Mike Huckabee Threatens To Leave The GOP Over Gay Marriage

[emilynghiem]

Okay, I know this is a waste of time and energy. But...

Gov Huckabee speaks for millions of Americans who believe that the anarchy being created by a tiny number of gays is totally inappropriate and has no place in American politics.

1. And yet when social conservatives used gays in the last decade to up the numbers in the ballot box by getting State Constitutional Amendments that banned Civil Marriage and Civil Unions to gays - that had a place in American politics?

2. During the last General Election there were 4 Marriage Equality provisions on the ballot, they won in all 4 States, so it's not just a tiny number of gays that think they should be treated equally.



>>>>

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.

To be fair, both bans and impositions should be equally unconstitutional.
The law should be neutral, to prevent from establishing a religious bias either way, either for or against
when the population has mixed beliefs about this.

If a law is established that REQUIRES people to accept the pro-gay marriage practice as endorsed by the state,
then why not also REQUIRE people to accept the reparative and healing practices of changing unwanted sexual attractions.

How can the side that pushes to BAN reparative therapy as a free choice
oppose equal BANS on the choice of gay marriage?

At least we should have a consistent policy. And allow for equal religious freedom
for all views without discrimination either for or against by the state which should remain neutral and all-inclusive.

 

[g5000]

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

Horrible, horrible illogic.

To be fair, both bans and impositions should be equally unconstitutional.
The law should be neutral, to prevent from establishing a religious bias either way, either for or against
when the population has mixed beliefs about this.

It is precisely the neutrality of the law which would protect gay marriages. That's "equal protection of the laws".

Not establish them. Protect them, equally. Big difference.

Removing the current inequality of protection is the whole point.

 

[g5000]

Two people join together in matrimony. How does this matter to anyone outside those two people?

It matters because the People have demanded their government to get all up inside that union. They demand all kinds of government cash and prizes be handed to those people. These rewards are established by law. These benefits simply cannot exist without being established and protected by law.

You asked for government involvement in marriage, you got it.

Now gays are asking for exactly the same protections for their matrimonial unions. Not for anything above and beyond what every other marriage gets. Just equal legal protection. Just like when interracial couples asked for equal legal protection of their marriages a few decades ago.

That's it. Nothing complicated.

If you did not demand government to be in your marriage, this "gay marriage" thing would not even be an issue, now would it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Okay, I know this is a waste of time and energy. But...

Gov Huckabee speaks for millions of Americans who believe that the anarchy being created by a tiny number of gays is totally inappropriate and has no place in American politics.

1. And yet when social conservatives used gays in the last decade to up the numbers in the ballot box by getting State Constitutional Amendments that banned Civil Marriage and Civil Unions to gays - that had a place in American politics?

2. During the last General Election there were 4 Marriage Equality provisions on the ballot, they won in all 4 States, so it's not just a tiny number of gays that think they should be treated equally.



>>>>

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.

To be fair, both bans and impositions should be equally unconstitutional.
The law should be neutral, to prevent from establishing a religious bias either way, either for or against
when the population has mixed beliefs about this.

If a law is established that REQUIRES people to accept the pro-gay marriage practice as endorsed by the state,
then why not also REQUIRE people to accept the reparative and healing practices of changing unwanted sexual attractions.

How can the side that pushes to BAN reparative therapy as a free choice
oppose equal BANS on the choice of gay marriage?

At least we should have a consistent policy. And allow for equal religious freedom
for all views without discrimination either for or against by the state which should remain neutral and all-inclusive.

Dear emilynghiem,

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

2. I support the same-sex Civil Marriage because in the last decade as I've watch the issue no one has ever provided an answer to a very simple question based on the equal protection principal that the government must be able to articulate a compelling government interest when attempting to deny one group that is similarly situated with another group equal treatment. In this case the similarly situated groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a different-sex relationship and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a same-sex relationship.

3. I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business, Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities and restrict their ability to contract with and purchase goods and services with taxpayer dollars from businesses that function under a discriminatory business model. Therefore government recognition of same-sex marriage becomes irrelevant to in whether a business chooses to accept or reject customers based on race, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, veterans status (some states), parental status (some states), or marital status (some states).


>>>>

 

[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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Religious definitions are certainly a manifestation of free speech.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Horrible, horrible illogic.

To be fair, both bans and impositions should be equally unconstitutional.
The law should be neutral, to prevent from establishing a religious bias either way, either for or against
when the population has mixed beliefs about this.

