It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conservatives vow to make gay marriage 2012 issue

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Personally, I think it is a potential solution. My husband is an atheist so we went the civil union route (I couldn't have him making vows to a spaghetti monster) . However, some friends of mine who are gay want to have a church wedding, and when it comes to that I think it should be up to the church to decide if that's something they are willing to do.

The government should not be involved in matters of religious union nor should the church be involved in civil unions, it's a simple separation. One thing that does bother me is when they try to give tax breaks to only heterosexual couples, that's some serious bs.




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 

Very true. And you can always tell the true Constitutionalists and Liberatarians from the neocons and religions extremists too when you ask them a few key questions regarding these stupid social issues. If the Tea Party had stayed true and had not been infiltrated by these loons, I'd be there. As it stands now it's just embarrassing half the time and plain annoying the rest of the time.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JewelFlip
 

Ha. Good one. I have a hard time wrapping my pea brain around the government being involved with marriage at all. For what? Property rights and insurance purposes? There's got to be a better way around all that.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
The real tea party members (such as ron paul) don't care about issues like this.

All the more reason we need a decent republican to take obama out of office.

personaly they could pass a law approving civil partenerships with inanimate objects or multiple husbands/wives and I wouldn't care because its not my buisness.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 

Well really some of the things gay couples get denied is utterly mind-boggling, and yes things have been slowly changing for the better, but I could not imagine facing those kinds of obstacles. Only recently are they allowed to visit their partners when they are in the hospital. Imagine being with your partner for 30 years and then being told, no sorry we don't recognize that kind of couple, and not knowing if they're in critical condition.

I feel like if people thought about it in terms of things you weren't allowed to do as a hetero couple then maybe people might change their tune. With divorce rates and politicians extramarital deviances where they are, why can't there just be acceptance that everyone should get a chance to take this crazy ride?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by JewelFlip
 

Oh, I totally agree. So much so that for a second I thought I was reading my own post
It's reprehensible that some people feel they have any say in the matter at all. For any reason.

My issue goes further though, to the concept that government has a right to have a say in or needs to license any marriage. What two or more people decide to do or how they decide to live with each other is between them, and if they so choose their god. It''s none of anyone's business, including the governments.

I understand why some people think government needs to be involved, and maybe there are some contractual issues that have to be covered in some ways, but I don't agree that it's a good thing because it leads to arguments exactly like this, among many other things. It's a racket for making money and for the lawyers more than anything. We could get away with a whole lot more simplified version of the "law."



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Honestly I'm flabbergasted. I can not understand why this is even being talked about, let alone leaned on by a conservative party. This is a non-issue for a number of reasons:

- This is a non-crime, so legislating it will bring huge battles and tons of time wasted.
- This is a religious issue, pure and simple.
- The idea of government is to document familial relations, not regulate it, especially in a land built on individual liberty and restricted government.
- Even if this is a pressing social issue, it's really a state issue at best. It has no place in the national debate.

Conservatives really need to stop all this because in the end, who really cares what people do privately or even within their families. I'm about as conservative as they get economically, but the conservatives in the spotlight are liars, or at best phonies.

We don't even really need to get into religion, mainly because social movements are more powerful when done locally. The religion in this country could really help out and be more welcoming. The compassion and effort to better others lives hasn't really been present that I've ever seen, but it could be.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Honestly I'm flabbergasted. I can not understand why this is even being talked about, let alone leaned on by a conservative party.
I'm not sure what you mean by "this." The President's decision not to defend DOMA? The idea of gay marriages?

This is a non-issue for a number of reasons:

- This is a non-crime, so legislating it will bring huge battles and tons of time wasted.

I thought all of the legislating and battling was being done by those who wanted to change the current system.


- This is a religious issue, pure and simple.
- The idea of government is to document familial relations, not regulate it, especially in a land built on individual liberty and restricted government.
But governmental issues and legal rights have been important to the posters here and to the Gay Rights movement. I don't think that will stop

- Even if this is a pressing social issue, it's really a state issue at best. It has no place in the national debate.
I'm sure you know that no state which put the vote to it's citizens has gotten approval for Gay Marriages.

Unfortunately, I don't understand what you're advocating.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm not sure what you mean by "this." The President's decision not to defend DOMA? The idea of gay marriages?


I mean the entire subject. What is there to fight about?


I thought all of the legislating and battling was being done by those who wanted to change the current system.


Yeah, the modern congress has so little time to do so much and they still aren't enough. It's not worth the time to fight gay marriage on a Federal level.


But governmental issues and legal rights have been important to the posters here and to the Gay Rights movement. I don't think that will stop


Not sure what you mean.

Long story short, I'm against conservatives fighting this issue. If they believe in it that's fine. If they want to keep the churches to themselves, that's cool too. Personal freedom is important and we shouldn't stop them from living their religion to the fullest.

