PDA

View Full Version : Sen. Rob Portman's son is gay... now he supports gay marriage




itshappening
03-14-2013, 10:14 PM
Sen. Rob Portman comes out in favor of gay marriage after son comes out as gay

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Republican U.S. Sen. Rob Portman on Thursday announced he has reversed his longtime opposition to same-sex marriage after reconsidering the issue because his 21-year-old son, Will, is gay.

Portman said his son, a junior at Yale University, told him and his wife, Jane, that he's gay and "it was not a choice, it was who he is and that he had been that way since he could remember."

"It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have -- to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years," Portman told reporters in an interview at his office.

The conversation the Portmans had with their son two years ago led to him to evolve on the issue after he consulted clergy members, friends including former Vice President Dick Cheney, and the Bible.

"The overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible, and certainly the Golden Rule, and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker, that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue," Portman said, adding that he feels that "in a way, this strengthens the institution of marriage."

Portman said his son didn't push him to make his announcement, though he "encouraged me."

Portman, who backed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court, said he now thinks parts of that bill should be repealed, though he hasn't considered introducing such legislation himself because economic policy issues are his specialty.

Portman said he believes that same-sex couples who marry legally in states where it's allowed should get the federal benefits that are granted to heterosexual married couples but aren't currently extended to gay married couples because of DOMA, such as the ability to file joint tax returns. Family law has traditionally been a state responsibility, Portman says, so the federal definition of marriage should not preempt state marriage laws.

If Ohio voters were to reconsider the gay marriage ban they adopted in 2004, Portman said he might support it, depending on its wording, though he would not be likely to take a leadership role on the issue just as he didn't take a leadership role in 2004. He stressed that he doesn't want to force his views on others, and that religious institutions shouldn't be forced to perform weddings or recognize marriages they don't condone.

He said his decision to announce his new stance was not motivated by its potential political impact, and he was not sure what the fallout would be. He noted that nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage, and that the issue has more support among younger people.

"I believe in some respects that this is more generational than it is partisan," said Portman

He said he does not know of other Republican U.S. Senators who share his views on gay marriage, although Cheney, who has a gay daughter, agrees with them, and recently advised him to "do the right thing, follow your heart."

Portman said he decided to announce his change-of-heart on Thursday because he anticipates getting questions on the issue in view of the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court arguments over gay marriage.. He said he does not plan to sign onto any legal briefs on the case.

He said factors in the timing of his announcement included "getting comfortable with my position and wanting to do this before the politics of these court decisions make it more difficult to have an honest discussion."

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/03/sen_rob_portman_comes_out_in_f.html

itshappening
03-14-2013, 10:19 PM
Funny how he cites Golden Rule but supports war and god knows what else.

jkr
03-14-2013, 10:19 PM
flip FLOPP much?



WHERE WERE YOU WHEN THE RANDMAN ENTERED AND STOOD FOR US?



VOTE THEM OUT!

TokenLibertarianGuy
03-14-2013, 10:20 PM
Disgusting how moral relativism permeates all facets of society.

Keith and stuff
03-14-2013, 10:26 PM
Of course, so called gays should be allowed to get a gay government marriage. If so called straights are allowed to get a government marriage, so called gays should be allowed to. Let anyone that wants to get a government marriage and take advantage of dozens of saving breaks that help them live. I just don't care.

Beorn
03-14-2013, 10:27 PM
Disgusting how moral relativism permeates all facets of society.

Indeed. Pretty disturbing that it allows someone with so much power to have their view on an issue of state policy be totally controlled by their feelings.

supermario21
03-14-2013, 10:29 PM
Rob is my Senator, and will have that seat for as long as he wants it. He is very popular here in Ohio. Gotta get rid of Sherrod Brown in the future though...Anyways, I don't know where to go really. Maybe Rand should just come out for SSM. He's hinted at redefining the tax code to make it gender-neutral, but it might be a sensible position to support a New Hampshire style law, which apparently has very strong religious liberty protections. As each Republican bites the dust on this issue, it makes the evangelicals irrelevant. Even today, people are hyping up Rubio and especially Rand as presidential contenders, and neither of them are known really as evangelical candidates, they have other credentials which distinguish them. Of course, this might enable Santorum to run as some great moral crusader in 16.