It is precisely the neutrality of the law which would protect gay marriages. That's "equal protection of the laws".

Not establish them. Protect them, equally. Big difference.

Removing the current inequality of protection is the whole point.

Depends how the law is written, G5000.

In one ruling, I think out of Connecticut?, the court recognized that people were using the term marriage
to mean both the civil marriage and the religious definition or meaning of marriage.

so I have YET to see any states straighten this out BEFORE trying to make a law for the whole state.

There should be a meeting of the minds BEFORE writing and passing a law,
to prevent any risk or perceived violation by imposing or establishing an interpretation that isn't neutral.

Or else, like the ordinance in Houston (that is still debated over dangers in the wording
that could encourage criminal in restrooms and showers posing as transgender persons
since the ordinance threatens up to $5,000 fines if such persons are questioned by others)
this leads to lawsuits that could have been prevented had the policy been written and reviewed by consensus.

I would agree with you technically, G5000,
but given the nature of religious freedom that involves perception,
people's rights are abridged by how this process has been mishandled to exclude religious views
and therefore bias and skew the representation where it is not equal.

Because religiously held views are involved,
I vote for CONSENSUS on laws in order to fulfill "equal protection of the laws" for all people.

If anyone BELIEVES they are still threatened, that is STILL not fully equal inclusion or representation
because that person is NOT represented by the law which is SUPPOSED to be public if it is through the govt.

See other msgs I agree with about keeping this OUT of govt for this reason.
Either a consensus on law or separate from govt and keep it private since it involves religious and spiritual beliefs.

Govt should not be making any laws at all that concern "spiritual matters";
and if any are made, it should be by consensus of the people to be all inclusive.
As long as there is conflict, then someone wasn't equally represented by govt, and that is unconstitutional.
we put up with it because our system isn't used to make laws by consensus, but it's still infringing on the people whose views are left out.

 

[emilynghiem]

Religious definitions are certainly a manifestation of free speech.

Yes, another reason to keep these out of govt.
So everyone can have their own definitions and interpretations
and not try to force one way on the whole nation or state, like an establishment of that religious angle on it.

If people form a consensus, it should be by free will, not forced by the govt trying to dictate people's beliefs.
Last I checked, the people could establish a religion for themselves, but govt was not supposed to be abused to do that.

 

[emilynghiem]

It means we need to agree what God means, and quit arguing over the terms used to express it.
In the case of One Nation Under God
we could agree that this means "for the Public Good"
and keep the wording intact as traditional or historic but agree on the meaning:
for the Greater Good
for the Public Good
etc.

I'm a Democrat.
And I approve of that interpretation!

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you are saying government is not an entity that should influence elections, then you better check on Citizens. Apparently in organic entities are being given personal rights. Values, whether religious or ethical, do inform the voting population, and that is part of the voter's right to or from religious or ethical influence.

 

[Vigilante]

It means we need to agree what God means, and quit arguing over the terms used to express it.
In the case of One Nation Under God
we could agree that this means "for the Public Good"
and keep the wording intact as traditional or historic but agree on the meaning:
for the greater good
for the public good
etc.

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!

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay, I know this is a waste of time and energy. But...

Gov Huckabee speaks for millions of Americans who believe that the anarchy being created by a tiny number of gays is totally inappropriate and has no place in American politics.

1. And yet when social conservatives used gays in the last decade to up the numbers in the ballot box by getting State Constitutional Amendments that banned Civil Marriage and Civil Unions to gays - that had a place in American politics?

2. During the last General Election there were 4 Marriage Equality provisions on the ballot, they won in all 4 States, so it's not just a tiny number of gays that think they should be treated equally.



>>>>

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.

To be fair, both bans and impositions should be equally unconstitutional.
The law should be neutral, to prevent from establishing a religious bias either way, either for or against
when the population has mixed beliefs about this.

If a law is established that REQUIRES people to accept the pro-gay marriage practice as endorsed by the state,
then why not also REQUIRE people to accept the reparative and healing practices of changing unwanted sexual attractions.

How can the side that pushes to BAN reparative therapy as a free choice
oppose equal BANS on the choice of gay marriage?

At least we should have a consistent policy. And allow for equal religious freedom
for all views without discrimination either for or against by the state which should remain neutral and all-inclusive.

