Social conservatives outraged over Portman's support for gay marriage

[itshappening]

The Republican National Committee’s support of Senator Rob Portman’s flip on gay marriage has infuriated social conservatives.

Though they don’t doubt that RNC chairman Reince Priebus is on their side, some say his vocal praise on Monday of Portman’s new stance could alienate values voters.

“I think [the RNC] should pretty much ignore him,” says Phyllis Schlafly, a longtime conservative activist, in an interview with National Review Online. “I think he has made a mistake, and he probably won’t get reelected.”

Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, says the party has to be careful. “If the Republican party tries to retreat from being a pro-marriage, pro-family party, the big tent is going to become a pup tent very fast,” he says. “I am concerned that some in the party are going wobbly on this issue.”

A source familiar with Ohioans’ response to Portman’s decision tells NRO that 60 percent of the calls the office received were against Portman’s shift and 40 percent of calls received were in support.

Schlafly, for her part, isn’t impressed. “Portman was one of their stars when he won, and he was supposed to be so very smart,” she says, “and I find it hard to believe the stupidity of his statement.”

Other social conservatives share her ire. Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, says Portman will likely face a primary challenger. “He will have a primary because this is too critical of an issue for a Republican senator to abandon,” he says.

Brown also thinks the RNC has “definitely” been too soft on Portman. “This is a critical issue, and to act like it’s just no big deal is just wrong,” he says.

Brown believes the RNC should withhold financial support from Portman and any other senators who change their views to support gay marriage.“The grassroots of the party are 100 percent committed to protecting marriage, to protecting life, the whole platform,” he says, “and you can’t just kick them to the curb.”

Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate and the head of American Values, agrees. He says the party’s leadership is taking its Evangelical base for granted — and that that’s a big mistake.

“I just think right now there is a lot of concern in the party about both satisfying the money wing of the party and keeping libertarians on board and I believe they are clueless to how close the party is to losing the energy and the votes of its largest voting bloc, which are values conservatives,” Bauer says.

“What we shouldn’t do is say to the electorate, ‘Just tell us what you want us to be! We’ll change for you! Just tell us what you want us to do, we’ll do it!’” he adds. “That’s not a political party, that’s just a bunch of pandering idiots.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343311/social-conservatives-rnc-don-t-be-pandering-idiots-betsy-woodruff
-

This goes to show you that you walk a fine line in the GOP with values voters and that you need to keep them on side which can sometimes be difficult for us young libertarians.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

I hope a real conservative primaries this spineless POS.

[Christian Liberty]

Are people who are stupid enough to single issue gay marriage (I'm probably accidentally insulting some of my own family members here) really worth trying to get on board?

Honestly, we shouldn't pander to idiocy. I'm not even pro-gay marriage (I'm against the idea of government defining marriage, but if they are going to do it I'd like them to define it correctly [That is, between a man and a woman]and then have something else, such as civil unions, for same-sex couples.) But I think people who single issue gay marriage are just dumb and politically illiterate.

Everyone I know of who would be anywhere near "Single issue SSM" category (I don't even think they were radical enough to vote SOLELY on this issue, although I'm not sure) all loved Rick Santorum. I've found few to none who didn't hate Ron Paul's excellent foreign policy as well.

Then again, it doesn't matter. There is no way to win in this system. When people are complaining about the name of freaking pickles but not about the NDAA, you can't really win. Better to just bust some heads with a good candidate and force the Republicans to keep losing.

If Ron Paul would have run as an Independent Obama would have won a blowout and Romney would have probably only gotten 100 electoral votes. Even hating Obama as I do, spiting the "Small government" (Meaning, actually big government) GOP establishment is a virtue in itself.

[itshappening]

I hope a real conservative primaries this spineless POS.

To be honest I dont really see it as an issue but I know for religious people it's a critical issue... like abortion.

This is the problem libertarians face in the GOP. Most of us don't care about these issues but there are lots of older social conservatives who are absolutely militant about it and I think it can be damaging in that politicians feel the need to appeal to them and thus they end up coming up with stupid statements like Akin and Mourdoch did on abortion.

[Christian Liberty]

To be honest I dont really see it as an issue but I know for religious people it's a critical issue... like abortion.


Not only am I religious, my dad's a pastor! I care quite a bit about abortion although I wouldn't single issue it... But gay marriage? Who cares... If I ever ran for Federal office I'd refuse to answer questions about it on principle since its both useless and a state-level issue.

