legal decisions would you want to make together that you wouldn't be able to?

 

[gekaap]

Government guarantees rights, guaranteeing rights has NOTHING to do with marriage or inventing "marriage rights" that the Constitution (thankfully) doesn't waste one word on.

1) Why doesn't the 10th amendment apply?

2) Since marriage is regulated at the state level, it's a question of states granting rights, not the federal constitution.

 

[bodecea]

The sanctity of marriage died with no fault divorce.

The government should get out of marriage altogether. They have no right to determine who can and cannot get married. DoMA is unconstitutional. No more tax breaks for married couples. No more marriage licenses, which are just a tax on marriage. Let the churches decide who they are and are not going to marry and let the states recognize them for legal purposes.

There only became a "sanctity of marriage" when people started do it for love. That's been fairly recent. Mostly, marriage has been for money or the consolidation of power. That's just "history".

And what's so damned "sanctified" about warm, squishy, transitory emotion? Honestly, I'd expect this sort of romance-novel bullshit from you.

OK, that explains a lot.

 

[gekaap]

Who says they can't avail themselves of contract law? I don't recall any state having a law that says homosexuals can't legally enter into contracts.

For legal purposes, marriage is nothing more than a civil contract. If gay people cannot enter into marriage, they are being barred from entering into a civil contract.

Write up a contract, sign it, move on with your life. Easy-peasy. Quit bothering other people to approve of and sanction you via government.

Are you willing to do the same? If so, then you must refrain from ever getting married under the law.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Who says they can't avail themselves of contract law? I don't recall any state having a law that says homosexuals can't legally enter into contracts.

For legal purposes, marriage is nothing more than a civil contract. If gay people cannot enter into marriage, they are being barred from entering into a civil contract.

Write up a contract, sign it, move on with your life. Easy-peasy. Quit bothering other people to approve of and sanction you via government.

Are you willing to do the same? If so, then you must refrain from ever getting married under the law.

So, show us where marriage is a civil "right"

It's not. If it were, cousins and such wouldn't be denied a license. Brothers and sisters wouldn't be denied licenses based on the fact that it's a "RIGHT"

Just call it what is when pertaining to gay's, it's a "WANT". Not a gay "RIGHT"

The term "Gay Rights" is pure propoganda put out by the left. Nothing more.

 

[bodecea]

Who says they can't avail themselves of contract law? I don't recall any state having a law that says homosexuals can't legally enter into contracts.

For legal purposes, marriage is nothing more than a civil contract. If gay people cannot enter into marriage, they are being barred from entering into a civil contract.

Write up a contract, sign it, move on with your life. Easy-peasy. Quit bothering other people to approve of and sanction you via government.

Are you willing to do the same? If so, then you must refrain from ever getting married under the law.

So, show us where marriage is a civil "right"

It's not. If it were, cousins and such wouldn't be denied a license. Brothers and sisters wouldn't be denied licenses based on the fact that it's a "RIGHT"

Just call it what is when pertaining to gay's, it's a "WANT". Not a gay "RIGHT"

The term "Gay Rights" is pure propoganda put out by the left. Nothing more.

The government cannot deny something it provides to one group of law-abiding tax-paying citizens to another group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens without legal, overriding reasons. Got some?

 

[gekaap]

So, show us where marriage is a civil "right"

I'll tell you what, show us where sitting in the front of the bus is a civil right. Better yet, show me what gives the government the right to discriminate against gay people.

It's not. If it were, cousins and such wouldn't be denied a license. Brothers and sisters wouldn't be denied licenses based on the fact that it's a "RIGHT"

Freedom of religion is a constitutional right. Some religions proclaim that men can have multiple wives. Yet the government is still allowed to deny people the right to enter into polygamous marriages. This is because possessing a right does not mean that said right is without limits that the government can impose when there is a legitimate public interest being served.

Just call it what is when pertaining to gay's, it's a "WANT". Not a gay "RIGHT"

Doesn't the 10th amendment come into play?

The term "Gay Rights" is pure propoganda put out by the left. Nothing more.

Yeah, kinda like that propaganda a few decades ago when dem dirty black folk were complaining about equal civil rights so that they could drink from the same water fountains and eat at the same restaurants as good ol' clean white folk.

 

[JFK_USA]

It's so ludicrous to see Gingrich address this group about the sanctity of marriage. This man who has cheated on three wives.
How many wives has Trump had?

If you are looking for Republicans to make sense, you'll be disappointed.

 

[konradv]

I'll go number by number to address these.

1.) A military member is a government employee, his wife gets government insurance, the exact same thing I'm advocating for. Insurance recognizing marriages, not government. If their government insurance didn't want to cover her if he died than he should have the right to try and purchase private insurance that would.

2.) I want social security done away with.

3.) These same benefits should be given to someone if they're a girlfriend or brother or sister, whomever the owner deems necessary.

4.) Same rights should be given to whomever the homeowner wants to put into place.

5.) If government has such regulations on it's cemetaries and the veteran thinks it's more important to be buried next to his wife than he can choose another cemetary.

6.) This, again, can be provided in private insurance companies or the companies the person works for. These things are choices.

