Santorum backs nullifying existing gay marriages

[cybrsage]

If everyone in some town or state wants to legalize public sex why should you, living 1000 miles away, be able to tell them no?

If the majority thinks morality means converting the country to Islam are you going to go along with it?

Irrelevant to the point that morality based laws exist. They always have and always will.

That's your opinion. And it's wrong.

I use history as my support, including our current laws. You use...well, nothing as your support.

Show me your support for saying morality based laws have not always existed and will not always exist.

 

[Gunslinger08]

I actually agree that gay marriage needs to be a federal issue, mostly because of income taxes (and federal items such as SS survivor benefits). If you live in a state that recognizes gay marriage, you get to file your state taxes as married, but not your federal. I think we need a federal recognition of gay marriage that states must abide by. Just makes everything simpler to have a federal decision, especially with an issue that is essentially "civil rights."

 

[cybrsage]

One's acceptance (or lack of) of a law or other government action is relevant only when it affects them.

Since no one's marriage or civil union affects anyone aside from those in it, why should anyone's acceptance matter?

You are confusing acceptance with like. Acceptance is forced via the laws. Either acceptance that gay unions are not allowed or acceptance that gay unions are allowed. Either way, it is forced by law.

I simply think removing government from the marriage business and making what we currently call legal marriage into heterosexual civil union would solve mamy of the problems we now face. It removed the religious component from the issue and turns it into a legal only issue.

 

[zsdersw]

You are confusing acceptance with like. Acceptance is forced via the laws. Either acceptance that gay unions are not allowed or acceptance that gay unions are allowed. Either way, it is forced by law.

How is anyone forced to accept the bolded part, exactly? It doesn't affect them, so what's to accept/not accept?

I simply think removing government from the marriage business and making what we currently call legal marriage into heterosexual civil union would solve mamy of the problems we now face. It removed the religious component from the issue and turns it into a legal only issue.

There's one big problem with that: social conservatives would never support this en masse to a sufficient degree to make it happen.

 

[cybrsage]

How is anyone forced to accept the bolded part, exactly? It doesn't affect them, so what's to accept/not accept?

The same thing as accepting they are not allowed. Their existance or non-existance. In either case, people are forced to accept that homosexual marriage is allowed or not allowed.

There's one big problem with that: social conservatives would never support this en masse to a sufficient degree to make it happen.

I dunno about that. Most people I have talked to are in agreement with me...and this is in south central Pennsylvania, where we still have people who drive horse-drawn buggies around. I think you would be surprised. Most people I have talked to have actually never thought of seperating the government from marriage altogether. When they are told about it, they tend to agree with it.

 

[shadow9d9]

The same thing as accepting they are not allowed. Their existance or non-existance. In either case, people are forced to accept that homosexual marriage is allowed or not allowed.




I dunno about that. Most people I have talked to are in agreement with me...and this is in south central Pennsylvania, where we still have people who drive horse-drawn buggies around. I think you would be surprised. Most people I have talked to have actually never thought of seperating the government from marriage altogether. When they are told about it, they tend to agree with it.

It so shocks me that you are in a hick area.

How about simply make a religious version and leave the government one for everyone. it is 1000x more easy to do. The current marriage is not religious based, it is a financial agreement sanctioned by the government. The word marriage is just a word. Make a new one up.

 

[zsdersw]

The same thing as accepting they are not allowed. Their existance or non-existance. In either case, people are forced to accept that homosexual marriage is allowed or not allowed.

If this isn't about what people like/dislike or approve/disapprove of, then acceptance is the wrong word to use because it implies the presence of an opinion.

The price of tea in China is a certain number of yuan. That's the reality; the way things presently are... a fact. I'm not forced to accept it because I do not drink tea, from China or anywhere else. The price of tea in China does not affect me at all.

I dunno about that. Most people I have talked to are in agreement with me...and this is in south central Pennsylvania, where we still have people who drive horse-drawn buggies around. I think you would be surprised. Most people I have talked to have actually never thought of seperating the government from marriage altogether. When they are told about it, they tend to agree with it.

How many people have you talked to about this?

 

[cybrsage]

If this isn't about what people like or dislike, then acceptance is the wrong word to use.

I accept that holding a hammer above my toe and letting go of it will cause that hammer to drop onto my foot. I do not like the hammer hitting my foot.

