Huckabee:Evangelicals Will Walk if GOP Backs Gay Marriage

[edthecynic]

Everybody opposes homosexual marriage even the most liberal state in the union. That's why the radical sissies are trying to lobby the Supreme Court.

If "Everybody" opposes homosexual marriage, please explain why it won at the ballot during the last General Election (3 states approving it directly and 1 state not placing discriminatory language in their Constitution)?

If "Everybody" opposed Same-sex Civil Marriage, wouldn't logic dictate that it would have lost?
>>>>

What you don't get is DittoNazis like whitehall do not acknowledge the election results they don't like. Look at the date of the below quote!

The Left Needs the Supreme Court to Rule in Favor of Gay Marriage Because the People Won't
March 25, 2013
RUSH: So same-sex marriage and wiping out the Defense of Marriage Act is now a civil right. People that oppose it are bigots and nobody wants to be a bigot.* But the thing you can't say is that if left to a vote of the people, same-sex marriage loses every time it's on the ballot.* I think so far it's 30 times.* State ballots, initiatives and other things, and the Defense of Marriage Act at the federal level.* It's never passed.* You wouldn't know that, would you, by listening to the pop culture media?*
You would think that this issue has overtaken everything, it's the most important issue to everybody and anybody, and that it has massive public support.* And yet every time it's been voted on by the people it has gone down to defeat.* That's why the courts have to get involved

 

[NYcarbineer]

The GOP doesn't need to endorse gay marriage, they don't need to even discuss opposition to it. The only people who really give a shit about it are queers, and idiots that are consumed with what the queers are doing.

.

The GOP should put that in their platform...

...word for word.

 

[rightwinger]

Everybody opposes homosexual marriage even the most liberal state in the union. That's why the radical sissies are trying to lobby the Supreme Court.

If "Everybody" opposes homosexual marriage, please explain why it won at the ballot during the last General Election (3 states approving it directly and 1 state not placing discriminatory language in their Constitution)?

If "Everybody" opposed Same-sex Civil Marriage, wouldn't logic dictate that it would have lost?
>>>>

What you don't get is DittoNazis like whitehall do not acknowledge the election results they don't like. Look at the date of the below quote!

The Left Needs the Supreme Court to Rule in Favor of Gay Marriage Because the People Won't
March 25, 2013
RUSH: So same-sex marriage and wiping out the Defense of Marriage Act is now a civil right. People that oppose it are bigots and nobody wants to be a bigot.* But the thing you can't say is that if left to a vote of the people, same-sex marriage loses every time it's on the ballot.* I think so far it's 30 times.* State ballots, initiatives and other things, and the Defense of Marriage Act at the federal level.* It's never passed.* You wouldn't know that, would you, by listening to the pop culture media?*
You would think that this issue has overtaken everything, it's the most important issue to everybody and anybody, and that it has massive public support.* And yet every time it's been voted on by the people it has gone down to defeat.* That's why the courts have to get involved

You have to forgive Rush

He has chosen to ignore all the results from the Nov 2012 election

 

[Mac1958]

The GOP doesn't need to endorse gay marriage, they don't need to even discuss opposition to it. The only people who really give a shit about it are queers, and idiots that are consumed with what the queers are doing.

.

The GOP should put that in their platform...

...word for word.

The Dems should be so lucky.

.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

The GOP doesn't need to endorse gay marriage, they don't need to even discuss opposition to it. The only people who really give a shit about it are queers, and idiots that are consumed with what the queers are doing.

The economy is the issue. Win elections based on policies that revive the economy and allow for social mobility. They can make laws about moral issues later.

Nailed it.


It is a useless issue that dems use to distract from the undeniable fact that obama is an utter failure.

and it works

Then why did the GOP put opposition to Gay Marriage in its 2012 Presidential Platform?

Playing to the base.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

The best thing that can happen to the GOP is for this issue to be settled in the courts as quickly as possible and gay marriage made legal through the country as a result.

As long as it remains a campaign issue, it's an albatros around their collective necks.

 

[rightwinger]

The best thing that can happen to the GOP is for this issue to be settled in the courts as quickly as possible and gay marriage made legal through the country as a result.

