Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?

[martybegan]

"Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?"

Yes.

In fact, before the advent of the bane of the social right, republicans would have never advocated denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Agree, society as a whole should decide what society considers right and wrong.

One exception I would have taken is that while States do not have to ISSUE SSM licenses, they would have to recognize and respect those from States that had passed SSM.

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

I agree with that one as well.

And it's easy to work, because most of the fight has been over people not wanting to ISSUE the licenses.

There are already differences in state laws with regards to age, blood relation, etc. Those are handled easy enough, this could be as well.

They would have all the protections of marriage, and the States could keep doing what they wanted to do with regards to issuing licenses.

I find it ironic that the current SC approach, forcing everyone to issue, will probably keep the debate going on far longer. If they let states decide, but forced them to recognize all valid licenses, the issue would have died out on its own over a few decades.

 

[martybegan]

"Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?"

Yes.

In fact, before the advent of the bane of the social right, republicans would have never advocated denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Republicans are just as likely to seek redress from the courts as democrats.

Typically conservatives have been fighting to restore/maintain existing rights, while progressives have been trying to create new ones out of thin air.

I would go a step further, progressives are trying to legislate morals and find ways to punish thoughts and opinions.

Social conservatives were guilty of that as well (Moral majority), and rightly lost. However progs are far more adept at manipulating government and have the support of the MSM.

 

[Redfish]

"Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?"

Yes.

In fact, before the advent of the bane of the social right, republicans would have never advocated denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Agree, society as a whole should decide what society considers right and wrong.

One exception I would have taken is that while States do not have to ISSUE SSM licenses, they would have to recognize and respect those from States that had passed SSM.

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

I agree with that one as well.

And it's easy to work, because most of the fight has been over people not wanting to ISSUE the licenses.

There are already differences in state laws with regards to age, blood relation, etc. Those are handled easy enough, this could be as well.

They would have all the protections of marriage, and the States could keep doing what they wanted to do with regards to issuing licenses.

I find it ironic that the current SC approach, forcing everyone to issue, will probably keep the debate going on far longer. If they let states decide, but forced them to recognize all valid licenses, the issue would have died out on its own over a few decades.

and if the states had not fought against civil unions for gays 10 years ago, we would not be dealing with this today.

Now, the whole thing is about the word "marriage". Because the left somehow thinks that calling a gay union a marriage makes homosexuality normal.

 

[martybegan]

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Agree, society as a whole should decide what society considers right and wrong.

One exception I would have taken is that while States do not have to ISSUE SSM licenses, they would have to recognize and respect those from States that had passed SSM.

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

I agree with that one as well.

And it's easy to work, because most of the fight has been over people not wanting to ISSUE the licenses.

There are already differences in state laws with regards to age, blood relation, etc. Those are handled easy enough, this could be as well.

They would have all the protections of marriage, and the States could keep doing what they wanted to do with regards to issuing licenses.

I find it ironic that the current SC approach, forcing everyone to issue, will probably keep the debate going on far longer. If they let states decide, but forced them to recognize all valid licenses, the issue would have died out on its own over a few decades.

and if the states had not fought against civil unions for gays 10 years ago, we would not be dealing with this today.

Now, the whole thing is about the word "marriage". Because the left somehow thinks that calling a gay union a marriage makes homosexuality normal.

The social conservatives did shoot themselves in the foot on that.

And I have no issue with people calling said unions whatever they want to, my issue is when you FORCE me to call it what you want it to be called.

And enough of this "Spouse A, Spouse B" crap, they wanted in on the marriage thing, they should have to pick one as the husband and one as the wife.

 

[Seawytch]

"Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?"

Yes.

In fact, before the advent of the bane of the social right, republicans would have never advocated denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Agree, society as a whole should decide what society considers right and wrong.

One exception I would have taken is that while States do not have to ISSUE SSM licenses, they would have to recognize and respect those from States that had passed SSM.

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

Nope, sorry Fish, you're wrong again. Taxes are one of the least benefits of marriage. In fact, get rid of them...we'll still be married and still want to.

 

[PratchettFan]

"Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?"

Yes.

In fact, before the advent of the bane of the social right, republicans would have never advocated denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Republicans are just as likely to seek redress from the courts as democrats.

Typically conservatives have been fighting to restore/maintain existing rights, while progressives have been trying to create new ones out of thin air.

That really is not the case.

 

[Seawytch]

Agree, society as a whole should decide what society considers right and wrong.

One exception I would have taken is that while States do not have to ISSUE SSM licenses, they would have to recognize and respect those from States that had passed SSM.

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

I agree with that one as well.

And it's easy to work, because most of the fight has been over people not wanting to ISSUE the licenses.

There are already differences in state laws with regards to age, blood relation, etc. Those are handled easy enough, this could be as well.

They would have all the protections of marriage, and the States could keep doing what they wanted to do with regards to issuing licenses.