If a friend dies in a car accident, I accept he is dead. I do not have to like it that he is dead.

I do not have to like everything I must accept.

How many people have you talked to about this?

Hmmm....it would be (counting quickly) about 8 people. Not a lot, but still quite a bit for just one person to talk to. All of them but 1 opposes gay marriage (the one who does not is a gay man), but all of them agreed the government should just get out of marriage altogether (even the gay man agrees).

As an aside, I was once told I was a "extremist, right wing, homophobic bigot whose gay friends that visit every year and stay at my house over the weekend when they do should stop being my friends". I had to laugh at that one.

I do not support gay marriage, simply because marriage was a religious institution in the US before it was codified into law. As such, the goverment should just get out of marriage altogether and move to only civil unions for all (including heterosexual civil unions to replace traditional marriage). This is just the cleanest and simplest way out of this mess.

EDIT: Basically, due to the way the US was setup, with the division of religion and state and how strong religion is in the US, removing the government from any semblence of infriging on religious institutions is the best way to handle the situation. The current setup simply creates anger and hate, which does not solve anything.

 

[zsdersw]

I accept that holding a hammer above my toe and letting go of it will cause that hammer to drop onto my foot. I do not like the hammer hitting my foot.

If a friend dies in a car accident, I accept he is dead. I do not have to like it that he is dead.

I do not have to like everything I must accept.

In both of those examples you were affected. You (likely) felt pain in your foot from the hammer and your friend died in an accident.

How are you, for example, affected by the marriage of a homosexual couple? How are you "accepting" something that doesn't affect you? They're married; it's reality. There's nothing to either accept or not accept.

 

[cybrsage]

In both of those examples you were affected. You (likely) felt pain in your foot from the hammer and your friend died in an accident.

How are you, for example, affected by the marriage of a homosexual couple? How are you "accepting" something that doesn't affect you? They're married; it's reality. There's nothing to either accept or not accept.

Being directly affected is irrelevant to acceptance. It has no bearing on it at all.

If I run a company and I decide not to accept it, that means I can deny heathcare benefits to the homosexual spouse, right? No? Hmmm...seems that not accepting it is legally denied...

 

[zsdersw]

Being directly affected is irrelevant to acceptance. It has no bearing on it at all.

If I run a company and I decide not to accept it, that means I can deny heathcare benefits to the homosexual spouse, right? No? Hmmm...seems that not accepting it is legally denied...

Depends on the type of company. Sole proprietorship? Yes, you can deny healthcare benefits to the homosexual spouse. A corporation? No. (corporations put you in a small group that agrees to make a decision, not "the man" who can decide everything on his own)

If you agree to run a company that you knew was required to do what you do not accept, that is a decision you yourself make and are responsible for.

 

[Genx87]

Oh there is Rick again the states rights candidate wanting to use the federal govt to squash states rights.

This guy is a contradiction a minute.

 

[werepossum]

It so shocks me that you are in a hick area.

How about simply make a religious version and leave the government one for everyone. it is 1000x more easy to do. The current marriage is not religious based, it is a financial agreement sanctioned by the government. The word marriage is just a word. Make a new one up.

People in New Jersey should exercise extreme caution in criticizing other parts of the country now that we've seen Snooki.

You're argument is essentially what he is proposing. At this point you're merely arguing over a word, and I disagree that it's simpler to choose another word for hetero-only marriage than for gender-independent unions - not that I really have a preference either way. But as gay marriage is illegal in most states, sure looks easier to adopt civil unions at a federal level.

Personally I am dead set against splitting marriage and civil unions, even though that seems to be the easiest way to make everyone happy. At that point the anti-gay marriage side begins to fight for legal preferences for "real marriage" and the pro-gay marriage side begins to fight against that. This whole debate is just wasted energy; it needs to end, not be perpetuated. As a broader issue, the concept that I am entitled to control my neighbor's behavior even though it does not directly and materially affect me (or reasonably threaten to do so) needs to go away. There are myriad things that offend progressives - hunting, owning guns, eating meat, smoking, spanking one's children, paying for one's own health care, going to church - and conservatives really don't need to enshrine the concept that the majority can control the behavior of the minority to suit their own sensibilities. If not for love of freedom, we should at least give it up for the sake of prudence.

