Mike Huckabee Threatens To Leave The GOP Over Gay Marriage

[Vigilante]

WE all know what the meaning of GOD is. Being an AGNOSTIC, I have NO REVULSION to the use of GOD in anything. For those that do, we simply LOOK BACK at our traditions and culture, and point to the fact that if the people that formed this Republic didn't BELIEVE in a CREATOR, we simply would NOT be the country that we once were....Live with it people, sticks and stones may break your bones but words ONLY HURT the truly demented!

NO, there is not an agreement even among theists.

Look at the interpretation of Allah used by Jihadists to worship Jihad.
People DO NOT agree on the interpretation and "will of God" to mean THAT!

That is not the same as the Universal God of Universalists
and the belief in Abundance of Free Grace in Life that
even Atheists that I know personally believe in, which is completely compatible with the Christian God.

I'm using the collective WE as to reference of the members here for discussion.

 

[longknife]

Post after post of hateful tripe. So sad that one cannot hold a decent discussion here.

 

[Silhouette]

This means something because he's a Fox employee like the rest of the Repub Presidential candidates.

You think there would be zero backlash from forced gay marriage/polygamy against the will of the majority of tens of millions of voters nationwide?

Think again..

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

So what do the USMB Republicans think about Huckabee's latest threat?

RWW News Mike Huckabee Threatens To Leave The GOP Over Gay Marriage - YouTube

Big loss or good riddance?

A thread based on a report from an assassination site aimed at non-lefties. And they're tax exempt. We all have to fund these left wing propagandists. That's the real story. That and the OP pushing left wing propaganda.

the award for the best overwrought and false statement in a thread goes too RoshawnMarkwees

Do you not know what RWW is? And they are tax exempt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We enhance our own ability to govern ourselves democratically by always studying and improving our knowledge, while improving our critical thinking skills. I wish the extremists of right and left would do that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right wing far overestimate their diminishing political punch.

 

[Antares]

Jake you as a Christian are far right to MOST Liberals,the word far is just a pejorative you use to attempt marginalize anyone you disagree with.

It doesn't work because cares how anyone else "feels" about them.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. No side has banned "repartive therapy". It is still fully available to any adult that wants it.

>>>>

1. P.S. In addition to pushing propaganda that there are NO valid cases of people being healed spiritually of unwanted homosexual attractions that WEREN'T natural for them (but saying ALL SUCH people were never gay to begin with), and spreading the misinformation that homosexual cannot be changed in ANY PERSON.

2. the liberal left politicians HAVE PASSED LEGISLATION that discriminated
* against the Christian Scientists who believe their faith based practices should have been considered in the health care bill
* against believers in Natural Laws and Rights as coming from God where health care is the responsibility of the people and is not a "right" to be imposed through govt.
and establishes a BIAS toward the BELIEF that "health care is a right"
and a BIAS AGAINST the critical component in health care involving Spiritual Health, Healing and Therapy
which Government cannot regulate much less mandate by treating health care as purely secular in practice.

So this is 2-3 levels of discrimination and yes, the law WAS passed and imposed MANDATES
requiring people either to pay into INSURANCE or pay into GOVERNMENT as the ONLY endorsed choices for health care (unless your "religion" qualifies as one of the exempted medical cost sharing programs which must be in existence as of 1999, further regulating religious free exercise by govt mandates). if you have some other religious belief or practice that you would use for your health care, sorry, but that belief is penalized for investing in it -- the only legally endorsed choices by govt to avoid a fine are regulated and limited to the guidelines enforced by govt. So that is govt regulating and discriminating on the basis of creed.

If everyone agreed to the use of govt to regulate health care this way, such a contract is legal by consent.
But clearly people do NOT consent, and have vocally, visibly and legally expressed their beliefs otherwise.

So this is not equal treatment of people by beliefs.
The people whose beliefs are in the minority are now facing a legal battle to prove and defend their beliefs,
while the people who "believe in health care as a right through govt" have THEIR beliefs endorsed by govt,
imposed by mandates, and punishable by fines if not complied with.

So this is the tables turning, and the liberal left making the very mistake of "failing to separate church/beliefs from state/public law" that they have bashed the Christians and Conservatives for doing.

The politicians behind the bill used the system to push their agenda as the equivalent of a "nationalized religion" and even Obama and others made public statements basically declaring this belief in the "right to health care" as "established as the law of the land." This "belief" is stated in the Democratic Platform.
It is clearly a belief NOT shared by others, yet majority rule, politics and media allowed it to be established by law in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of people who believe in free choice of health care and not fines imposed by govt forcing people to pay for private insurance when there are other means of organizing and funding health care, and this is not the only way and not the most expedient/cost effective as it still doesn't create the networks of services, programs and education needed to provide health care for all people.

 

[Skylar]

Dear World Watcher:
Just because using govt to BAN gay marriage is unconstitutional
does not mean that using govt to ESTABLISH gay marriage isn't equally unconstitutional.

Since marriage has been recognized by the courts as a fundamental right, you'll need a good reason to deny that right to gays and lesbians. Otherwise its an arbitrary abrogation of rights, which violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

And the States don't have a good reason for banning it. 'Because we can' doesn't cut it.

 

[Skylar]

Regardless of what left wing activist judges decide, the concept of homo "marriage" will be a laughable mockery....

Invented " rights" or not....lol

Invented like the right to self defense with a firearm? The 9th amendment makes it clear that there are other unemumerated rights that are possessed by the people. And marriage is one of them.

Once marriage is recognized as a right, you'll need a good reason to deny it to someone. And that's where the States that seek to ban gay marriage run into problems. They have no good reason. There's no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians don't meet.