I still think government should get out of marriage entirely, I just don't know if anyone other than Rand will actually take that position.

WarAnonymous
03-14-2013, 10:30 PM
flip FLOPP much?



WHERE WERE YOU WHEN THE RANDMAN ENTERED AND STOOD FOR US?



VOTE THEM OUT!

Where is he ever? Rob Portman is freaking terrible... Absolutely terrible. I really don't like Sherrod Brown but at I think I would even prefer him over Rob Portman. I sent Sherrod Brown a very extremely long email addressing about 20 points and he responded and broke down every single one of my points. Not only does Portmans record suck but he's never around for anything or to answer anyone.

jkr
03-14-2013, 10:40 PM
Where is he ever? Rob Portman is freaking terrible... Absolutely terrible. I really don't like Sherrod Brown but at I think I would even prefer him over Rob Portman. I sent Sherrod Brown a very extremely long email addressing about 20 points and he responded and broke down every single one of my points. Not only does Portmans record suck but he's never around for anything or to answer anyone.


QFfnT
hes the invisible man

HEY
MAYBE WE SHOULD DO AN XMEN/BOE SUPERFRIENDS/HALL OF D00M thing with our reps!

TokenLibertarianGuy
03-14-2013, 10:40 PM
Maybe Rand should just come out for SSM.

That would end my support for him in a heartbeat. I could never support someone who supports intrinsic evil.

supermario21
03-14-2013, 10:44 PM
I'd probably agree with you there Token. I think Rand will not come out for it because I think he will not want to "go left" on everything. His foreign policy and civil liberties differences will make up for that.

itshappening
03-14-2013, 10:45 PM
Rand will say leave it to the states... which is correct.

TokenLibertarianGuy
03-14-2013, 10:47 PM
I'd probably agree with you there Token. I think Rand will not come out for it because I think he will not want to "go left" on everything. His foreign policy and civil liberties differences will make up for that.

I think Rand has the perfect stance on marriage. Get government out of it, but if that isn't achievable leave it to the states. If he supports gay 'marriage' then I wouldn't be able to support him. Same goes for abortion.


Rand will say leave it to the states... which is correct.

The truly correct position is government should be completely out of it. But yes, leaving it to the states is the correct position for a federal candidate, constitutionally speaking. Either that or amend the constitution to define it as one man one woman.

itshappening
03-14-2013, 11:03 PM
Well this is the problem, supporters of gay marriage and senators from MA might want to define it as between men.

So you open a can of worms if you want a constitutional amendment...

Do you want the senators from MA defining what marriage is?

No. Of course not.

So the 10th amendment applies. Which means it's up to the states.

Smart3
03-14-2013, 11:25 PM
A 13th amendment approach to marriage equality isn't a good idea. Portman is right this is a states issue, and the Federal govt shouldn't discriminate.

I just wish he had the balls to come out in favor sooner...

jkob
03-15-2013, 05:16 AM
Easy to see how that would change your perspective. Good for Portman.

It's not an issue for the federal government and honestly it shouldn't be an issue for government on any level. However government shouldn't discriminate against one group of people while giving another group a bunch of special rights and privileges either even if they shouldn't be involved in at all so I'd probably support most legislation legalizing gay marriage.

I'm fine with Rand giving the states rights answer but just like the drones, there is wrong and right side of history.

EBounding
03-15-2013, 05:19 AM
"Gay Marriage", "straight marriage", it doesn't matter; it's all marriage to the State.

Christian Liberty
03-15-2013, 05:27 AM
That would end my support for him in a heartbeat. I could never support someone who supports intrinsic evil.

Really? This is your most important issue?

Republican mole much?

Rand would be wrong if he endorsed SSM but who cares?

Easy to see how that would change your perspective. Good for Portman.

It's not an issue for the federal government and honestly it shouldn't be an issue for government on any level. However government shouldn't discriminate against one group of people while giving another group a bunch of special rights and privileges either even if they shouldn't be involved in at all so I'd probably support most legislation legalizing gay marriage.

I'm fine with Rand giving the states rights answer but just like the drones, there is wrong and right side of history.