The sun don't shine on the same dog's ass every day, and sooner or later thine own ox will be gored.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I do not support gay marriage, simply because marriage was a religious institution in the US before it was codified into law. As such, the goverment should just get out of marriage altogether and move to only civil unions for all (including heterosexual civil unions to replace traditional marriage). This is just the cleanest and simplest way out of this mess.

That doesn't make any sense. Let me remind you of the first amendment, where congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof. If, as you claim, marriage in this country is defined solely by one religion's interpretation of marriage, it's an unconstitutional law. I can find you religions that allow and perform gay marriages; Episcopalians, Anglicans, Lutherans and Unitarian Universalists, as well as several of the Eastern religions, all allow for homosexual unions. Are those religions' interpretations of marriage not as valid as the Puritan Christianity practiced by early settlers of the American colonies? Again, that's unconstitutional. You can't use religion as a basis for a law in this country, period, regardless of the history involved. So if religion is your ONLY argument, you've lost the debate (or you could throw out the first amendment; your call).

Can you come up with an argument that is not based around religion or tradition to restrict gay marriage? I realize that you have spoken in favor of using the term civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, so I sense you realize that ultimately gay unions should be legal across the states. But why remove the word marriage from the equation completely if that is, in fact, what the unions are for?

 

[pauldun170]

Man + Woman screwing and making babies under a framework that encourages the man and women to stay together and form a stable environment for the next generation of baby makers is beneficial to society. Its pretty much the building block of any society. The whole point is Marriage is just that.

That's just the cold hard facts of how societies are built. It can be said that it is in societies interest to promote this "contract" between man and woman to screw, make babies and raise those babies to be productive members of society. Society doesn't and really shouldn't give two shits about how much you love each other or how you feel deep in your soul that your are meant to be with someone else.
Doesn't matter. What matters is "make new productive member of society to take your tax paying ass's spot when you die".

Having said that, we live in a country where everyone is by law entitled to equal protection under the law. Yes it is in societies interest to promote baby making but to deny one group the rights and privileges afforded to another is Constitutionally wrong.

Its in society's interest to promote baby making\child rearing.
Once the kid is out there, Society should be concerned with promoting the stable environment for that child. Traditionally, culturally we saw that as man+women because that s what it takes to create the kid. However like a lot traditions it no longer serves a unique and irreplaceable function in our society.
I cant see one valid argument as to why Federal government needs restrict the legal protections to a subset of citizens.
I'm in the camp that everyone should be afforded equal protection and therefore the gender of the two individuals in a marital contract is irrelevant to state and federal government. Governments interest should be restricted to the promotion of child rearing function that Marriage serves. That promotion being limited to the existing legal perks provided today under current marriage laws. Dude+Dude or woman + woman cant make a kid, but they are certainly capable of providing for one (plus techically with invitro\donors\adoption\ whatever there is the capabilty to create new).

I do not support anyones persistent whining about how much they love each other or gossip about stupid shows on Bravo or bullshit chatter about how so and so is so brave for coming out of the closet. Generally I think your annoying twit if you try and drag me into your little whatever you want to call it.

I do support constitutional rights.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Man + Woman screwing and making babies under a framework that encourages the man and women to stay together and form a stable environment for the next generation of baby makers is beneficial to society. Its pretty much the building block of any society. The whole point is Marriage is just that.

Do you believe if government didn't sanction heterosexual marriages, people would stop reproducing?

 

[pauldun170]

Do you believe if government didn't sanction heterosexual marriages, people would stop reproducing?

The government uses the tax law to encourage investing.
Do you believe people would no longer invest if the tax code didn't promote it?

To answer your question.
No, laws governing marriage have no impact on reproduction. The societal purpose of the laws is to contribute to producing a stable household environment (the purpose of that environment to foster child rearing). Not to directly influence reproduction rates.
There are other policies in place to manage reproduction rates within society.

 

[HumblePie]

Bleh, worst part is that one of my bosses actually likes this jack ass. I have to basically keep a thin smile upon my face every time he opens his mouth to spew the virtues on Santorum in my vicinity.

 

[werepossum]

Bleh, worst part is that one of my bosses actually likes this jack ass. I have to basically keep a thin smile upon my face every time he opens his mouth to spew the virtues on Santorum in my vicinity.

