Santorum backs nullifying existing gay marriages, Spread it!

[Brett85]

I don't really think that there should be an explicit prohibition on gay adoption by state governments, but I would support a law at the state level that allows private adoption agencies to ban gay adoption if they want to. Liberals actually want to force adoption agencies run by Catholic organizations to allow gays to adopt, which violates their conscience rights.

 

[Jonathanm]

do we use some kid as an experiment and if you're wrong say "oops, sorry kid"?

I'll have to take a look at that. My argument to this logic, though, is that insofar as I can see, the only possible 'negative' outcome could be that the child turns out homosexual. Personally, I'd argue that turning out gay is far less negative when compared to some of the possibilities of growing up in foster home after foster home; of growing up without any parents to speak of.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

I don't really think that there should be an explicit prohibition on gay adoption by state governments, but I would support a law at the state level that allows private adoption agencies to ban gay adoption if they want to. Liberals actually want to force adoption agencies run by Catholic organizations to allow gays to adopt, which violates their conscience rights.

I don't agree they should have to do that but some people advocate letting the kid stay in a foster home until some imaginary perfect heterosexual couple shows up to take them away.

compared to some of the possibilities of growing up in foster home after foster home; of growing up without any parents to speak of.

This.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I don't see how his comment in that video has anything to do with DOMA. He was talking about racial discrimination, not marriage.

The guy asking the question was talking about the effects of DOMA - it's the classic argument against it, that people have marriage rights in one state and not another -, and Ron endorsed the incorporation doctrine (which he generally opposes, including abortion) in his response. The questioner didn't say DOMA, but his question was one of incorporation doctrine and is probably the most commonly used objection to DOMA. And Ron agreed with it.

His "defense" of DOMA is an anti-welfare stance, nothing more, nothing less. From his answers here and everywhere else, he's either unaware that it federally defines marriage, or defends it anyway on anti-welfare grounds.

 

[Butchie]

I'll have to take a look at that. My argument to this logic, though, is that insofar as I can see, the only possible 'negative' outcome could be that the child turns out homosexual. Personally, I'd argue that turning out gay is far less negative when compared to some of the possibilities of growing up in foster home after foster home; of growing up without any parents to speak of.

I'm not making a claim that kids aren't born naturally into horrible homes, simply that with adoption you have a unique opportunity to screen the parents (which certainly isn't perfect either), there is never any handbook to raising a perfect child, but I believe any proven negative should be avoided if possible.

I'm sure there are success stories of kids who grew up in foster homes, it's not necessarily a "death sentence", I guess the crazy thing is there is no way to know, the kid get's no say in it, I am not comfortable with forcing a child to accept that lifestyle, it is each person's choice to decide on the matter.

 

[Brett85]

The guy asking the question was talking about the effects of DOMA - it's the classic argument against it, that people have marriage rights in one state and not another -, and Ron endorsed the incorporation doctrine (which he generally opposes, including abortion) in his response. The questioner didn't say DOMA, but his question was one of incorporation doctrine and is probably the most commonly used objection to DOMA. And Ron agreed with it.

His "defense" of DOMA is an anti-welfare stance, nothing more, nothing less. From his answers here and everywhere else, he's either unaware that it federally defines marriage, or defends it anyway on anti-welfare grounds.

Yeah, but like you said, Ron usually criticizes an expansionist view of the 14th amendment. So what he said in that particular interview doesn't really align with what he usually says.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

I'm not making a claim that kids aren't born naturally into horrible homes, simply that with adoption you have a unique opportunity to screen the parents (which certainly isn't perfect either), there is never any handbook to raising a perfect child, but I believe any proven negative should be avoided if possible.

I'm sure there are success stories of kids who grew up in foster homes, it's not necessarily a "death sentence", I guess the crazy thing is there is not way to know, the kid get's no say in it, I am not comfortable with forcing a child to accept that lifestyle, it is each person's choice to decide on the matter.

I think any kid who has actually been in the foster homes in this country would just rather have parents instead of waiting for some perfect heterosexual couple to come along. What kid even if they had a say in it would tell the foster home: "Nope. I don't want to go with them. I'll continue waiting here until a heterosexual couple comes to adopt me. I'm afraid that if I go with them then my sexual development will be messed up."

 

[PaulSoHard]

Intended to be a joke, or at least I think it's a joke.

 

[Butchie]

I think any kid who has actually been in the foster homes in this country would just rather have parents instead of waiting for some perfect heterosexual couple to come along. What kid even if they had a say in it would tell the foster home: "Nope. I don't want to go with them. I'll continue waiting here until a heterosexual couple comes to adopt me. I'm afraid that if I go with them then my sexual development will be messed up."

I don't think a kid would even understand, I'd imagine left up the kid they'd go home with just about any parents, when I said the kid doesn't have a say I only mean a child isn't capable of understanding what all is going on and won't until they are grown and then the choice has already been made for them.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yeah, but like you said, Ron usually criticizes an expansionist view of the 14th amendment. So what he said in that particular interview doesn't really align with what he usually says.

He also sided against privacy in the case of Lawrence v. Texas (in effect, arguing that the federal government has no say in the matter), but talks about government invasion of our privacy constantly. Perhaps he'd use the 14th amendment to get the federal government out of marriage altogether? That wouldn't be inconsistent with his answer. How much more equal could it get than that? I'm not saying that is his position, but it's an interesting thought.