I'd rather them not endorse it than to endorse it if I had the choice, even in the world we currently live in. Two wrongs don't make a right. In the status quo I'd vote for equiavalent civil unions.

itshappening
03-15-2013, 05:35 AM
Really? This is your most important issue?

Republican mole much?

Rand would be wrong if he endorsed SSM but who cares?


I'd rather them not endorse it than to endorse it if I had the choice, even in the world we currently live in. Two wrongs don't make a right. In the status quo I'd vote for equiavalent civil unions.

Token is very religious. There are people like him all over Iowa and for them these are important issues.

Rand is a social conservative but he believes in the 10th amendment. I think he does support things like the Human life amendment and life at conception Act but realistically they're not going anywhere.

Kotin
03-15-2013, 05:40 AM
your son but not anyone else's.. what a small-minded man.

Christian Liberty
03-15-2013, 05:40 AM
Token is very religious. There are people like him all over Iowa and for them these are important issues.

Rand is a social conservative but he believes in the 10th amendment. I think he does support things like the Human life amendment and life at conception Act but realistically they're not going anywhere.

If we could amend the constitution to declare that life begins at conception I would absolutely support it. I agree with them on that one. I'm
not a fan of state recognition of SSM either. I'm fine with the state's staying out of it entirely, this is my preferred position, but otherwise I think its a tenth amendment issue but changing the definition of marriage should be opposed at the state level. That's not my criticism. My criticism is deciding your vote based on that, rather than issues like economic and foreign policy which are more important.

RonPaulFanInGA
03-15-2013, 05:55 AM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Rob who?

Wooden Indian
03-15-2013, 06:07 AM
This is where I kinda disagree with Ron. The 14th Amenment and The Civil Rights Act (like them or not) DO make this a Federal matter, imo. I can't see any other way around that. Besides, why do we want the State or any government in control over more of our personal lives?

What a man and man... woman and a woman... or a man a woman and a circus giraffe do is between them and their God. It is no business of the State, and no laws should be passed to prevent them from exchaning martilal vows. I want the gubmmint out of everything possible, including this issue.

Of course, that is just my lowey opinion. Many freedom loving libertarians seem to like libery for as long as it's on their own terms, and their own belief system. I disagree with that.

itshappening
03-15-2013, 06:16 AM
If we could amend the constitution to declare that life begins at conception I would absolutely support it. I agree with them on that one. I'm
not a fan of state recognition of SSM either. I'm fine with the state's staying out of it entirely, this is my preferred position, but otherwise I think its a tenth amendment issue but changing the definition of marriage should be opposed at the state level. That's not my criticism. My criticism is deciding your vote based on that, rather than issues like economic and foreign policy which are more important.

There are social conservatives on here like Token and there's no need to mock their faith. These issues tend to be important to them and no candidate in the GOP can win without securing their backing.

Most of them realize that they're not going to be able to amend the constitution or ban abortion tomorrow. I think what they do appreciate is no matter how futile that the candidate is prepared to stand up for the rights of the unborn.

TonySutton
03-15-2013, 06:55 AM
Being from Ohio, I can say Who is Rob Portman? I saw signs up around election time but he gets very little face time in the media. I have never noticed him being in my county even though Obama has been here at least 2 times. His change here is the same type of change I see in most people whose positions are based in feelings instead of thought out principles. He was against gay marriage when he only viewed it through the eyes of his religion and he is for it now that he views it through the eyes of a father. I am sure he is pro military because he is scared of the boogey terrorists. Unfortunately people like him get elected because their constituents view the world with their feelings also.

Brett85
03-15-2013, 07:21 AM
What a man and man... woman and a woman... or a man a woman and a circus giraffe do is between them and their God. It is no business of the State, and no laws should be passed to prevent them from exchaning martilal vows.

There are no laws to prevent them from exchanging marital vows. State governments aren't sending in swat teams to arrest gay couples who decide to have their own private marriage ceremony. That's not what the issue is about.

UMULAS
03-15-2013, 07:42 AM
...

Brett85
03-15-2013, 07:46 AM
States can't do marriage liscenses since that's against seperation of church and state; civil unions on the other hand is a different matter and states can do that according to the 10th amendment.