[itshappening]

Not only am I religious, my dad's a pastor! I care quite a bit about abortion although I wouldn't single issue it... But gay marriage? Who cares... If I ever ran for Federal office I'd refuse to answer questions about it on principle since its both useless and a state-level issue.

How would you answer a question on abortion?

[Brett85]

Now someone like Portman is going to be labeled a libertarian, and libertarians will be known as Republicans who support gay marriage. People will be called libertarians who support preemptive war, the war on drugs, the police state, and all of these other statist policies. This is just a way for big government neo-conservative Republicans to try to hijack libertarianism.

[Christian Liberty]

How would you answer a question on abortion?

Assuming I was a politician, and so actually cared to some extent about balancing honesty with electability, I'd probably say something along the lines of "My personal belief is that it is murder, however the constitution doesn't give the Federal government any authority to regulate abortion and so as per the tenth amendment a state should be allowed to decide whether or not they agree with me that its murder and pass laws accordingly" or something. I probably wouldn't mention that I theoretically would support a Federal ban if there were enough support to amend the constitution since I think the likelihood of that happening is next to nil.... So I wouldn't really bother to mention it.

The reason I'd answer the abortion question and not the SSM question (I'd say "State's rights" in response to SSM, but wouldn't say anything else at the Federal level) is because, while abortion is a state issue its also an important issue, at least in my opinion. It is worth talking about. Gay marriage just has so much fanaticism and it doesn't matter that much any reasonable way you spin it. I'm sick of radical gay rights advocates (Note, those are different descriptors, you can be a gay rights advocate without being radical) pretending like their issue is the most important in the world and that hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East murdered or overflowing prison populations because of drug wars are next to irrelevant compared to their sacred right to marry other men. Honestly, I might, might agree with them if it wasn't for the fanatics. Its literally insane. They've made me completely apathetic. At the same time, radical social conservatives (Again, different descriptors, you can be a soc con without being radical.... See Rand Paul) think that Sodom is going to be repeated, nevermind that it had nothing to do with SSM, and that we're all going to get destroyed if we don't ban it. To them, everything, even abortion, an issue I actually think they have a point on, is less important than SSM. NOTHING can stand in the way of SSM being banned.

Its all a ton of hyperbole on both sides the way I see it. I can't stand anyone who single issues' SSM.

[Carlybee]

To be honest I dont really see it as an issue but I know for religious people it's a critical issue... like abortion.

This is the problem libertarians face in the GOP. Most of us don't care about these issues but there are lots of older social conservatives who are absolutely militant about it and I think it can be damaging in that politicians feel the need to appeal to them and thus they end up coming up with stupid statements like Akin and Mourdoch did on abortion.

And the stance on gay marriage is why the GOP is old and moss covered. And I'm getting older myself so that's saying something. Does anyone really give a flying flip anymore who gets married and who doesn't? It seems to me like it's like trying to put a finger in the dike. (no pun intended). I wouldn't expect social conservatives to come right out and approve of it, but by being so ferociously against it says two things: "If you do not hold Christian values, you do not belong in the GOP" and "If you are gay, there is no place for you in the GOP".

[Christian Liberty]

And the stance on gay marriage is why the GOP is old and moss covered. And I'm getting older myself so that's saying something. Does anyone really give a flying flip anymore who gets married and who doesn't? It seems to me like it's like trying to put a finger in the dike. (no pun intended). I wouldn't expect social conservatives to come right out and approve of it, but by being so ferociously against it says two things: "If you do not hold Christian values, you do not belong in the GOP" and "If you are gay, there is no place for you in the GOP".


My preferred stance on gay marriage is to make marriage a purely contractual matter, and give every American (Yes, every one, even single adults, even children, heck even the unborn, anything to lower taxes) the marriage tax break simply for breathing. Starve the beast, don't give it the power to tax OR define marriage.

If I couldn't have that, I'd do civil unions across the board. With the same tax benefits.

If I couldn't do that, if I had to have the government define marriage, I would support making it between a man and a woman, but have some similar civil union for same-sex couples that had the same tax-benefits and whatnot. So if the government does have to define it, I'd prefer it to be between a man and a woman.

That said, I wouldn't refuse to vote for someone because they disagreed with me on that. It just doesn't matter to me.

[Brett85]

And the stance on gay marriage is why the GOP is old and moss covered. And I'm getting older myself so that's saying something. Does anyone really give a flying flip anymore who gets married and who doesn't? It seems to me like it's like trying to put a finger in the dike. (no pun intended). I wouldn't expect social conservatives to come right out and approve of it, but by being so ferociously against it says two things: "If you do not hold Christian values, you do not belong in the GOP" and "If you are gay, there is no place for you in the GOP".

