Top Republicans urge court to support gay marriage

[hazlnut]

It is not surprising that there are liberal leaning republicans or who they are. Republicans don't demand the same rigid scope of opinion that democrats do. These liberal republicans do not signal a fundamental shift in the opinions of most republicans.

so, you agree then that supporting the constitution and the 14 Amendment is a 'Liberal' value.

 

[squeeze berry]

wait until they start getting divorces

Some already are. And......?

It was an inside joke.....but he's playing to an empty room.

in your case it's an empty head

 

[Seawytch]

It is a very prominent Republican, Ted Olson, fighting the marriage equality fight. ( in court)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

 

[jknowgood]

Wait until obama finishes getting the tax increases he wants. I mean with clinton's marrige penalty tax, I went from recieving to owing. You get what u ask for, and yes in a divorce 50/50 split. Lol

 

[g5000]

It is a very prominent Republican, Ted Olson, fighting the marriage equality fight. ( in court)

The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

Bah! What does he know? He was just Bush's Solicitor General. He's a nobody...

 

[DiamondDave]

Said it so many times, it is not funny... many of us registered REPs/Conservative/Libertarian types support people living with, being with, loving, starting families with whomever they want... and I for one fully support getting government the **** out of marriage (except in matters of government such as inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc) and recognize all family couples as family units and let the people or churches or whomever else decide whether they wish to deem or accept it has a 'marriage'

 

[g5000]

Said it so many times, it is not funny... many of us registered REPs/Conservative/Libertarian types support people living with, being with, loving, starting families with whomever they want... and I for one fully support getting government the **** out of marriage (except in matters of government such as inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc) and recognize all family couples as family units and let the people or churches or whomever else decide whether they wish to deem or accept it has a 'marriage'

You support government getting out of marriage except for matters of inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc.


Um. So what exactly would that exclude government from that it currently does that is NOT inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc?

 

[DiamondDave]

Said it so many times, it is not funny... many of us registered REPs/Conservative/Libertarian types support people living with, being with, loving, starting families with whomever they want... and I for one fully support getting government the **** out of marriage (except in matters of government such as inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc) and recognize all family couples as family units and let the people or churches or whomever else decide whether they wish to deem or accept it has a 'marriage'

You support government getting out of marriage except for matters of inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc.


Um. So what exactly would that exclude government from that it currently does that is NOT inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc?

The agenda now is for forced acceptance, etc... when given the option of the equality in treatment governmentally in those areas and a different name, gays have shown to be overwhelmingly UNSUPPORTIVE of such an idea, even if the 'straight' married couples get the same name (such as 'family unit or civil union).. all unions of adults into a family are a CHOICE, and people are ALLOWED to discriminate against choice and behavior... well, except in the mind of the gay marriage extremists...

As I have said many times.. I am all for the equal treatment.. not for all the hidden discrimination/protection shit that goes along with it...

I fully accept that many people do not condone or accept my interracial marriage.. and if I were renting or in a privately owned business where it was not wanted, I might not like it but so be it... people have the freedom to be tolerant and accepting just as they have the freedom to be bigoted assholes... all part of the pros and cons that come with freedom

 

[The VOR]

More like Republican has-beens and nobodies who have little to lose by taking on a party-unfriendly position...

You noticed that these were all losers who never got the support of republican voters.

Yep. They just couldn't score high enough on the crazy test.

I'm cuckoo for cocoa puffs,
cuckoo for cocoa puffs

 

[LoneLaugher]

Said it so many times, it is not funny... many of us registered REPs/Conservative/Libertarian types support people living with, being with, loving, starting families with whomever they want... and I for one fully support getting government the **** out of marriage (except in matters of government such as inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc) and recognize all family couples as family units and let the people or churches or whomever else decide whether they wish to deem or accept it has a 'marriage'

You support government getting out of marriage except for matters of inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc.


Um. So what exactly would that exclude government from that it currently does that is NOT inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc?

The agenda now is for forced acceptance, etc... when given the option of the equality in treatment governmentally in those areas and a different name, gays have shown to be overwhelmingly UNSUPPORTIVE of such an idea, even if the 'straight' married couples get the same name (such as 'family unit or civil union).. all unions of adults into a family are a CHOICE, and people are ALLOWED to discriminate against choice and behavior... well, except in the mind of the gay marriage extremists...

As I have said many times.. I am all for the equal treatment.. not for all the hidden discrimination/protection shit that goes along with it...

I fully accept that many people do not condone or accept my interracial marriage.. and if I were renting or in a privately owned business where it was not wanted, I might not like it but so be it... people have the freedom to be tolerant and accepting just as they have the freedom to be bigoted assholes... all part of the pros and cons that come with freedom

Say what?