Where does the term "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?

Brett85
03-15-2013, 07:48 AM
Anyways, I don't know where to go really. Maybe Rand should just come out for SSM.

Rand wouldn't do that since it would violate his libertarian principles. He would never support expanding the government's role in marriage.

UMULAS
03-15-2013, 07:53 AM
....

Brett85
03-15-2013, 08:02 AM
It doesn't appear, it implies...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Just like the term privacy is not in the constitution, it is implied in the 4th amendment.

And why would you ever want religion in Government?

1) A state government defining marriage in a certain way doesn't "establish a religion."
2) The 1st amendment says that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. It doesn't say anything about the states or local governments.

UMULAS
03-15-2013, 08:18 AM
....

Brett85
03-15-2013, 08:43 AM
I want the people in the individual states to decide controversial social issues, not nine unelected judges. I believe in states' rights and state sovereignty. The fourteenth amendment was created to give blacks equal rights. That was the purpose of creating the amendment. Libertarians generally don't believe in a living, breathing Constitution.

Antischism
03-15-2013, 08:46 AM
Either the Federal Government gets out of the business of marriage entirely, or both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are given the same treatment under current laws, no changing my mind about that. If certain conservatives want to conserve the stigma of being Bible thumpers crusading against the "evils" of homosexuality ala Santorum, they can keep up the charade.

It's nowhere near being the biggest issue for me personally, so it's not a make or break deal in regards to where a candidate stands. However, I see absolutely no difference in a man/man, woman/woman, man/woman getting married, so the fact that it's even an issue boggles my mind. The Federal Government getting out of the business of marriage would be the best idea, though.

Brett85
03-15-2013, 08:51 AM
Either the Federal Government gets out of the business of marriage entirely, or both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are given the same treatment under current laws, no changing my mind about that.

So you would actually support a federal law re-defining the definition of marriage to include gay couples?

Wooden Indian
03-15-2013, 09:51 AM
Either the Federal Government gets out of the business of marriage entirely, or both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are given the same treatment under current laws, no changing my mind about that. If certain conservatives want to conserve the stigma of being Bible thumpers crusading against the "evils" of homosexuality ala Santorum, they can keep up the charade.

It's nowhere near being the biggest issue for me personally, so it's not a make or break deal in regards to where a candidate stands. However, I see absolutely no difference in a man/man, woman/woman, man/woman getting married, so the fact that it's even an issue boggles my mind. The Federal Government getting out of the business of marriage would be the best idea, though.

+1

And I am a "Bible Thumper" in the sense that I consider myself born again, and do my best to follow the example that Christ set. I'm not a fan of homosexuality any more than I'm a fan of any other sin, but it is not my place to dictate how another person lives their life. If the Government is going to guarantee equal treatment to all groups, then in my book, that extends to gays.

I would MUCH rather them get out of our business altogether... the states included. Ultimately, no Government involvment, state or otherwise would be my preference.... but as it stands, the 14th guarantees that gays, blacks, jews, whites, and any other "minority group" be afforded the same rights under the state.

Again, I'm not pretending to be THE authority on this. It is my opinion.

Brett85
03-15-2013, 10:22 AM
the 14th guarantees that gays, blacks, jews, whites, and any other "minority group" be afforded the same rights under the state.

The 14th amendment was created to officially put an end to slavery. It had nothing to do with homosexuality or any other similar behavior.

Wooden Indian
03-15-2013, 10:29 AM
The 14th amendment was created to officially put an end to slavery. It had nothing to do with homosexuality or any other similar behavior.

In my view it guarantees equal protection of the laws to all citizens. All.

Not a big deal to me right now. As said earlier, there are much bigger fish to fry.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 10:37 AM
I don't know anything about Sen. Rob Portman, but I'm happy to see that he's right on at least one issue. Nevermind the fact that it took a personal event to change his stance.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 10:39 AM
So you would actually support a federal law re-defining the definition of marriage to include gay couples?

I would support a law that stated the government would interpret all marriage contracts equally, regardless of the number of different genders involved. That has nothing to do with your particular religion or how it defines marriage.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 10:41 AM
It's not an issue for the federal government and honestly it shouldn't be an issue for government on any level. However government shouldn't discriminate against one group of people while giving another group a bunch of special rights and privileges either even if they shouldn't be involved in at all so I'd probably support most legislation legalizing gay marriage.

