Gay marriage ban backers get unexpected support

[JK/SEA]

hmmm.....better hold off on burning mosques down....

too much hate here on these 2 topics...turns my stomach...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018282329_gaymarriage25m.html

 

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.

 

[JK/SEA]

To the point. I find it rather ironic that old guard republican homophobes also hate muslims, and then we have muslims agreeing with those that hate them...someones confused, and it isn't me.

what is 'traditional' marriage, and who gets to decide?...my opinion is that i feel sorry for the ignorant, who seem to think they own a 'word' and get to 'try' and demand how its implemented. This flies in the face of true freedom and liberty, and Ron Paul would agree. Your 'personal' opinion on this subject is irrelevant.

 

[specsaregood]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.

In my opinion, "traditional marriage" doesn't involve the government. Ron Paul would agree.

 

[Seth]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.

Ron Paul believes government shouldn't be involved in marriage.

 

[PierzStyx]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.

You are incorrect in saying marriage has always only been between one man and woman. Among the earliest forms of marriage, including those in The Bible, were between one man and multiple women. It would be factual to say marriage was between males and females.

 

[PierzStyx]

Ron Paul believes government shouldn't be involved in marriage.

In any form. Which means he is against "gay marriage" in the political sense. And he has been known to vote for measures that prevent government recognition of gay marriage as a stop gap measure to prevent further creeping of government power. He supports DOMA for example.

 

[teacherone]

Why should anybody- straight or otherwise - get a marriage benefit?

 

[speciallyblend]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnFs7SCI3ZM<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnFs7SCI3ZM"> for all the gay folks and the straight-bi folks!

 

[thoughtomator]

Stop it with the fucking gay marriage shit... that is Marxist propaganda and has no place in the liberty movement.

If you want to get government out of the marriage business, fine. As long as it is in the marriage business, the vast majority of people are going to oppose having this shoved down their throats.

 

[XTreat]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.

Ron Paul would agree with voluntary association and consensual contracts.

 

[speciallyblend]

Stop it with the fucking gay marriage shit... that is Marxist propaganda and has no place in the liberty movement.

If you want to get government out of the marriage business, fine. As long as it is in the marriage business, the vast majority of people are going to oppose having this shoved down their throats.

i hear ya, gay marriage is like obama's anti-war/illegal war stance. The gop is in love with gay marriage. More government shakes my head. When i hear anyone talk about gay marriage for or against i will just say more biggov loving obamney lovers. time for some more love songs, for the pro-and anti gay to come together for LOVE, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR8D2yqgQ1U&ob=av2n<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR8D2yqgQ1U&ob=av2n">

Come together and forget the whole marriage straight or gay issue. It is a non-issue created by the gop establishment to numb you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEo9Bh679wM<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEo9Bh679wM">

 

[EBounding]

Just get rid of the marriage tax preference. Then we can see who still wants to get married and go from there. Of course, that will never happen since married couples are a giant voting bloc.

 

[jmdrake]

To the point. I find it rather ironic that old guard republican homophobes also hate muslims, and then we have muslims agreeing with those that hate them...someones confused, and it isn't me.

I love it! What's funny is that I hear right wing bigots on talk radio expound in one breath on how homosexuality is destroying the nation and in the other breath how one of the reasons we need to bomb Iran and hate the "Islamofacists" is because they "discriminate against gays and women".

what is 'traditional' marriage, and who gets to decide?...my opinion is that i feel sorry for the ignorant, who seem to think they own a 'word' and get to 'try' and demand how its implemented. This flies in the face of true freedom and liberty, and Ron Paul would agree. Your 'personal' opinion on this subject is irrelevant.

The best answer is to disentangle the federal government from marriage. Gays can enter into contracts that define all marriage "rights" in all 50 states right now. (Inheritance, durable power of attorney, durable power of attorney for healthcare etc.) If not for Social inSecurity and the income tax code which makes health insurance a "group benefit" rather than an individual benefit, this whole gay marriage debate would only be symbolic.

 

[jmdrake]

Just get rid of the marriage tax preference. Then we can see who still wants to get married and go from there. Of course, that will never happen since married couples are a giant voting bloc.

Just get rid of the income tax.

 

[Brett85]

Don't see why every RP supporter has to be so against traditional marriage. After all, the argument here is not what gays can do in the bedroom, it's whether they should be given marriage benefits. Which they should not, marriage has only been between one man and woman. Ron Paul would agree.

...Edit, never mind. I told myself I wouldn't comment on this issue any further. We have bigger fish to fry.

 

[pcosmar]

In my opinion, "traditional marriage" doesn't involve the government. Ron Paul would agree.

Amen.

I would also note that Traditional Marriage also included Multiple wives.. so you might want to be careful with the "Traditional Marriages" descriptor.

Ah,, some one had already pointed that out,

You are incorrect in saying marriage has always only been between one man and woman. Among the earliest forms of marriage, including those in The Bible, were between one man and multiple women. It would be factual to say marriage was between males and females.

 

[FreedomFighter1776]

The ability (right) of people to contract with one another is anything but "shit". Marriage can be viewed in a few ways, or a combination of:
1) It is a spiritual bonding between people and God
2) It is a church function that bonds people, with the church's blessing, with God
3) It is a state recognized bonding that gives legal protection (benefits) to those who choose to contract for marriage

No matter how you view marriage, it is not within the state's authority to approve or deny the aspect of marriage over which they have control. The only jurisdiction that state has over marriage is to apply the legal status or benefits that the marriage entails.

If you hate the idea of same sex marriage or unions, that's your business. Denying another individuals right to contract as they choose for a purpose that is not illegal is NOT your business. In any other contract the idea that the validity of the contract could rest upon the sex of the people contracting is so far beyond the pale that you would be laughed at in court if you tried to nullify it on those grounds. It would be just as indefensible to determine that a marriage contract would not be valid depending on the race of the people contracting.

This type of concern absolutely belongs in a freedom movement.

By the way, DOMA is unconstitutional. Article 4 section 1 cannot be "overlooked" by anything short of a Constitutional amendment.

 

[thoughtomator]

The ability (right) of people to contract with one another is anything but "shit". Marriage can be viewed in a few ways, or a combination of:
1) It is a spiritual bonging between people and God
2) It is a church function that bonds people, with the church's blessing, with God
3) It is a state recognized bonding that gives legal protection (benefits) to those who choose to contract for marriage

None of those are the original, true purpose of marriage - an institution that predates established religion and governments both.

No wonder you and others are so confused on the issue, you don't even know the fundamental definition of the word you are using. Making up new definitions of words to fit a political agenda is archetypical Marxism.

As an experiment, let's see how long it takes you people to figure out why human societies absent churches and states would find such a custom useful, and why those societies that did adopt this custom were more successful than those that did not.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Stop it with the fucking gay marriage shit... that is Marxist propaganda and has no place in the liberty movement.

If you want to get government out of the marriage business, fine. As long as it is in the marriage business, the vast majority of people are going to oppose having this shoved down their throats.

+rep