 

[DiamondDave]

You support government getting out of marriage except for matters of inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc.


Um. So what exactly would that exclude government from that it currently does that is NOT inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc?

The agenda now is for forced acceptance, etc... when given the option of the equality in treatment governmentally in those areas and a different name, gays have shown to be overwhelmingly UNSUPPORTIVE of such an idea, even if the 'straight' married couples get the same name (such as 'family unit or civil union).. all unions of adults into a family are a CHOICE, and people are ALLOWED to discriminate against choice and behavior... well, except in the mind of the gay marriage extremists...

As I have said many times.. I am all for the equal treatment.. not for all the hidden discrimination/protection shit that goes along with it...

I fully accept that many people do not condone or accept my interracial marriage.. and if I were renting or in a privately owned business where it was not wanted, I might not like it but so be it... people have the freedom to be tolerant and accepting just as they have the freedom to be bigoted assholes... all part of the pros and cons that come with freedom

Say what?

I may not like if I am, for example, looking to rent a basement of Grandma X, but she don't want to because she don't want an interracial couple in her house.. SO BE IT.. that is her freedom to discriminate against my choice... if some privately owned business decides to refuse me service because they don't want my kind in there (being a white who did not marry within his race), I may not like it but SO BE IT... not that EITHER of these would happen often whether it is my situation or the situation of the gay person(s), but I respect the freedom to discriminate against the CHOICES and chosen actions of others

 

[LoneLaugher]

The agenda now is for forced acceptance, etc... when given the option of the equality in treatment governmentally in those areas and a different name, gays have shown to be overwhelmingly UNSUPPORTIVE of such an idea, even if the 'straight' married couples get the same name (such as 'family unit or civil union).. all unions of adults into a family are a CHOICE, and people are ALLOWED to discriminate against choice and behavior... well, except in the mind of the gay marriage extremists...

As I have said many times.. I am all for the equal treatment.. not for all the hidden discrimination/protection shit that goes along with it...

I fully accept that many people do not condone or accept my interracial marriage.. and if I were renting or in a privately owned business where it was not wanted, I might not like it but so be it... people have the freedom to be tolerant and accepting just as they have the freedom to be bigoted assholes... all part of the pros and cons that come with freedom

Say what?

I may not like if I am, for example, looking to rent a basement of Grandma X, but she don't want to because she don't want an interracial couple in her house.. SO BE IT.. that is her freedom to discriminate against my choice... if some privately owned business decides to refuse me service because they don't want my kind in there (being a white who did not marry within his race), I may not like it but SO BE IT... not that EITHER of these would happen often whether it is my situation or the situation of the gay person(s), but I respect the freedom to discriminate against the CHOICES and chosen actions of others

That is ridiculous.

 

[Qball]

More like Republican has-beens and nobodies who have little to lose by taking on a party-unfriendly position...

You noticed that these were all losers who never got the support of republican voters.

Yep. They just couldn't score high enough on the crazy test.

I'm cuckoo for cocoa puffs,
cuckoo for cocoa puffs

Uh huh, that is until they start they start talking about tax cuts, immigration, and gun rights, then we're back to the goddamn GOP crazies tea-bagging each other because they're crazy bullshit liberals like so much...

 

[editec]

Top Republicans urge court to support gay marriage

WASHINGTON — Top Republicans, including veterans of the George W. Bush administration, former members of Congress and ex-governors, are calling on the Supreme Court to support same-sex marriage.

More than 80 prominent leaders will file a friend of the court brief this week in advance of the justices hearing oral arguments in two gay marriage cases. These Republicans are essentially saying gay couples have a constitutional right to marry and want the court to strike down California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage.

The signers currently include former governors Jon Huntsman of Utah, Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and William Weld of Massachusetts; former White House chief of staff Ken Mehlman and former national security adviser Stephen Hadley; and retired members of Congress, such as Mary Bono Mack of California and Deborah Pryce of Ohio.

Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman is also on record as backing the legal brief, which is a change of her previous position. When she ran unsuccessfully for California governor in 2010, Whitman supported Proposition 8. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., is the only active member of the House currently listed as supporting the brief.
<more>

Interesting.

The RNC is folding its anti-gay tent and admitting defeat.

Ten twenty years from now we'll find GOP loyalists who will have no idea that their party was once the party of homophobes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Top Republicans urge court to support gay marriage

WASHINGTON — Top Republicans, including veterans of the George W. Bush administration, former members of Congress and ex-governors, are calling on the Supreme Court to support same-sex marriage.

