In NH and Iowa, gay marriage has political angle

In NH and Iowa, gay marriage has political angle

hosted.ap.org

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Iowa and New Hampshire traditionally offer presidential candidates vastly different political landscapes when they seek their party nominations. Yet legalizing gay marriage, as both states have now done, is unlikely to have much impact in 2012 because of party dynamics and the different emphasis voters place on social issues.

Gay marriage became legal in Iowa in April after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that denying gays the right to marry is discriminatory. In New Hampshire, the Legislature approved a gay marriage bill Wednesday that will take effect Jan. 1.

While s

(visit the link for the full news article)

Politics associated with social issues? Who would have thought?

Conservatives largely are against gay marriage and feel it is a threat to family values and the traditional view of marriage.
I can't see how a gay couple getting married affects my marriage in the least.

And I don't feel this approach by the right wing will endear them to a broad spectrum of voters. I could be wrong.

Libs, favor allowing gays to marry because perhaps they see a trend and they want to garner support of young people who I feel on average are in the live and let live camp. I could be wrong on this also.

But I'm still a member of the GOP and I don't feel threatened by gay marriage. I wonder if perhaps this might also be a trend among moderates? Homophobia might go the way of racism. Opps, racism is alive and well, although somewhat moderated. Live and Let Live!




hosted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 4-6-2009 by whaaa]

[edit on 4-6-2009 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa


I never understood how a party who (allegedly) stands for personal liberty and limited government came to concern itself with peoples personal relationships.

NH is a conservative state and I'd like to believe that this legalization of same-sex marriage (something the government has no business being involved with in the first place) is a win for real conservative values.

But, when I look at a local news stations website (wmur.com) and see the plethora of comments influenced by religious zealotry I start to worry that this legalization is less about real liberty and more about the soft-totalitarian liberal politicos and their back-door paths to complete control. Like giving the slave a corner of land to pacify his urge to run. The illusion of freedom to solidify control.

I guess, ultimately, the intentions here are what matter to me. I'd rather see a bill that separated marriage from government thereby freeing people from these artificial guidelines set by man. That would be more in step with liberty.

It's amazing a government can arbitrarily set guidelines for a man-made institution then create infighting about those guidelines which only divides the serfs among themselves and guarantees even more government interference and control regardless of the "solution" brought about by infighting.

This whole imaginary debacle boils down to:
government= 1,432,675, serfs= 0

and still the in-fighting morons go running around claiming victory or pouting defeat. Boggles the mind.

Don't you find it interesting the the two states that have early Presidential primaries are legalizing gay marriage? If this were to cause people to move to those states in order to take advantage what political affiliation do you think they would have? What would their views look like? Would it resemble the average American or state that has voted down gay marriage every time it gets on a ballot? Or would it be skewed...

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by whaaa

 

I never understood how a party who (allegedly) stands for personal liberty and limited government came to concern itself with peoples personal relationships.

my understanding of it is, because they are not interfering in personal liberty, currently you can have sex with who you want, whereas the liberals are trying to concern the state over MORE peoples' affairs if you understand what I am trying to say?

NH is a conservative state and I'd like to believe that this legalization of same-sex marriage (something the government has no business being involved with in the first place) is a win for real conservative values.

But, when I look at a local news stations website (wmur.com) and see the plethora of comments influenced by religious zealotry I start to worry that this legalization is less about real liberty and more about the soft-totalitarian liberal politicos and their back-door paths to complete control. Like giving the slave a corner of land to pacify his urge to run. The illusion of freedom to solidify control.

I think your last point is well observed, and you are bang on the money re "soft totalitarian liberal"

I heard Penguins are moving to Iowa enmasse.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 4-6-2009 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by blueorder

my understanding of it is, because they are not interfering in personal liberty, currently you can have sex with who you want, whereas the liberals are trying to concern the state over MORE peoples' affairs if you understand what I am trying to say?

This is why a better bill would be one that separates marriage from government. Concern the state with less peoples' affairs.

Rather than beg government accept and tolerate a variable into one of its pretend realms of authority the people should demand it give up that realm of authority. Same end result but arrived to by a path to liberty not by a path of tyranny.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by blueorder

my understanding of it is, because they are not interfering in personal liberty, currently you can have sex with who you want, whereas the liberals are trying to concern the state over MORE peoples' affairs if you understand what I am trying to say?

This is why a better bill would be one that separates marriage from government. Concern the state with less peoples' affairs.

Yeah, and the next thing you know people will be marrying their Iguanas and German Sherpards, first cousins, sisters etc. Do you want a nation of slack jawed mouth breathers?

Originally posted by whaaa
Yeah, and the next thing you know people will be marrying their Iguanas and German Sherpards, first cousins, sisters etc. Do you want a nation of slack jawed mouth breathers?

quite funny

Originally posted by whaaa

Yeah, and the next thing you know people will be marrying their Iguanas and German Sherpards, first cousins, sisters etc. Do you want a nation of slack jawed mouth breathers?

So let them.

This country is already overflowing with slack jawed mouth breathers I'm stuck paying for via government extortion.

Kicking government out of marriage is one step closer to kicking them out of my pocket.

Let the hills fill with inbreds for all I care.

It's not my responsibility to hold people up to some arbitrary standard. It isnt anyone's. Certainly not the governments. Let them be free to receive the fruits of their lifestyles and they will judge whether or not their lives are acceptable and make the proper corrections. Government retards this process.