As long as it remains a campaign issue, it's an albatros around their collective necks.

You got that right

Fighting gay rights used to be a hot button issue that they could use to increase contributions and gain votes

Now, it is a big stick that Democrats use to beat them with. Best outcome for Republicans is to let the courts decide and then say it was not their fault

 

[Katzndogz]

The best thing that can happen to the GOP is for this issue to be settled in the courts as quickly as possible and gay marriage made legal through the country as a result.

As long as it remains a campaign issue, it's an albatros around their collective necks.

You mean like the courts settled the right to abortion? As a matter of fact, the decision in Roe v. Wade didn't settle the right to abortion, did it? It's still going on. That's why it is very doubtful that these justices will settle the issue at all.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

The best thing that can happen to the GOP is for this issue to be settled in the courts as quickly as possible and gay marriage made legal through the country as a result.

As long as it remains a campaign issue, it's an albatros around their collective necks.

You mean like the courts settled the right to abortion? As a matter of fact, the decision in Roe v. Wade didn't settle the right to abortion, did it? It's still going on. That's why it is very doubtful that these justices will settle the issue at all.

I can't see gay marriage having the same lasting type of issue that abortion is, outside of some very fronge types, honestly.

However as long as this remains a political issue, the worse off the GOP will be, so it's in their best interest to let the issue die as quickly as possible.

 

[rightwinger]

The best thing that can happen to the GOP is for this issue to be settled in the courts as quickly as possible and gay marriage made legal through the country as a result.

As long as it remains a campaign issue, it's an albatros around their collective necks.

You mean like the courts settled the right to abortion? As a matter of fact, the decision in Roe v. Wade didn't settle the right to abortion, did it? It's still going on. That's why it is very doubtful that these justices will settle the issue at all.

Five years after the Gay Marriage issue is resolved, everyone will wonder what the fuss was about

 

[WorldWatcher]

The best thing that can happen to the GOP is for this issue to be settled in the courts as quickly as possible and gay marriage made legal through the country as a result.

As long as it remains a campaign issue, it's an albatros around their collective necks.

You mean like the courts settled the right to abortion? As a matter of fact, the decision in Roe v. Wade didn't settle the right to abortion, did it? It's still going on. That's why it is very doubtful that these justices will settle the issue at all.

No, more like the issue being settled with Loving v. Virginia. People hem'd and haw'd for awhile, but today no one thinks interracial Civil Marriage is a bad thing. OK - there are probably a few wack-jobs out there, but there is no serious social opposition to it.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

The best thing that can happen to the GOP is for this issue to be settled in the courts as quickly as possible and gay marriage made legal through the country as a result.

As long as it remains a campaign issue, it's an albatros around their collective necks.

You mean like the courts settled the right to abortion? As a matter of fact, the decision in Roe v. Wade didn't settle the right to abortion, did it? It's still going on. That's why it is very doubtful that these justices will settle the issue at all.

I can't see gay marriage having the same lasting type of issue that abortion is, outside of some very fronge types, honestly.

However as long as this remains a political issue, the worse off the GOP will be, so it's in their best interest to let the issue die as quickly as possible.

No one thought that abortion would be a lasting issue either. How about court ordered integration or affirmative action? Are those issues settled? No. Those decisions are older than Roe. If the courts impose acceptance of same sex marriage on an unwilling public the issue will last into perpetuity just like all the other social tinkering issues. Same sex marriage is legal in 9 states. But in seven of those states it was imposed by either the courts or the legislature The judges who imposed it in Iowa were recalled or lost elections. On local levels the GOP does just fine. It controls 30 of 50 states.

 

[rightwinger]

You mean like the courts settled the right to abortion? As a matter of fact, the decision in Roe v. Wade didn't settle the right to abortion, did it? It's still going on. That's why it is very doubtful that these justices will settle the issue at all.

I can't see gay marriage having the same lasting type of issue that abortion is, outside of some very fronge types, honestly.

However as long as this remains a political issue, the worse off the GOP will be, so it's in their best interest to let the issue die as quickly as possible.