I kind of agree with you to some extent. I don't support gay marriage, but I think the GOP needs to be inclusive and welcome people into the party that disagree with us on issues like gay marriage. I thought it was ridiculous that GOP proud was excluded from CPAC. That's an organization that's basically conservative on every single issue other than gay marriage, but yet they aren't allowed to attend a conservative conference because of that one issue. I don't think that the Republican Party should come out and support gay marriage, but they shouldn't be so adamently opposed to allowing people into the party who do support gay marriage.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm kind of curious what ItsHappening thinks about my response.

[otherone]

I prefer the good 'ol days when marriage was a religious institution, not a governmental one.

[supermario21]

Portman is not a libertarian by any means, a solid fiscal conservative but that's it...I disagree with those who want to primary him. Few reasons...


1)Popularity-this guy will be reelected with >55-60% of the vote every time he runs, he's got a great reputation and this will probably help him with moderates who already really liked him
2)timing-2016 will be a presidential year. if rand is our nominee, having portman on the ballot will be a strength to rand
3)Sherrod Brown-conservative activists will probably want Jim Jordan (who has shared many anti-gay sentiments) who is a GREAT fiscal conservative to primary Portman. I say save him for the 2018 race against Sherrod Brown, which will be a great opportunity for a pickup in an off-year. Brown underperformed Obama and barely cracked 50% this time around

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

I would LOVE to have Jim Jordan replace Portman.

[supermario21]

I would LOVE to have Jim Jordan replace Portman.

Save him for Sherrod Brown in 2018. Like I said, I'd rather have him run in a midterm environment than a presidential one.

[itshappening]

I kind of agree with you to some extent. I don't support gay marriage, but I think the GOP needs to be inclusive and welcome people into the party that disagree with us on issues like gay marriage. I thought it was ridiculous that GOP proud was excluded from CPAC. That's an organization that's basically conservative on every single issue other than gay marriage, but yet they aren't allowed to attend a conservative conference because of that one issue. I don't think that the Republican Party should come out and support gay marriage, but they shouldn't be so adamently opposed to allowing people into the party who do support gay marriage.

You're confusing CPAC with the GOP. CPAC have their own reasons not to invite GOProud because their sponsors will not stand for it.

[itshappening]

I'm kind of curious what ItsHappening thinks about my response.

I think you nailed it and that's the correct position. The problem is these social conservatives while not the whole GOP are a significant faction and they will always demand a more extreme position or more extreme rhetoric which leads to stupid statements from Akin and Mourdoch and which costs the GOP.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

I think you nailed it and that's the correct position. The problem is these social conservatives while not the whole GOP are a significant faction and they will always demand a more extreme position or more extreme rhetoric which leads to stupid statements from Akin and Mourdoch and which costs the GOP.

Mourdoch's comment wasn't extreme at all, though. It was blown up and distorted by the progressive media. If you are a Christian you believe that all life is a gif from God, even those children conceived in rape are a blessing.

[Brett85]

Mourdoch's comment wasn't extreme at all, though. It was blown up and distorted by the progressive media. If you are a Christian you believe that all life is a gif from God, even those children conceived in rape are a blessing.

Yeah, but it was interpreted as saying rape is a gift from God. That's what hurt him. But either way, it's best not to bring up religion when talking about abortion and instead talk about science and liberty for the unborn.

[Danan]

I don't understand why any politician wouldn't want to adopt Ron's position of getting government out of marriage. That seems like such an extremely easy and logical solution, it's stunning they don't see that.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Yeah, but it was interpreted as saying rape is a gift from God. That's what hurt him. But either way, it's best not to bring up religion when talking about abortion and instead talk about science and liberty for the unborn.

It certainly was distorted by the progressive media and those who support evil.

[supermario21]

It certainly was distorted by the progressive media and those who support evil.

Agreed. That being said, best to keep those personal thoughts to yourself. Or simply say I always want to defend life when possible.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

I don't understand why any politician wouldn't want to adopt Ron's position of getting government out of marriage. That seems like such an extremely easy and logical solution, it's stunning they don't see that.

I'm going to be called "anti-libertarian" for this, but I don't believe government has the power to redefine marriage as anything other than between one man and one woman and I do believe that there should be special tax breaks for married couples which promote large, strong families and private/homeschooling.