I can't grasp why this isn't the view that everyone holds.

scottditzen
03-15-2013, 10:45 AM
So you would actually support a federal law re-defining the definition of marriage to include gay couples?

I'd personally favor that over a federal law defining marriage as only heterosexual couples.

Best case scenario would be to get government out of marriage. That's just not going to happen. Federal laws are too tied into marriage.

jmdrake
03-15-2013, 10:46 AM
+1

And I am a "Bible Thumper" in the sense that I consider myself born again, and do my best to follow the example that Christ set. I'm not a fan of homosexuality any more than I'm a fan of any other sin, but it is not my place to dictate how another person lives their life. If the Government is going to guarantee equal treatment to all groups, then in my book, that extends to gays.

I would MUCH rather them get out of our business altogether... the states included. Ultimately, no Government involvment, state or otherwise would be my preference.... but as it stands, the 14th guarantees that gays, blacks, jews, whites, and any other "minority group" be afforded the same rights under the state.

Again, I'm not pretending to be THE authority on this. It is my opinion.

Any minority group? So now liberty is defined by what group you belong to? :confused: Anyway, gay marriage = discrimination against straight polygamists. ;) Can two siblings get married as long as their gay? Anyway Rand has the right idea. Focus on simplifying the tax code and working to shrink the federal government in other ways and the problem takes care of itself. It's a solution that thinking conservatives can buy into. (Yes....lots of non thinking people in the world).

jmdrake
03-15-2013, 10:48 AM
Easy to see how that would change your perspective. Good for Portman.

It's not an issue for the federal government and honestly it shouldn't be an issue for government on any level. However government shouldn't discriminate against one group of people while giving another group a bunch of special rights and privileges either even if they shouldn't be involved in at all so I'd probably support most legislation legalizing gay marriage.

I'm fine with Rand giving the states rights answer but just like the drones, there is wrong and right side of history.


I can't grasp why this isn't the view that everyone holds.

Because that "solution" simply exacerbates the discrimination of other groups that are less popular. (Straight polygamists, incestuous couples, couples who simply choose not to get formally married.)

Wooden Indian
03-15-2013, 10:50 AM
Any minority group? So now liberty is defined by what group you belong to? :confused: Anyway, gay marriage = discrimination against straight polygamists. ;) Can two siblings get married as long as their gay? Anyway Rand has the right idea. Focus on simplifying the tax code and working to shrink the federal government in other ways and the problem takes care of itself. It's a solution that thinking conservatives can buy into. (Yes....lots of non thinking people in the world).

LOL, perhaps "group" was a poor choice in wording, but... yes, to your point, I couldn't care less if it was sibblings, straight, ghey, or otherwise. It is truly that individuals choice.



I do draw the line at midgets though. Midget sex and tiny houses give me the creeps.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 10:51 AM
Because that "solution" simply exacerbates the discrimination of other groups that are less popular. (Straight polygamists, incestuous couples, couples who simply choose not to get formally married.)

Well, "not caring what consenting adults do with their personal lives" doesn't really discriminate against anyone.

Brett85
03-15-2013, 11:15 AM
I would support a law that stated the government would interpret all marriage contracts equally, regardless of the number of different genders involved. That has nothing to do with your particular religion or how it defines marriage.

How would that law not violate the 10th amendment?

UMULAS
03-15-2013, 11:16 AM
..........

Brett85
03-15-2013, 11:16 AM
Well, "not caring what consenting adults do with their personal lives" doesn't really discriminate against anyone.

I don't care what consenting adults do with their personal lives. But that doesn't mean that I want the government to recognize and endorse their behavior.

Brett85
03-15-2013, 11:20 AM
I believe in state rights as well, but then there is a part when the Federal government shall intervene in cases such as this. If it weren't for federal forcement, there would still be a wide range of segregation in the deep South.