I find it ironic that the current SC approach, forcing everyone to issue, will probably keep the debate going on far longer. If they let states decide, but forced them to recognize all valid licenses, the issue would have died out on its own over a few decades.

and if the states had not fought against civil unions for gays 10 years ago, we would not be dealing with this today.

Now, the whole thing is about the word "marriage". Because the left somehow thinks that calling a gay union a marriage makes homosexuality normal.

The social conservatives did shoot themselves in the foot on that.

And I have no issue with people calling said unions whatever they want to, my issue is when you FORCE me to call it what you want it to be called.

And enough of this "Spouse A, Spouse B" crap, they wanted in on the marriage thing, they should have to pick one as the husband and one as the wife.

You're saying conservatives shoot themselves in the foot and then you propose that ridiculousness? What the fuck do you care what we call our spouses? I don't have a husband I have a wife. I'm not a husband I am a wife. I want my marriage license to reflect that.

 

[PratchettFan]

"Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?"

Yes.

In fact, before the advent of the bane of the social right, republicans would have never advocated denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Agree, society as a whole should decide what society considers right and wrong.

One exception I would have taken is that while States do not have to ISSUE SSM licenses, they would have to recognize and respect those from States that had passed SSM.

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

I agree. I think you should file a suit.

 

[RKMBrown]

"Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?"

Yes.

In fact, before the advent of the bane of the social right, republicans would have never advocated denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Well said... the kkk folks that moved into the republican party from the democrat party when the democrats decided to fund black racism instead of white racism have been using their voices for hate for minority groups in the republican party and the only republicans that are listening are the ones that came over from the party of hate. Really it's past time to purge these bigots and racists from both parties.

 

[Moonglow]

Dear republicans, some questions to you.
Are you a republican that supports gay marriage?
Are these terms absolutely opposite?
How about being a republican and believing that the state has no place in the church's institution of marriage?
I am trying to be straight.

Have you never heard of the Log Cabin ghey GOP club?

 

[Redfish]

"Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?"

Yes.

In fact, before the advent of the bane of the social right, republicans would have never advocated denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Agree, society as a whole should decide what society considers right and wrong.

One exception I would have taken is that while States do not have to ISSUE SSM licenses, they would have to recognize and respect those from States that had passed SSM.

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

I agree. I think you should file a suit.

Why ? I don't plan to go to NJ of NY. My permit is valid in the states that I go to. But the principle is valid, drivers licenses are accepted in all states, now SSM licenses must be accepted in all states, so CC permits should also be. But I will let the NRA handle any suits.

 

[Seawytch]

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Agree, society as a whole should decide what society considers right and wrong.

One exception I would have taken is that while States do not have to ISSUE SSM licenses, they would have to recognize and respect those from States that had passed SSM.

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

I agree. I think you should file a suit.

Why ? I don't plan to go to NJ of NY. My permit is valid in the states that I go to. But the principle is valid, drivers licenses are accepted in all states, now SSM licenses must be accepted in all states, so CC permits should also be. But I will let the NRA handle any suits.

If CC permits were treated like marriage licenses ever, you'd have a point. They never were so you don't.

 

[martybegan]

"Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?"

Yes.

In fact, before the advent of the bane of the social right, republicans would have never advocated denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Republicans are just as likely to seek redress from the courts as democrats.

Typically conservatives have been fighting to restore/maintain existing rights, while progressives have been trying to create new ones out of thin air.

That really is not the case.

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

 

[whitehall]

The republican party is a big tent. Try being pro-life in the democrat party.

 

[martybegan]

One exception I would have taken is that while States do not have to ISSUE SSM licenses, they would have to recognize and respect those from States that had passed SSM.

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

I agree with that one as well.

And it's easy to work, because most of the fight has been over people not wanting to ISSUE the licenses.

There are already differences in state laws with regards to age, blood relation, etc. Those are handled easy enough, this could be as well.

They would have all the protections of marriage, and the States could keep doing what they wanted to do with regards to issuing licenses.

I find it ironic that the current SC approach, forcing everyone to issue, will probably keep the debate going on far longer. If they let states decide, but forced them to recognize all valid licenses, the issue would have died out on its own over a few decades.

and if the states had not fought against civil unions for gays 10 years ago, we would not be dealing with this today.

Now, the whole thing is about the word "marriage". Because the left somehow thinks that calling a gay union a marriage makes homosexuality normal.

The social conservatives did shoot themselves in the foot on that.

And I have no issue with people calling said unions whatever they want to, my issue is when you FORCE me to call it what you want it to be called.

And enough of this "Spouse A, Spouse B" crap, they wanted in on the marriage thing, they should have to pick one as the husband and one as the wife.

You're saying conservatives shoot themselves in the foot and then you propose that ridiculousness? What the fuck do you care what we call our spouses? I don't have a husband I have a wife. I'm not a husband I am a wife. I want my marriage license to reflect that.