I'm starting to think that Ron might be a troll for liberty, that he'll take the limited government position on everything; which may sometimes conflict with his stated position on another issue.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

I don't think a kid would even understand, I'd imagine left up the kid they'd go home with just about any parents, when I said the kid doesn't have a say I only mean a child isn't capable of understanding what all is going on and won't until they are grown and then the choice has already been made for them.

So what is your problem with them being raised by two loving parents who want to give them every opportunity to succeed in life?

 

[Zap!]

A lot of us actually support this.

 

[The Free Hornet]

All of the so called "rights" that gay couples get are simply privileges that are granted by the government. People don't have the right to government privileges. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman simply prevents the government from expanding marriage beyond what it is now, which is a small government position. Over time, we need to reduce government involvement in marriage by allowing privately run hospitals to determine visitation rights, abolish the IRS and do away with all tax breaks for married couples, phase out Social Security and do away with the Social Security benefits, etc.

I posted a list, remember? It is your position that the items in bold below are privileges?

Tax Benefits

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate. [so it is a privilege to keep your FUCKING money?]
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only." [Edit: they aren't saying you can't have a gay-free enclave]
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
[As private benefits, a corporation could limit to straight married couples if desired]

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

You claim these are all privileges? Every last one of them?! I was being generous by omiting social security but since the money is taken by force, I wonder how you claim its return is somehow a privilege. In the immortal words of Joe Wilson: YOU LIE!

Why not confess to being a bigot that wants to use the government to take away freedom of association?

I don't believe the governent should provide police protection. They suck at it. That said, I would not advocate removing this protection just for gays because - you know - the government shouldn't be doing it. How about you take away their unemployment, public schooling, social security, medicare, and remove them from all publicly-funded jobs (like the military). What a great strategy you've stumbled upon to embiggen the liberty movement! Now, the gays will want to take away these things from everyone and we'll finally get a small government! [/sarcasm]

 

[The Free Hornet]

A lot of us actually support this.

Yes, I know. You're hemorrhoids on the liberty movement. By attempting to take away other people's liberty, you will continue to lose your own. The FDA/DEA can drug raid your house, shoot you in the head, and not pay a penny in compensation. This is because "A lot of us actually support" taking away the rights of minorities. I would like to say it will bite you in the ass eventually but our debt is proof we got bit a long time ago.

 

[Origanalist]

I posted a list, remember? It is your position that the items in bold below are privileges?




You claim these are all privileges? Every last one of them?! I was being generous by omiting social security but since the money is taken by force, I wonder how you claim its return is somehow a privilege. In the immortal words of Joe Wilson: YOU LIE!

Why not confess to being a bigot that wants to use the government to take away freedom of association?

I don't believe the governent should provide police protection. They suck at it. That said, I would not advocate removing this protection just for gays because - you know - the government shouldn't be doing it. How about you take away their unemployment, public schooling, social security, medicare, and remove them from all publicly-funded jobs (like the military). What a great strategy you've stumbled upon to embiggen the liberty movement! Now, the gays will want to take away these things from everyone and we'll finally get a small government! [/sarcasm]

So, if I may, and please don't sting me, I hate hornets.

How do you feel about "civil unions" that would grant everything you just presented? Assuming they did.

 

[Zap!]

Yes, I know. You're hemorrhoids on the liberty movement. By attempting to take away other people's liberty, you will continue to lose your own. The FDA/DEA can drug raid your house, shoot you in the head, and not pay a penny in compensation. This is because "A lot of us actually support" taking away the rights of minorities. I would like to say it will bite you in the ass eventually but our debt is proof we got bit a long time ago.

No, we're just not social anarchists. You people talk the talk about the NWO, but don't walk the walk when it comes to them transforming a mental disorder into an alternate acceptable lifestyle to create social chaos and lead to One World Government.

 

[The Free Hornet]

So, if I may, and please don't sting me, I hate hornets.

How do you feel about "civil unions" that would grant everything you just presented? Assuming they did.

That would be - or is - the funniest thing of all in a separate-but-equal sort of way. If the government says that a civil union is exactly the same legally as marriage but just under a different name, then it is pointless.

In a FU Frank Luntz twist, it is interesting because polls will show they favor civil unions for gays more so than marriage for gays. But if legally the are the same thing, there is no reason they won't become semantically the same thing. Also, if civil unions and marriages become different, then straights will demand - and likely get - access to both:

Law, Unwrapped: The Illinois Civil Union Experiment

If different, everyone will want access to both. If the same, there is no point. Maybe the divorce lawyers win in that scenario as it is another wrinkle for them to iron out.

 

[Lishy]

People are only supporting Santorum are only doing so to support Obama. Those who actually share Santorum's values are either apathetically ignorant, or just as despicable as him.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

No, we're just not social anarchists. You people talk the talk about the NWO, but don't walk the walk when it comes to them transforming a mental disorder into an alternate acceptable lifestyle to create social chaos and lead to One World Government.

lol and this is why nobody will listen to you. It is NOT a mental disorder and it IS an alternate acceptable lifestyle. Psychologists gave up on that theory in the 1970s and I suggest you do also.