The libertarian position on that is to allow private segregation. That's what Rand got in trouble for when he said that business owners should be allowed to decide who comes into their restaurant. You basically just want to have an activist federal government that forces your social views on the entire country. That's the exact opposite of limited government. There are people who are libertarians who are socially conservative who don't want the government to legislate morality, but then there are people like yourself who want the government to dictate your liberal social views on all 50 states and on every single American.

Christian Liberty
03-15-2013, 11:26 AM
I can't grasp why this isn't the view that everyone holds.


I don't care what consenting adults do with their personal lives. But that doesn't mean that I want the government to recognize and endorse their behavior.

This is basically why I disagree with KingNothing. Granted, if the only thing that the government was doing was "Condoning Homosexuality" or some such, instead of committing mass murder, actively using violence against peaceful drug users, searching, arresting, and even killing people without any warrant, restricting what types of guns people should have and who should have them*, exc. I'd be a lot happier. If the only thing a candidate wanted that was wrong was to recognize gay marriage, I'd still support them. Heck, I'd rather Rand fully support SSM, and fully support Ron Paul's foreign policy, than do what he's doing now, given the choice

*If "Except those who have committed serious violent crimes" were added to the end of that, I'd be fine with it, although I don't trust them with the power.

The libertarian position on that is to allow private segregation. That's what Rand got in trouble for when he said that business owners should be allowed to decide who comes into their restaurant. You basically just want to have an activist federal government that forces your social views on the entire country. That's the exact opposite of limited government. There are people who are libertarians who are socially conservative who don't want the government to legislate morality, but then there are people like yourself who want the government to dictate your liberal social views on all 50 states and on every single American.

What exactly is "Liberal" about not segregating? That said, you are correct, it should absolutely be legal on private property. That said, it should not have been legal on state-owned public property and I agree with the sections of the CRA that rectified that.

UMULAS
03-15-2013, 11:26 AM
.........

bolil
03-15-2013, 11:26 AM
Hypocrite is hypocritical. Color me shocked.

V3n
03-15-2013, 11:27 AM
The Federal government should get out of the Marriage business altogether.

I understand some need for the State governments to be involved for legal issues such as death and divorce, but that's it.

If they're not going to get out of the business altogether, then they should treat all marriages the same - same-sex or otherwise.

just my 2 cents

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 11:31 AM
How would that law not violate the 10th amendment?

I don't give a damn about the Constitution. I give a damn about Liberty. When the Constitution limits Liberty, the Constitution can go pound salt.

Brett85
03-15-2013, 11:38 AM
I don't give a damn about the Constitution. I give a damn about Liberty. When the Constitution limits Liberty, the Constitution can go pound salt.

What's the point of having a Constitution if we're not going to follow it? If you want to change the Constitution, then advocate a Constitutional amendment to change it.

Brian4Liberty
03-15-2013, 11:39 AM
Keep government out of it. Why should government be licensing it anyway? Do we need government approval to eat and drink now too. Hmmm...guess we do.

Portman's son? Portman must be harboring that gay gene...probably a life long struggle for him.

Christian Liberty
03-15-2013, 11:40 AM
I don't give a damn about the Constitution. I give a damn about Liberty. When the Constitution limits Liberty, the Constitution can go pound salt.

In this case (Gay marriage) its not really a liberty issue though, just an excuse for activists to make up new Federal powers. Any good gained for Federal legalization of gay marriage (None, in my view, its kind of a wash but it doesn't really gain the liberty movement anything) would be far outweighed by whatever powers given to the Federal government. The Federal Government needs to take the plank out of its own eye in that it needs to stop foreign warmongering, drug wars, gun control, mass surveilance, et al at the federal level. Then, only then, will it see clearly to remove the speck from the eye of the state governments'. Until then, decentralization is the absolute best path to liberty and we shouldn't hide from it.

Rothbardian Girl
03-15-2013, 11:41 AM
The most disheartening thing about this, to me, is that it truly exposes the fact that we have government officials who are apparently incapable of thinking critically. Portman all of a sudden sees the light only because his own son is affected by this? This "change of heart" just demonstrates an infantile level of thinking, in my opinion.

Brett85
03-15-2013, 11:43 AM
The Federal government should get out of the Marriage business altogether.

I understand some need for the State governments to be involved for legal issues such as death and divorce, but that's it.