Trying to get government to do what society has failed to do will just be a failure as well. As for the popular votes at the state level, I really don't think it matters. The Constitution has always been antimajoritarian, as it is in this case.
edit on 25-2-2011 by KrazyJethro because: edit



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I think the concept of "marriage" is too deeply ingrained in society to ever cut it out from government, but I do have a feeling that people are starting to move away from the traditional idea (at least in my area). Civil union, domestic partnership and common law pretty much describes the relationships my friends are in. I'm in my mid 20s and I have yet to go to an old school wedding!

Your comment on the marriage racket and the lawyers: Golden! Having grown up in a divorce heavy era I can say that that is some horrible business! My parents just got divorced last year, but have been separated for a little more that 13 years, and I am so very thankful that I had such level headed parents. They tried to work as a team until my youngest brother hit 18, and avoided the litigation that comes with divorce. We made it through unscathed compared to so many other kids I grew up with.

Sorry Flint from straying from the topic at hand.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by zcflint05
 



It's great to see that Republicans only favor more "freedom" and "less government" unless it comes down to me deciding to marry my partner; apparently we need all kinds of government intervention to stop that.


That pretty much sums up the Conservative movement in America. Less government (for straight white males) and more government (for everyone else)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Marriage is an international term. Some countries have already granted Legal Marriage to all citizens - opposite or same gender.

Marriage and Civil Union will only continue an "us vs them" situation and solve nothing.

Where was the fight for religious marriage with those getting legally married in a court house? Its a bogus argument.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I can't believe they fell for that trap! Well actually I can.
Obama has played them like a fiddle. Even if they come to realize too late that they've been snookered and get their priorities straight they've already exposed for all to see that they don't have the intellect to solve our problems.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by zcflint05
 


I for one welcome the sweeping Republican losses of 2012.

Bring it on, guys.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by monkofmimir
 


"Decent Republican" is a phrase sort of like "jumbo shrimp" or "good cop" or "ethics lawyer."

I wish you luck, 'cause that's all you've got.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I would discount the crappy GOP folks

They can dramatize like 7th grader

When the GOP plays the role,they go all in, head first.

Someone has to cover the religious crowd the war crowd and fear crowd -

That's most of the GOP less the libertarians....


P.S Not a good idea to be over confident
edit on 26-2-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
This could actually lead to finally putting the entire argument/battle to rest. In 2003 Canada decided to tackle the issue head on and it passed. I even knew a few people who grumbled at first when it was passed but after a year or two when it sunk in that it had no effect on their marriage they became staunch suppporters.

Back in 2008 ~ 2009 the Pride room at my college would have a once per semester incident of vandalism/ransacking. 2010 ~ now 0 incidents.

It's like watching paint dry but eventually it does.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dendro
This could actually lead to finally putting the entire argument/battle to rest. In 2003 Canada decided to tackle the issue head on and it passed. I even knew a few people who grumbled at first when it was passed but after a year or two when it sunk in that it had no effect on their marriage they became staunch suppporters.

Back in 2008 ~ 2009 the Pride room at my college would have a once per semester incident of vandalism/ransacking. 2010 ~ now 0 incidents.

It's like watching paint dry but eventually it does.


I feel that way as well---much like most civil rights gains--it's usually the people that are against it that end up getting change--such as the civil rights movement--passed. In the 60's, people started to see how ugly the racists reacted with the invent of segregation--and equal rights in the eyes of the law became real for African Americans. now the generations growing up today see old white dudes blabbering uncontrollably about same sex marriage while jobs are lost, people die from a lack of health insurance, and bankers still getting their pockets lined, and treat their bigotry with total and utter disgust. I feel that the importance the GOP has placed on social issues has actually advanced the cause of gay marriage in the US--if they wouldn't have treated it as such a big deal, it would have never become a hot button social issue (at least to the extent it is now), and the desire for change would not have been as strong.

5 years ago, I don't think I would have seen a national legalization of gay marriage by 2020. With the trend now, I'm almost positive that by that time, LGBT people will be able to marry whomever they want, in whatever state they want to.

Sometimes I wonder if the GOP are just manchurian candidates for the Dems.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Yet again another futile attempt by the GOP to deny Americans their God given right to be happy. Disgusting GOP slime as it is not up to us humans to pass judgement upon anyone who is a member of the LGBTI group.
edit on 26-2-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Making abortion an issue while the PTB don't even care about it
Jeepers...peeps are going to fall for it AGAIN
*face palm*
because they are fleecing the peeps
which the republicans have vowed will NOT be an election issue
because it is an issue that actually matters.
to their bank acounts.

it worked for GWB because the lying thieving satanist represented christian family values...
really..
ask any fundy, evangelikal, or realated "religionist" if you want a good hoot...

Here in Canada they say proven luciferian, bilderberger and lier PM Harper he:
"represents christian familly values..."

My God, hurry up and die America...
edit on 26-2-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join