Which is why virtually every federal court to hear this issue has overturned such gay marriage bans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The states have no compelling interest to limit marriage to only heterosexuals, none.

 

[Skylar]

This means something because he's a Fox employee like the rest of the Repub Presidential candidates.

You think there would be zero backlash from forced gay marriage/polygamy against the will of the majority of tens of millions of voters nationwide?

Think again..

The last poll indicates 55% of the population supports gay marriage. The electorate has definitely picked a team on this issue. And its not yours.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear World Watcher:
Just because using govt to BAN gay marriage is unconstitutional
does not mean that using govt to ESTABLISH gay marriage isn't equally unconstitutional.

Since marriage has been recognized by the courts as a fundamental right, you'll need a good reason to deny that right to gays and lesbians. Otherwise its an arbitrary abrogation of rights, which violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

And the States don't have a good reason for banning it. 'Because we can' doesn't cut it.

Yes you can have marriage as a fundamental right, like religion which is a fundamental right
and thus should be KEPT OUT OF GOVT.

You do NOT abuse GOVT to start defining or redefining a religious practice,
nor to redefine marriage for that matter. That is NOT the role of govt, and should
be left to the people or churches, or states if they can form a consensus on that level.
If not, then it should be left private.

Govt should not be abused to sort out religious matters and make decisions for other people,
especially against their consent or beliefs!

 

[emilynghiem]

This means something because he's a Fox employee like the rest of the Repub Presidential candidates.

You think there would be zero backlash from forced gay marriage/polygamy against the will of the majority of tens of millions of voters nationwide?

Think again..

The last poll indicates 55% of the population supports gay marriage. The electorate has definitely picked a team on this issue. And its not yours.

Last I checked, if 55% of the population supported Christianity, that is still unlawful to establish through govt and federal laws.
It must remain a free choice, even if 75 or 80% agree, if it involves BELIEFS that is not the role of govt to establish for others.

 

[Skylar]

Republicans need to be as far away as they can from this issue by 2016

In two years, Gay marriage will be the law of the land. Continued fighting by Republicans will stamp them as an archaic party fighting to preserve past hatreds

I have always maintained that GOP candidates should steer their campaigns far away from social issues.
My GOP, well ideally would be the GOP which stood firm on fiscal responsibility in government.

Social issues have been a third rail for Republican candidates
They make a strong case for fiscal responsibility and restraint. But when given a chance to talk about rape, birth control and gays they can't resist the impulse to grab that third rail. Democrats know this and intentionally bait them

Kinda. The republican's sole plan for economic prosperity is massive tax cuts for the rich and the removal of government services for the poor. That's not exactly a rockin' plan. Nor do the republicans present it well. The '47%' argument fronted by Romney was really poorly thought out.

Their gay marriage argument was a joke. And even if gay marriage bans are found to be constitutional (unlikely, but it could happen), there's almost no chance that States can refuse to recognize marriages that occur in states where gay marriage is legal. As interstate reciprocity of contracts and marriages is some rock solid law. So gay marriage will become defacto legal everywhere anyway....with gay folks in say, Missouri or Utah engaging in a little marriage tourism to California or Oregon with the gay couples bringing the same sex marriage home with them.

The only folks such bans would effect would be those gays too poor to go to states that allow such marriages.

 

[Skylar]

This means something because he's a Fox employee like the rest of the Repub Presidential candidates.

You think there would be zero backlash from forced gay marriage/polygamy against the will of the majority of tens of millions of voters nationwide?

Think again..

The last poll indicates 55% of the population supports gay marriage. The electorate has definitely picked a team on this issue. And its not yours.

Last I checked, if 55% of the population supported Christianity, that is still unlawful to establish through govt and federal laws.
It must remain a free choice, even if 75 or 80% agree, if it involves BELIEFS that is not the role of govt to establish for others.

Since the threat is consequences from the electorate for gay marriage....and the majority of the electorate supports gay marriage, the 'consequences' will probably be for those who opposed the same sex marriages. Not those who supported them.

 

[Skylar]

Yes you can have marriage as a fundamental right, like religion which is a fundamental right
and thus should be KEPT OUT OF GOVT.

Huh? You're literally arguing that the government should stay out of the protection of fundamental rights....because they're fundamental rights.

That makes no sense.

You do NOT abuse GOVT to start defining or redefining a religious practice,
nor to redefine marriage for that matter. That is NOT the role of govt, and should
be left to the people or churches, or states if they can form a consensus on that level.
If not, then it should be left private.

If the State of California recognizes that a gay couple's marriage is valid, here's no requisite that say, the Catholics have to accept the same. So there's no redefinition of any given religions beliefs on the matter. The changes are in the way the law views marriage. The law has to be applied equally. And the rights of gays and lesbians to marry under the law are being respected farther and farther across the nation each year.

Its not an abuse of government to protect fundamental rights. Its an obligation of government to protect fundamental rights. The assessment of the constitutionality of any given law is what the courts are supposed to do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government exists, in part, to protect fundamental rights.

Jacksonian democratic majorities will never protect minority rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Yes you can have marriage as a fundamental right, like religion which is a fundamental right and thus should be KEPT OUT OF GOVT.”


As already correctly noted, this doesn't make any sense.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, as marriage and religion are completely dissimilar, where the former is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts, and the latter is a belief system that exists separate and apart from government, and not created by government. Remember also that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government and the contract marriage law it creates, not marriage in the context of religious doctrine and dogma.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The government exists, in part, to protect fundamental rights.

Jacksonian democratic majorities will never protect minority rights.

True.

Indeed, majorities are often hostile to the rights of minorities, hence our Constitutional Republic as opposed to a democracy, where the Constitution, its case law, and the judicial branch of government safeguard the rights of all citizens from the capricious whims of simple majorities.