Dear emilynghiem,

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

2. I support the same-sex Civil Marriage because in the last decade as I've watch the issue no one has ever provided an answer to a very simple question based on the equal protection principal that the government must be able to articulate a compelling government interest when attempting to deny one group that is similarly situated with another group equal treatment. In this case the similarly situated groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a different-sex relationship and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a same-sex relationship.

3. I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business, Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities and restrict their ability to contract with and purchase goods and services with taxpayer dollars from businesses that function under a discriminatory business model. Therefore government recognition of same-sex marriage becomes irrelevant to in whether a business chooses to accept or reject customers based on race, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, veterans status (some states), parental status (some states), or marital status (some states).


>>>>

Hi WW
my point is the spirit of the policies where people are pushing to BAN a free choice but then complain when others push to BAN what they want as a free choice:

Texas Democrats endorse ban on reparative therapy in LGBT-friendly platform Dallas Morning News

In Texas the Democrat platform has called for a BAN on reparative therapy. And even with the Republican platform writing this in as a choice, members of their party were also rallying to remove that language.

All this is fear based politics.
we need to go back to contracts being consensual agreements that represent the public
NOT political factions fighting to write the law and pass it their way, regardless of opposing dissension.
That is not equal constitutional inclusion but discrimination against people by creed to leave their input out of the laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

If you are saying government is not an entity that should influence elections, then you better check on Citizens. Apparently in organic entities are being given personal rights. Values, whether religious or ethical, do inform the voting population, and that is part of the voter's right to or from religious or ethical influence.

Influence is one thing, but I'm talking about ESTABLISHING a mandatory policy and forcing people to fund or follow it.
I agree people within govt institutions have the right and freedom to express beliefs, but not in a way that
discriminates such as imposing a national law requiring people to follow this "right to health care belief"
to the EXCLUSION of equal beliefs in free market health care. That is an abridgement of free exercise of religion,
unfortunately because political beliefs are not fully recognized as protected creeds but are allowed to be imposed by party while overriding other beliefs by majority-rule.
==========================
In the case of political parties, DENYING people the information on spiritual healing and reparative therapy
that IS safe natural effective and has saved lives
borders on NEGLIGENCE if not fraud by misrepresentation or omission.

So some of this propaganda that DENIES people's freedom of information and free choice
can be seen as obstructing justice, democratic due process, representation and free exercise of religion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Consensus and contractual means joint negotiation to reach an acceptable platform.

The far left and the far right flatly do not want to do that. Each of the extremes wants the whole pie, and both are wondering why their shares have been dramatically reduced to the point of diminishing forever.

Of course the majority can enforce SS, Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, etc., in our republic.

There is no constitutional prohibition to such legislation.

 

[RKMBrown]

Okay, I know this is a waste of time and energy. But...

Gov Huckabee speaks for millions of Americans who believe that the anarchy being created by a tiny number of gays is totally inappropriate and has no place in American politics.

He is not alone in claiming that GOP RINOS are bending over backwards to cave in on many subjects and are seeking another place to voice their political beliefs.

I don't think he'll go to the Libertarians, although some of his stands such as the Fair Tax, matches theirs.

Independent? I think that's where he and others like myself fit in.

He would not be welcomed by the libertarians, Huck's views on social issues in politics are authoritarian not libertarian.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

 

[daws101]

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

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

Fuckem.

He doesn't hold an office anyway.

Good riddance.

 

[emilynghiem]

Consensus and contractual means joint negotiation to reach an acceptable platform.

The far left and the far right flatly do not want to do that. Each of the extremes wants the whole pie, and both are wondering why their shares have been dramatically reduced to the point of diminishing forever.

Of course the majority can enforce SS, Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, etc., in our republic.

There is no constitutional prohibition to such legislation.

Right. most of it is is FEAR and PRESUMPTION that
"the other party doesn't want X Y and Z"

We block our own ability to govern ourselves democratically
by PRESUMING the worst and empowering both parties to abuse this fear to monger up votes to bully and fight this way.

It is like throwing our money at mud wrestlers to have a knockdown/drag out fight for sport,
while the people doing the work to build solutions have no resources and support to work with,
all attention distracted and redirected toward the catfights and boxing matches we make of politics.

It reminds me of the elephants brought up with chains on their ankles, restraining them to a post.
So even when the post is removed, just having the anklet on, keeps them from running free.
Because they are so used to being restrained, they have never known how to do otherwise!