More than 80 prominent leaders will file a friend of the court brief this week in advance of the justices hearing oral arguments in two gay marriage cases. These Republicans are essentially saying gay couples have a constitutional right to marry and want the court to strike down California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage.

The signers currently include former governors Jon Huntsman of Utah, Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and William Weld of Massachusetts; former White House chief of staff Ken Mehlman and former national security adviser Stephen Hadley; and retired members of Congress, such as Mary Bono Mack of California and Deborah Pryce of Ohio.

Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman is also on record as backing the legal brief, which is a change of her previous position. When she ran unsuccessfully for California governor in 2010, Whitman supported Proposition 8. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., is the only active member of the House currently listed as supporting the brief.
<more>

OH, just because some idiot republican(s) wants to show support for gay bullshit, I'm supposed to do the same thing? If I did that would make me look partisan. I'm not changing my principles and get on the band wagon with the sick immoral people.

 

[zonly1]

This is just a distraction to more things to the forefront.

 

[Seawytch]

Top Republicans urge court to support gay marriage

WASHINGTON — Top Republicans, including veterans of the George W. Bush administration, former members of Congress and ex-governors, are calling on the Supreme Court to support same-sex marriage.

More than 80 prominent leaders will file a friend of the court brief this week in advance of the justices hearing oral arguments in two gay marriage cases. These Republicans are essentially saying gay couples have a constitutional right to marry and want the court to strike down California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage.

The signers currently include former governors Jon Huntsman of Utah, Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and William Weld of Massachusetts; former White House chief of staff Ken Mehlman and former national security adviser Stephen Hadley; and retired members of Congress, such as Mary Bono Mack of California and Deborah Pryce of Ohio.

Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman is also on record as backing the legal brief, which is a change of her previous position. When she ran unsuccessfully for California governor in 2010, Whitman supported Proposition 8. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., is the only active member of the House currently listed as supporting the brief.
<more>

Interesting.

The RNC is folding its anti-gay tent and admitting defeat.

Ten twenty years from now we'll find GOP loyalists who will have no idea that their party was once the party of homophobes.

The RNC might be trying to change its spots, but conservatives are still holding strong to their homophobia. GOPRoud and Log Cabin...not invited to CPAC again.

 

[martybegan]

Say what?

I may not like if I am, for example, looking to rent a basement of Grandma X, but she don't want to because she don't want an interracial couple in her house.. SO BE IT.. that is her freedom to discriminate against my choice... if some privately owned business decides to refuse me service because they don't want my kind in there (being a white who did not marry within his race), I may not like it but SO BE IT... not that EITHER of these would happen often whether it is my situation or the situation of the gay person(s), but I respect the freedom to discriminate against the CHOICES and chosen actions of others

That is ridiculous.

Not at all. Its the view that the government is forced consitutionally to be "race-blind" when it comes to government interaction, and this is carried through to all levels of local government.

Where the government overreached, to me, (and to dave i think) is to force private entities of all types to follow the same regulations. I think this was needed during the breaking of the Jim Crow era, as racism was so entrenched in southern society, but now any organziation that practices racism in hiring or services would probably be out of business rather quickly.

What we are seeing is the same thing in some states where wedding photographers and bakers are being sued for discrimination for not wanting to do gay weddings. This goes beyond government acceptance, and enters into the realm of forced private accptance.

 

[Defiant1]

All RINOs. And at least one is pitching for the home team.

 

[Seawytch]

I may not like if I am, for example, looking to rent a basement of Grandma X, but she don't want to because she don't want an interracial couple in her house.. SO BE IT.. that is her freedom to discriminate against my choice... if some privately owned business decides to refuse me service because they don't want my kind in there (being a white who did not marry within his race), I may not like it but SO BE IT... not that EITHER of these would happen often whether it is my situation or the situation of the gay person(s), but I respect the freedom to discriminate against the CHOICES and chosen actions of others

That is ridiculous.

Not at all. Its the view that the government is forced consitutionally to be "race-blind" when it comes to government interaction, and this is carried through to all levels of local government.

Where the government overreached, to me, (and to dave i think) is to force private entities of all types to follow the same regulations. I think this was needed during the breaking of the Jim Crow era, as racism was so entrenched in southern society, but now any organziation that practices racism in hiring or services would probably be out of business rather quickly.

What we are seeing is the same thing in some states where wedding photographers and bakers are being sued for discrimination for not wanting to do gay weddings. This goes beyond government acceptance, and enters into the realm of forced private accptance.

Marriage equality and public accommodation laws are two completely different issues.