If they're not going to get out of the business altogether, then they should treat all marriages the same - same-sex or otherwise.

just my 2 cents

I can understand the position of repealing DOMA and having the federal government give out marriage benefits to gays in the states that have allowed gay marriage. But I don't see how any libertarian can say that federal benefits should be given out to gay couples in states that have banned gay marriage. That's an anti states' rights position and a big government position.

TokenLibertarianGuy
03-15-2013, 11:44 AM
Hypocrite is hypocritical. Color me shocked.

Yup.

"I'm against gay marriage...oh wait my son is gay...I guess I'm for it"

A man of principles my ass.

V3n
03-15-2013, 11:53 AM
I can understand the position of repealing DOMA and having the federal government give out marriage benefits to gays in the states that have allowed gay marriage. But I don't see how any libertarian can say that federal benefits should be given out to gay couples in states that have banned gay marriage. That's an anti states' rights position and a big government position.

My bad use of pronouns and seeming logic-hole in an effort to be brief.

If they're (the Feds and States) not going to get out of the business altogether, then they (the States) should treat all marriages the same - same-sex or otherwise. (with "should" meaning I wish they wouldn't ban same-sex marriage)

familydog
03-15-2013, 12:02 PM
Shame on Senator Portman. He needs to understand that allowing a homosexual make a consensual contract with another homosexual is the death knell for our once great and exemplary nation. I can't stand the idea of consenting adults making agreements and choices that don't affect me. Time to primary him.

Brett85
03-15-2013, 12:04 PM
If all of these Republicans are coming out in favor of gay marriage because they believe in liberty, then why aren't we seeing any Republicans coming out in favor of legalizing marijuana? That's an issue where people are actually getting thrown in jail simply for engaging in a particular activity. Whatever your view on gay marriage is, that issue doesn't involve any sort of criminalization of an activity. It seems pretty hypocritical to support expanding the definition of marriage based on "liberty," and then oppose legalizing marijuana, or even legalizing crack, cocain, Meth, and every other drug that people get thrown in jail for taking.

James Madison
03-15-2013, 12:33 PM
*sigh*

For the last time, 'gay marriage' is not illegal. Gays are free to hold a religious or secular ceremony announcing their marriage in front of witnesses and a minister. It won't be recognized by the government, but it isn't illegal. Now incest and polygamy are illegal. If I am suspected of being a polygamist I'm on my way to being a convicted felon.

Another musing. Why do government benefits extend only to 'married couples'. Say I live with my girlfriend, but we aren't married, why should I be denied the same government goodies as married couples? Based on divorce rates, it's safe to say our relationship is much more loving and healthier than what a large percentage, if not majority, of married couples have. Yet they get the benefits. Easy fix: the government needs to stay out of contracts between consenting parties.

Brian4Liberty
03-15-2013, 01:05 PM
*sigh*

For the last time, 'gay marriage' is not illegal. Gays are free to hold a religious or secular ceremony announcing their marriage in front of witnesses and a minister. It won't be recognized by the government, but it isn't illegal. Now incest and polygamy are illegal. If I am suspected of being a polygamist I'm on my way to being a convicted felon.

Another musing. Why do government benefits extend only to 'married couples'. Say I live with my girlfriend, but we aren't married, why should I be denied the same government goodies as married couples? Based on divorce rates, it's safe to say our relationship is much more loving and healthier than what a large percentage, if not majority, of married couples have. Yet they get the benefits. Easy fix: the government needs to stay out of contracts between consenting parties.

No marriage means no divorce.

cheapseats
03-15-2013, 01:20 PM
If all of these Republicans are coming out in favor of gay marriage because they believe in liberty, then why aren't we seeing any Republicans coming out in favor of legalizing marijuana?

Because they HAVEN'T figgered out how to control/own the lion's share of the traffic/profits from something that grows naturally and easily...like a weed. They HAVE figgered out how to control/own the lion's share of the traffic/profits in the Marriage Industry.



That's an issue where people are actually getting thrown in jail simply for engaging in a particular activity. Whatever your view on gay marriage is, that issue doesn't involve any sort of criminalization of an activity. It seems pretty hypocritical to support expanding the definition of marriage based on "liberty," and then oppose legalizing marijuana...