7.) Anyone who's financially dependent on one person in case of a wrongful death should be able to sue if they can make the connection.

8.) I don't see how this is a good thing, if a husband kills someone his wife should testify against him or be punished.

9.) I'm mostly pro-amnesty, marriage isn't important here either.

10.) Again, this can be done within private insurance.

11.) If government doesn't recognize marriage they won't have to recognize divorce. If the couple is worried about potential divorce they should get a pre-nup and government can then be called upon to enforce a contract.

12.) See #11.

Well that was easy, seems like you didn't "think those ones through", I could say that, or I could act like a grown up and say you have a different opinion.

You have a different thought out opinion than my thought out opinion, we just disagree, I'm a small government fiscal conservative so our idealogies likely are very different.

You're talking about rights? I thought you wanted the giovernment out of marriage? Who guarantees rights, anyway? Without government there are no rights, except those that I wish to grant you, if I'm stronger. Once again, we have a libertarian not thinking things through.

Government guarantees rights, guaranteeing rights has NOTHING to do with marriage or inventing "marriage rights" that the Constitution (thankfully) doesn't waste one word on.

You're down 2-0 in the count here, gonna bring another curveball or the heater this time?

The Constitution doesn't have to mention something for it to be a right. Legislatures can legislate a new right. The Constitution tells us what government cannot do concerning rights. It takes no position on new rights being created.

This isn't just a difference of opinion. You're wrong. I blame it on the blindness caused for a political philosophy that sounds so good you don't want to examine it too closely. That's the same problem the Marxists have.

What about me being 2-0? Seems you don't even know baseball!!! At that count, I'm half way to first!!!

 

[Wicked Jester]

So, show us where marriage is a civil "right"

I'll tell you what, show us where sitting in the front of the bus is a civil right. Better yet, show me what gives the government the right to discriminate against gay people.

It's not. If it were, cousins and such wouldn't be denied a license. Brothers and sisters wouldn't be denied licenses based on the fact that it's a "RIGHT"

Freedom of religion is a constitutional right. Some religions proclaim that men can have multiple wives. Yet the government is still allowed to deny people the right to enter into polygamous marriages. This is because possessing a right does not mean that said right is without limits that the government can impose when there is a legitimate public interest being served.

Just call it what is when pertaining to gay's, it's a "WANT". Not a gay "RIGHT"

Doesn't the 10th amendment come into play?

The term "Gay Rights" is pure propoganda put out by the left. Nothing more.

Yeah, kinda like that propaganda a few decades ago when dem dirty black folk were complaining about equal civil rights so that they could drink from the same water fountains and eat at the same restaurants as good ol' clean white folk.

Still can't show that it's a civil RIGHT?

It's not!

Fact is, they would get a lot further if they dropped the "RIGHTS" BS.

Call it what it is, a ''WANT"........Fight for the "WANT", more power to them.

And, don't even try and compare it to the cause of blacks.......It's nothing more than tired left wing propoganda, and a slap in the face of the blacks who truly suffered.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Government guarantees rights, guaranteeing rights has NOTHING to do with marriage or inventing "marriage rights" that the Constitution (thankfully) doesn't waste one word on.

1) Why doesn't the 10th amendment apply?

2) Since marriage is regulated at the state level, it's a question of states granting rights, not the federal constitution.

The 10th amendment has nothing to do with the points I outlined. My point is I don't want ANY government in ANY marriage and my points showed how it could be done.

 

[bodecea]

So, show us where marriage is a civil "right"

I'll tell you what, show us where sitting in the front of the bus is a civil right. Better yet, show me what gives the government the right to discriminate against gay people.



Freedom of religion is a constitutional right. Some religions proclaim that men can have multiple wives. Yet the government is still allowed to deny people the right to enter into polygamous marriages. This is because possessing a right does not mean that said right is without limits that the government can impose when there is a legitimate public interest being served.



Doesn't the 10th amendment come into play?

The term "Gay Rights" is pure propoganda put out by the left. Nothing more.

Yeah, kinda like that propaganda a few decades ago when dem dirty black folk were complaining about equal civil rights so that they could drink from the same water fountains and eat at the same restaurants as good ol' clean white folk.

Still can't show that it's a civil RIGHT?

It's not!

Fact is, they would get a lot further if they dropped the "RIGHTS" BS.

Call it what it is, a ''WANT"........Fight for the "WANT", more power to them.

And, don't even try and compare it to the cause of blacks.......It's nothing more than tired left wing propoganda, and a slap in the face of the blacks who truly suffered.

The government cannot grant marriage licenses to one group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and deny that same license to another group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens without an overriding, legal reason. That would go against the 14th amendment and equal treatment under the law...which IS a right.

 

[gekaap]

Still can't show that it's a civil RIGHT?

It's not!

Fact is, they would get a lot further if they dropped the "RIGHTS" BS.

Call it what it is, a ''WANT"........Fight for the "WANT", more power to them.

And, don't even try and compare it to the cause of blacks.......It's nothing more than tired left wing propoganda, and a slap in the face of the blacks who truly suffered.

Nice! Completely ignore your arguments being trounced, and settle back in by re uttering the BS that was just debunked.