I am not going to have "Spouse B", I am going to have a wife. Again, you wanted in on this, and now you want the rules to suit you, and everyone else has to suffer because of it.

 

[Seawytch]

"Can you be a republican and support gay marriage?"

Yes.

In fact, before the advent of the bane of the social right, republicans would have never advocated denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Republicans are just as likely to seek redress from the courts as democrats.

Typically conservatives have been fighting to restore/maintain existing rights, while progressives have been trying to create new ones out of thin air.

That really is not the case.

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

The right to marry has been established...then reiterated three or four times. Was this right invented in Loving or recognized?

 

[Seawytch]

I don't see how that could work. Besides the benefits of marriage are primarily federal tax benefits. But if a SSM must be accepted in every state, then my concealed carry permit should also be accepted in every state.

I agree with that one as well.

And it's easy to work, because most of the fight has been over people not wanting to ISSUE the licenses.

There are already differences in state laws with regards to age, blood relation, etc. Those are handled easy enough, this could be as well.

They would have all the protections of marriage, and the States could keep doing what they wanted to do with regards to issuing licenses.

I find it ironic that the current SC approach, forcing everyone to issue, will probably keep the debate going on far longer. If they let states decide, but forced them to recognize all valid licenses, the issue would have died out on its own over a few decades.

and if the states had not fought against civil unions for gays 10 years ago, we would not be dealing with this today.

Now, the whole thing is about the word "marriage". Because the left somehow thinks that calling a gay union a marriage makes homosexuality normal.

The social conservatives did shoot themselves in the foot on that.

And I have no issue with people calling said unions whatever they want to, my issue is when you FORCE me to call it what you want it to be called.

And enough of this "Spouse A, Spouse B" crap, they wanted in on the marriage thing, they should have to pick one as the husband and one as the wife.

You're saying conservatives shoot themselves in the foot and then you propose that ridiculousness? What the fuck do you care what we call our spouses? I don't have a husband I have a wife. I'm not a husband I am a wife. I want my marriage license to reflect that.

I am not going to have "Spouse B", I am going to have a wife. Again, you wanted in on this, and now you want the rules to suit you, and everyone else has to suffer because of it.

You can call her whatever you want. If you and I both have Souse A&B on our forms it's equal and fair. Husband and wife is not.

 

[martybegan]

They would, however, not have wanted the courts to decide it, but for it to be decided by the people via legislative action.

Republicans are just as likely to seek redress from the courts as democrats.

Typically conservatives have been fighting to restore/maintain existing rights, while progressives have been trying to create new ones out of thin air.

That really is not the case.

Care to expand on that?

Most of the cases from conservatives are about 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights, ones that are already established, explicit in the constitution, and under attack by progressives.

The right to marry has been established...then reiterated three or four times. Was this right invented in Loving or recognized?

Again you compare race to sex, and the two are not the same. You also ignore that miscegenation laws were a temporary creation due to inherent required discrimination found in slavery, and its after effects.

SSM on the other hand, is a recent construct, and laws against it were a recent response.

 

[Seawytch]

You know...the stupid forms are computerized...have a drop down.

 

[martybegan]

I agree with that one as well.

And it's easy to work, because most of the fight has been over people not wanting to ISSUE the licenses.

There are already differences in state laws with regards to age, blood relation, etc. Those are handled easy enough, this could be as well.

They would have all the protections of marriage, and the States could keep doing what they wanted to do with regards to issuing licenses.

I find it ironic that the current SC approach, forcing everyone to issue, will probably keep the debate going on far longer. If they let states decide, but forced them to recognize all valid licenses, the issue would have died out on its own over a few decades.

and if the states had not fought against civil unions for gays 10 years ago, we would not be dealing with this today.

Now, the whole thing is about the word "marriage". Because the left somehow thinks that calling a gay union a marriage makes homosexuality normal.

The social conservatives did shoot themselves in the foot on that.

And I have no issue with people calling said unions whatever they want to, my issue is when you FORCE me to call it what you want it to be called.

And enough of this "Spouse A, Spouse B" crap, they wanted in on the marriage thing, they should have to pick one as the husband and one as the wife.

You're saying conservatives shoot themselves in the foot and then you propose that ridiculousness? What the fuck do you care what we call our spouses? I don't have a husband I have a wife. I'm not a husband I am a wife. I want my marriage license to reflect that.

I am not going to have "Spouse B", I am going to have a wife. Again, you wanted in on this, and now you want the rules to suit you, and everyone else has to suffer because of it.

You can call her whatever you want. If you and I both have Souse A&B on our forms it's equal and fair. Husband and wife is not.

You only consider it 'fair" because its again, you imposing your will on others.

If you guys created your own contract, you could define what you wanted of it, but you jumped into ours, then whined to get the terms changed. What a bunch of babies.