[Christian Liberty]

I think you nailed it and that's the correct position. The problem is these social conservatives while not the whole GOP are a significant faction and they will always demand a more extreme position or more extreme rhetoric which leads to stupid statements from Akin and Mourdoch and which costs the GOP.

I know I couldn't get away with some of my rhetoric here in a real life election...

[itshappening]

Mourdoch's comment wasn't extreme at all, though. It was blown up and distorted by the progressive media. If you are a Christian you believe that all life is a gif from God, even those children conceived in rape are a blessing.

Yeah, it wasn't as bad as Akin but still they need to shut up. He lost that race over that comment. Romney won big in that state and he lost by 5 points to a Democrat congressman who had no business beating him as he had won statewide TWICE. Unbelievable. He should be a senator now but blew it because he didn't think when speaking about something largely irrelevant and tens of thousands of people could not vote for him

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Agreed. That being said, best to keep those personal thoughts to yourself. Or simply say I always want to defend life when possible.

That's where I'm torn up. I strongly believe that these issues must be approached head on in a forceful and honest manner or else this who support intrinsic evils such as abortion win. Just look at the state of the "pro-life" GOP. They controlled both houses of congress and the presidency for 6 years and the best they could come up with was the "partial birth abortion" bill. Bunch of spineless cowards. This is why evil wins, because good men don't stand up. And I'm not just talking abortion here, it's on virtually every single issue of morality.



Yeah, it wasn't as bad as Akin but still they need to shut up. He lost that race over that comment. Romney won big in that state and he lost by 5 points to a Democrat congressman who had no business beating him as he had won statewide TWICE. Unbelievable. He should be a senator now but blew it because he didn't think when speaking about something largely irrelevant and tens of thousands of people could not vote for him

I think he could have and should have won, even after that comment. I'm very glad that he never apologized, but he should have gone on the offensive after that. To me it seemed like all he said was that the comments were misunderstood and tried to move on.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm going to be called "anti-libertarian" for this, but I don't believe government has the power to redefine marriage as anything other than between one man and one woman and I do believe that there should be special tax breaks for married couples which promote large, strong families and private/homeschooling.

I don't believe the government has the power to define marriage, the end.

As for the other stuff, it makes sense to give tax breaks to those who don't waste government resources in the public school system. If they don't use it, why should they pay? As for the other ones, I have no particular support for them except that anything that reduces revenue for government is good. As I said before, I support tax breaks for breathing.


That's where I'm torn up. I strongly believe that these issues must be approached head on in a forceful and honest manner or else this who support intrinsic evils such as abortion win. Just look at the state of the "pro-life" GOP. They controlled both houses of congress and the presidency for 6 years and the best they could come up with was the "partial birth abortion" bill. Bunch of spineless cowards. This is why evil wins, because good men don't stand up. And I'm not just talking abortion here, it's on virtually every single issue of morality.

Constitutitonally its a state issue. You could easily approach it from that angle with spine, especially considering the status quo is legalization nationwide.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

I don't believe the government has the power to define marriage, the end.

Marriage is already defined, has been for over 2000 years.

[Antischism]

http://www.hulu.com/watch/26846

It's too bad I can't embed this video. >:[

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

http://www.hulu.com/watch/26846

It's too bad I can't embed this video. >:[

When you click on the embed video button it says Hulu is supported, although I don't think it's ever worked for me.


http://www.hulu.com/watch/26846

[itshappening]

That's where I'm torn up. I strongly believe that these issues must be approached head on in a forceful and honest manner or else this who support intrinsic evils such as abortion win. Just look at the state of the "pro-life" GOP. They controlled both houses of congress and the presidency for 6 years and the best they could come up with was the "partial birth abortion" bill. Bunch of spineless cowards. This is why evil wins, because good men don't stand up. And I'm not just talking abortion here, it's on virtually every single issue of morality.




I think he could have and should have won, even after that comment. I'm very glad that he never apologized, but he should have gone on the offensive after that. To me it seemed like all he said was that the comments were misunderstood and tried to move on.

No, he could not win after that comment. It was played over and over on nationally tv right before the election and he was hammered. He could not come back from that. He should never have been answering a question on rape and abortion. How stupid and disappointing because he cost the GOP a sure bet and now they have a Democrat there who had low name recognition before but now has 6 years to make himself unbeatable.

[Antischism]

When you click on the embed video button it says Hulu is supported, although I don't think it's ever worked for me.


http://www.hulu.com/watch/26846

Yeah, it's not working for Hulu it seems. I've only ever had luck with YouTube.