No one thought that abortion would be a lasting issue either. How about court ordered integration or affirmative action? Are those issues settled? No. Those decisions are older than Roe. If the courts impose acceptance of same sex marriage on an unwilling public the issue will last into perpetuity just like all the other social tinkering issues. Same sex marriage is legal in 9 states. But in seven of those states it was imposed by either the courts or the legislature The judges who imposed it in Iowa were recalled or lost elections. On local levels the GOP does just fine. It controls 30 of 50 states.

The public will let out a collective yawn when Gay Marriage becomes the law of the land

Similar to the repeal of DADT

 

[bendog]

You mean like the courts settled the right to abortion? As a matter of fact, the decision in Roe v. Wade didn't settle the right to abortion, did it? It's still going on. That's why it is very doubtful that these justices will settle the issue at all.

I can't see gay marriage having the same lasting type of issue that abortion is, outside of some very fronge types, honestly.

However as long as this remains a political issue, the worse off the GOP will be, so it's in their best interest to let the issue die as quickly as possible.

No one thought that abortion would be a lasting issue either. How about court ordered integration or affirmative action? Are those issues settled? No. Those decisions are older than Roe. If the courts impose acceptance of same sex marriage on an unwilling public the issue will last into perpetuity just like all the other social tinkering issues. Same sex marriage is legal in 9 states. But in seven of those states it was imposed by either the courts or the legislature The judges who imposed it in Iowa were recalled or lost elections. On local levels the GOP does just fine. It controls 30 of 50 states.

you confuse popular support with the ability of well funded special interest groups, such as the mormons or melon scafide folks, to sway a particular vote.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...a-Poll-Majority-opposes-ban-same-sex-marriage

Further, while I agree Roe shoudl have been left in the political arena, where abortion rights folks were doing ok, issues on racial discrimination are pretty well settled with Courts merely tinkering with legislated law.

 

[Wicked Jester]

You mean like the courts settled the right to abortion? As a matter of fact, the decision in Roe v. Wade didn't settle the right to abortion, did it? It's still going on. That's why it is very doubtful that these justices will settle the issue at all.

I can't see gay marriage having the same lasting type of issue that abortion is, outside of some very fronge types, honestly.

However as long as this remains a political issue, the worse off the GOP will be, so it's in their best interest to let the issue die as quickly as possible.

No one thought that abortion would be a lasting issue either. How about court ordered integration or affirmative action? Are those issues settled? No. Those decisions are older than Roe. If the courts impose acceptance of same sex marriage on an unwilling public the issue will last into perpetuity just like all the other social tinkering issues. Same sex marriage is legal in 9 states. But in seven of those states it was imposed by either the courts or the legislature The judges who imposed it in Iowa were recalled or lost elections. On local levels the GOP does just fine. It controls 30 of 50 states.

Then why are you crying so much? Methinks you are protesting TOOOOOOOO much there, Skippie.

Crying?.....Noooooo.......Standing up for what is morally right?....Damn right!, and there isn't a damn thing you perverts, or anybody else is going to do to make me feel any differently, or give up the fight.

Ya' see, there is no way in hell that I would ever sell out my beliefs, or my politics, in order to appease a certain segment of the population who wants to force people to accept their perverted lifestyle as normal.

It's just the way it is, petey my boy....Deal with it, or not....I really don't give a rats ass.

Here is the problem with that stance though:

You are not asking that you be allowed to reject said behavior as immoral or that you be allowed to deny its validity – you are demanding that the government do that.

If, say, my moral code included a belief that consuming pork or beef was immoral and depraved. I am free to ban pork and beef within my home, not serve it at my restaurant and, in general, fight the practice as I see fit. I am not, however, free to demand that the government ban beef and pork. For the government to do so would be wrong and an infringement on other freedoms, no matter how terrible I thought the practice was. This is what you are asking for, the government to limit others because you find the act deplorable or wrong and asking the government to enforce that is far more deplorable than the act itself can ever be.