Not pretty hypocritical...VERY. Not seems...IS.

Supposed Libertarian-leaners who trivialize this issue do not lean toward Liberty OR Justice nearly as much as they flatter themselves as leaning.



...or even legalizing crack, cocain, Meth, and every other drug that people get thrown in jail for taking.

This, ironically, GETS INTO THE WEEDS. Recall Ron Paul getting tripped up, then bogged down by legalization of heroin.

Decriminalization of the full spectrum of presently illegal drugs is not reality-based in the meaningful future. NOT beating the legalization of marijuana drum because ALL drugs are not included in the petition for redress of grievances is CLASSIC for Purists/Theorists cutting off plain ol' Liberty Lover noses to spite the faces of TPTB.

UMULAS
03-15-2013, 02:27 PM
........

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 02:45 PM
I don't care what consenting adults do with their personal lives. But that doesn't mean that I want the government to recognize and endorse their behavior.


So, you DO care what consenting adults do then.

James Madison
03-15-2013, 02:49 PM
File for civil union?

No civil unions. The government has no business in contracts I make with consenting individuals.

Christian Liberty
03-15-2013, 02:52 PM
If all of these Republicans are coming out in favor of gay marriage because they believe in liberty, then why aren't we seeing any Republicans coming out in favor of legalizing marijuana? That's an issue where people are actually getting thrown in jail simply for engaging in a particular activity. Whatever your view on gay marriage is, that issue doesn't involve any sort of criminalization of an activity. It seems pretty hypocritical to support expanding the definition of marriage based on "liberty," and then oppose legalizing marijuana, or even legalizing crack, cocain, Meth, and every other drug that people get thrown in jail for taking.

Yeah, this. This is why I don't care at all. Its a distraction because it really doesn't matter that much. Either way. Radical social conservatives are guilty for overemphasizing this as well.


*sigh*

For the last time, 'gay marriage' is not illegal. Gays are free to hold a religious or secular ceremony announcing their marriage in front of witnesses and a minister. It won't be recognized by the government, but it isn't illegal. Now incest and polygamy are illegal. If I am suspected of being a polygamist I'm on my way to being a convicted felon.

Another musing. Why do government benefits extend only to 'married couples'. Say I live with my girlfriend, but we aren't married, why should I be denied the same government goodies as married couples? Based on divorce rates, it's safe to say our relationship is much more loving and healthier than what a large percentage, if not majority, of married couples have. Yet they get the benefits. Easy fix: the government needs to stay out of contracts between consenting parties.

This


No marriage means no divorce.

Not exactly. People would still make, and break, their own contracts.

twomp
03-15-2013, 02:59 PM
My religion (Catholic) tells me the gays are bad. My BRAIN tells me that it doesn't matter to me what someone else does in THEIR own time and bedroom. It affects me in no way. I hope when I die, God doesn't send me to hell because I didn't care what my neighbors did with their lives.

angelatc
03-15-2013, 03:14 PM
your son but not anyone else's.. what a small-minded man.

Exactly. I suppose when his daughter comes home pregnant by a crack dealer, he will suddenly believe in abortion too.

angelatc
03-15-2013, 03:15 PM
My religion (Catholic) tells me the gays are bad. My BRAIN tells me that it doesn't matter to me what someone else does in THEIR own time and bedroom. It affects me in no way. I hope when I die, God doesn't send me to hell because I didn't care what my neighbors did with their lives.


I am fairly sure you're supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin.

TokenLibertarianGuy
03-16-2013, 03:10 AM
My religion (Catholic) tells me the gays are bad. My BRAIN tells me that it doesn't matter to me what someone else does in THEIR own time and bedroom. It affects me in no way. I hope when I die, God doesn't send me to hell because I didn't care what my neighbors did with their lives.

No it doesn't. Catholicism does not say homosexuals are any worse than anyone else. We are all sinners, each one of us has our own vice. Homosexual acts are a sin, but so is heterosexual sex outside of marriage. They are equally sinful.

Catholics do not hate homosexuals, we do not hate sinner for we are all sinners. What we do hate is sin, which is a requirement if you love God. You cannot love God unless you hate sin.