[Danan]

I'm going to be called "anti-libertarian" for this, but I don't believe government has the power to redefine marriage as anything other than between one man and one woman and I do believe that there should be special tax breaks for married couples which promote large, strong families and private/homeschooling.

You'd rightfully be called anti-libertarian on this position, imho. It's not about redefining marriage. Legally, marriage is just a specific contract between two parties, limited to one man and one woman. The spiritual bond, partnership before God, etc. is something completely different and has nothing to do with legal marriage.

Why would you deny people to voluntarily sign contracts with each other? Why shouldn't two people be able to make a contract that regulates their wealth situation under specific circumstances and their heritage, which allows them to make medical decisions for each other, etc.?

Legal marriage today is for the most part a pre-defined model contract. The problem is that some things two consenting adaults are not able to contractually agree upon, outside of legal marriage. That's just non-sensical.

Regarding tax breaks: I'm for tax breaks for everybody, hetero, gay, forever-alone...

[Christian Liberty]

Marriage is already defined, has been for over 2000 years.
Agreed. Actually giving the government power to define it as between a man and a woman undermines this. Granted, it is (Marginally, and unlike abortion I really don't give a crap at all) better than having them define it as just "Two people living together, regardless of gender" or something, but its still better to say that government shouldn't be in the business of defining terms.

I mean, think of it this way, and this is a little different but would you support the power of the state to define a car as "Four wheel clunk of metal with engine exc..." What if I claim that a two wheeled bicycle is a "Car." Giving government the power to define otherwise just means that government has the right to define words. Of course, with "Car" this doesn't matter but with social institutitons like marriage, giving them the power to define it... even if they do it "Correctly" still undermines the religious nature of the institution.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

You'd rightfully be called anti-libertarian on this position, imho. It's not about redefining marriage. Legally, marriage is just a specific contract between two parties, limited to one man and one woman. The spiritual bond, partnership before God, etc. is something completely different and has nothing to do with legal marriage.

Why would you deny people to voluntarily sign contracts with each other? Why shouldn't two people be able to make a contract that regulates their wealth situation under specific circumstances and their heritage, which allows them to make medical decisions for each other, etc.?

Legal marriage today is for the most part a pre-defined model contract. The problem is that some things two consenting adaults are not able to contractually agree upon, outside of legal marriage. That's just non-sensical.

Regarding tax breaks: I'm for tax breaks for everybody, hetero, gay, forever-alone...

Gays can make whatever contract they want, but I don't want government recognizing it as marriage and granting them the same benefits, such as child adoption which I view as child abuse.

I do believe that the government has a role to play in promoting stable marriages. For example I think that child custody should be granted solely to the father (this will make men think twice about being able to just get up and leave and women about having an affair) as well as ending "no fault" divorce and alimony payments (except in the case of adultery).

I do think that there should be generous tax breaks for married couples, based on the amount of children they have to promote private schooling and homeschooling.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Agreed. Actually giving the government power to define it as between a man and a woman undermines this.

Except the government isn't defining it. It is simply accepting the real definition. When government expands that to include homosexual couples, then it is attempting to redefine it as something it is not.

[Christian Liberty]

Gays can make whatever contract they want, but I don't want government recognizing it as marriage and granting them the same benefits, such as child adoption which I view as child abuse.


I'm not a fan of gay adoption but... child abuse? Frankly, I would rather a pair of gay parents raise a child than a pair of drunkards or drug addicts who don't work (And yes, drug addiction should be legal but its still a bad environment to raise a kid.)

I've conceded that if abortion were banned gay adoption would be a necessary evil.

I see why you don't like it though. Being religious, as I am, I don't like it either.

After this point your posting really turned into "TokenPaleoconservativeGuy." I think you should change your username...

[jmdrake]

And some folks think Rand should flip flop on abortion. :rolleyes:

[Brett85]

Why shouldn't two people be able to make a contract that regulates their wealth situation under specific circumstances and their heritage, which allows them to make medical decisions for each other, etc.?

Why just confine it to two people if you're going to be consistent? If two gay people can enter into a contract and have the government recognize that contract, then why can't a man who's living with ten women enter into a contract with those women and have it recognized?

[jkob]

Maybe good Christian social conservatives should use 1/10th of the energy they use fighting against gay marriage to advocate against this evil war and the mass imprisonment of our children. Nope, those gays who want to settle down and have families just like you must be stopped.