Further, you justify this with this statement: “It's really quite simple...Go get an attorney, enter into an agreement, sign off on the powers of attorney, and go play marriage until the cows home.” That statement is outright false and I think that you know it. You cannot sign anything that is going to give you the same tax status, the same death benefits, the same insurance benefits etc. There is simply no legal way for a same sex relationship to ‘play’ marriage because it is legally blocked. Blocked based on nothing more than a moral belief.

The terminology is not the problem either. This idea that it is all right as long as they call it something else is, well, nuts. I don’t really care what they want to call it, all that really matters is that they are afforded the same legal status when they ‘play’ marriage as you are when you are ‘actually’ married and I really do not believe for one second that if they decided to call it something else people would suddenly be on board. It really boils down to the fact that some people simply want to demand that the government enforce their morality over others. Do you really want to be in that category?

Nooooo, the federal government needs to stay out of it period. The federal government does not issue marriage licenses, nor should they.....It's a states issue, period, and it's the citizens of each state individually to decide, by vote....And if they vote to not recognize pervert civil unions, than so be it....If they decide to recognize pervert civil union, than so be it.....And the federal government needs to respect what the citizens decide, either way.

 

[bodecea]

So, we are all in agreement that DOMA needs to go.

 

[Seawytch]

Nooooo, the federal government needs to stay out of it period. The federal government does not issue marriage licenses, nor should they.....It's a states issue, period, and it's the citizens of each state individually to decide, by vote....And if they vote to not recognize pervert civil unions, than so be it....If they decide to recognize pervert civil union, than so be it.....And the federal government needs to respect what the citizens decide, either way.

The Feds are already involved. Social Security, tax breaks and over 1,000 federal rights, benefits and privileges are associated with legal marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nooooo, the federal government needs to stay out of it period. The federal government does not issue marriage licenses, nor should they.....It's a states issue, period, and it's the citizens of each state individually to decide, by vote....And if they vote to not recognize pervert civil unions, than so be it....If they decide to recognize pervert civil union, than so be it.....And the federal government needs to respect what the citizens decide, either way.

I can live with that, the federal government stays out of it. The federal government then returns the pre-1996 situation and recognizes all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law.

A couple gets married in Virginia, the federal government recognizes it. A couple gets married in Maine, the federal government recognizes it. Virginia doesn't offer Same-sex Civil Marriage? No problem, the take a weekend in Maine, get Civilly Maried and return to Virginia. They still wouldn't be married under Virginia law, but since they were Civilly Married in Maine - the federal government would recognize the valid Civil Marriage entered into under State law.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Nooooo, the federal government needs to stay out of it period. The federal government does not issue marriage licenses, nor should they.....It's a states issue, period, and it's the citizens of each state individually to decide, by vote....And if they vote to not recognize pervert civil unions, than so be it....If they decide to recognize pervert civil union, than so be it.....And the federal government needs to respect what the citizens decide, either way.

I can live with that, the federal government stays out of it. The federal government then returns the pre-1996 situation and recognizes all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law.

A couple gets married in Virginia, the federal government recognizes it. A couple gets married in Maine, the federal government recognizes it. Virginia doesn't offer Same-sex Civil Marriage? No problem, the take a weekend in Maine, get Civilly Maried and return to Virginia. They still wouldn't be married under Virginia law, but since they were Civilly Married in Maine - the federal government would recognize the valid Civil Marriage entered into under State law.



>>>>

Just like used to be with quickie divorces. Nevada had quite an industry in providing the 6 week residency requirement for those.

 

[bendog]

Just marvelous. Now all the gays and lesbians get to to to vegas for six weeks. it ain't fair.

Just kidding.

I agree. If the feds stay out of it, it's ok. Couple gets married in Mass, they can't get divorced in Miss, which is ok cause they could get divorced elsewhere. But how does a custodial parent enforce child support obligations, if Miss doesn't recognize the divorce? What happens if a noncustodial parent has a kid on visitation, and decides to flea here ... well not to Miss but somewhere else that also doesn't recognize SS marriage/unions?

Not dissing SS. But imo ultimately we'll end up with something like 3-5% divorces/custody issues involving SS, and states like Miss will not be able to just ignore it. Seems inevitable to me. Like the Vegas divorce thing.