Those that oppose gay marriage are simply bigots who want their world view imposed on the rest of the world, totalitarians. I don't believe government should be involved in marriage at all but how can any good person could advocate discrimination? Saying you don't want any further growing of government is cop out and a sad one at that, would you have used the same reasoning to oppose the legalization of interracial marriage?

[supermario21]

I am in favor of gay adoption. Like someone said, I'd rather have 2 gays raise a child than a single mom in a crack house.

[Brett85]

Those that oppose gay marriage are simply bigots who want their world view imposed on the rest of the world, totalitarians. I don't believe government should be involved in marriage at all but how can any good person could advocate discrimination? Saying you don't want any further growing of government is cop out and a sad one at that, would you have used the same reasoning to oppose the legalization of interracial marriage?

I don't have a problem with the people who advocate government recognition of gay marriage as long as they also advocate polygamist marriages, marriages between siblings, and marriages between cousins. Otherwise they're being completely hypocritical and inconsistent when they advocate "marriage equality."

[Christian Liberty]

Why just confine it to two people if you're going to be consistent? If two gay people can enter into a contract and have the government recognize that contract, then why can't a man who's living with ten women enter into a contract with those women and have it recognized?


I don't have a problem with the people who advocate government recognition of gay marriage as long as they also advocate polygamist marriages, marriages between siblings, and marriages between cousins. Otherwise they're being completely hypocritical and inconsistent when they advocate "marriage equality."

These are all why I refuse to support "Gay marriage recognition." If it were going to be a civil union, or a private contract, between ten people, go for it. But "Marriage"? Well, sure, YOU can call it that, but the government shouldn't.

I wouldn't have opposed interracial marriage on those grounds because interracial marriage doesn't contradict the natural definition of marriage.

All that said, I don't really spend much time on the issue. I'd vote for someone who disagreed with me on this issue. I cannot say the same for someone who supported our welfare-warfare state.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

I wouldn't have opposed interracial marriage on those grounds because interracial marriage doesn't contradict the natural definition of marriage.

On what grounds would you have opposed interracial marriage then?

[Ranger29860]

Gays can make whatever contract they want, but I don't want government recognizing it as marriage and granting them the same benefits, such as child adoption which I view as child abuse.

I do believe that the government has a role to play in promoting stable marriages. For example I think that child custody should be granted solely to the father (this will make men think twice about being able to just get up and leave and women about having an affair) as well as ending "no fault" divorce and alimony payments (except in the case of adultery).

I do think that there should be generous tax breaks for married couples, based on the amount of children they have to promote private schooling and homeschooling.

The government recognizing anything as marriage is crazy and dangerous. The government's only role in this should be contract enforcement. This goes for straight, gay or polygonal marriages. There are NOOOOOO studies showing that gay marriages are any less stable then straight , absolutely NONE.

BUT if we have to have government in marriage, we must work to devalue their role within it. So making gay marriage be recognized along with polygonal marriages devalues their power to define marriage (as in its not an exclusive privilege if everyone gets it so why bother doing it). Making the whole point mute. Libertarians (as far as I can see most) want government out of marriage. And since we cant just pull that switch for a whole lot of reason coming from a bunch of different groups all we can strive for right now is to show the absurdity of the way it is handled now.

Also the idea of fathers only getting kids is absurd. It makes the HUGE assumption that fathers are the ones to blame for unstable marriages and that they are always at fault come a divorce. I know quite a few women who did terrible things to their husbands before they were divorced and in no way was it the husbands fault for the divorce.
(antidotal I know but this is common sense)

Also would you please point me in the direction of a study or ANY evidence that a stable loving LBGT couple have ever done ANYTHING to a child that would be considered child abuse that a straight couple has not ever done or is incapable of doing?

As for the tax break I somewhat agree though would not execute it in the same way. If a parent sends their child to public school then they should not receive the same tax break a couple who sent their child to private school, public schooling in this country should be an indirect tax. The whole point of an incentive is to give you the reward(tax break) after you have done something not before to get you to do something.

Also this idea that government has a role to play in promoting a stable marriage does not seem to be in the constitution I have read. Maybe you have a different copy?


*edit*
LOL after all that I forgot to comment on the actual topic.


If those social conservatives can not accept the reason he changed his views and stance on something then they need to get their heads examined.

But what they should do since he is their representative is vote him out if he is not representing the views of his district. I may not agree with their stnace but it is their right as voters to do so. Granted I do not see him getting ousted because of this. Social conservatives are not nearly as prevalent as some seem to think. If they really had a huge share of the vote things like abortion and gay marriage would have been addressed a long long time ago.