He'll win my state, and I have numerous friends who support him. Luckily none of them are my bosses because I seldom miss a chance to explain why I do not like him (as a politician) and how if he is the Republican nominee I intend to vote for Obama.

 

[pauldun170]

http://qkme.me/360e3o

 

[bfdd]

Santorum is such a piece of trash. Nullifying his fucking marriage.

 

[cybrsage]

Depends on the type of company. Sole proprietorship? Yes, you can deny healthcare benefits to the homosexual spouse. A corporation? No. (corporations put you in a small group that agrees to make a decision, not "the man" who can decide everything on his own)

If you agree to run a company that you knew was required to do what you do not accept, that is a decision you yourself make and are responsible for.

So you agree that accepting a law does not require one to like that law? That is what it appears you are saying.

I can accept that the highways in PA have speed laws set to no greater than 65MPH, but in some parts of the state where no one lives at all, it is stupid. I do not like it, though I have no choice but to accept it.

 

[cybrsage]

That doesn't make any sense. Let me remind you of the first amendment, where congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof. If, as you claim, marriage in this country is defined solely by one religion's interpretation of marriage, it's an unconstitutional law.

I did not make this claim. The claim I made is that the government created a legal framework which matched the religious one and called it by the same name. This is where the problem started, for they should have never called it the same name as the already existing religious institution. They could not have forseen the future problems it would cause, so I give then a pass on it...back then, no one would have ever dreamed anyone would ever say two homosexuals in a union would be called a marriage.

What is done is done, but we can fix it by removing government from marriage altogether without losing the legal framework of the union.

Can you come up with an argument that is not based around religion or tradition to restrict gay marriage?

No need to do so. The government forcing a change in a religious institution is already enough.

I realize that you have spoken in favor of using the term civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, so I sense you realize that ultimately gay unions should be legal across the states. But why remove the word marriage from the equation completely if that is, in fact, what the unions are for?

I understand the common person will still use the word marriage to refer to the union, and that is fine with me. I simply do not want the government to force a change in a religious institution...it is not its place to do so.

I also think the protections of marriage should be given to homosexuals, polygamists, and incestual unions (age and race limitations will still apply, no children and all members must be human). To do this, we must divorce the government from using the term marriage, since that term is obviously the sticking point - and for good reason to many.

Civil Unions will be the legal framework. If a religion allows gay marriage, then the couple can be married there and also have their legal civil union. Everyone wins.

 

[Fern]

One's acceptance (or lack of) of a law or other government action is relevant only when it affects them.

Since no one's marriage or civil union affects anyone aside from those in it, why should anyone's acceptance matter?

Wouldn't the employer have to pay for HI for the gay spouse as it does for other married couples? If so, wouldn't that be considered to "affect" the employer even though they are not a party to the (gay) marriage?

If I understand correctly, part of the objective in gay marriage is to force third party recognition in contract law (e.g., rental agreements). If so, by definition 3rd parties are affected.

I'm neither arguing for or against, but if one side is forcing it's views on the other both are. Just the different sides of the same coin.

Throughout many years as a CPA I have seen any number of companies extend benefits to gay couples, such as HI etc. Now that seems to me an example of no one forcing anything. The companies took that decision themselves. And I would object to Santorum, or any other politicians, mandating that companies cannot extend benefits if they so choose.

Fern

 

[shira]

I accept that holding a hammer above my toe and letting go of it will cause that hammer to drop onto my foot. I do not like the hammer hitting my foot.

If a friend dies in a car accident, I accept he is dead. I do not have to like it that he is dead.

I do not have to like everything I must accept.

Then according to your absurd definition of "accept" in this context, the anti-abortion crowd "accepts" abortions because abortion is legal, and therefore their acceptatance is ipso-facto forced.

Now let's think about this: How many pro-lifers would say they accept abortion?

What's even more absurd, your examples above use "accept" without an object - "I accept that . . . ." Yet you claim that this proves that the forms of "accept" that take an object ("accept same-sex marriage") mean the same thing as the form of "accept" you use above that doesn't take an object.

If you want to refer to what laws can "force" people to do, then use the word "tolerate," not "accept." "Accept" is far too overloaded with definitions that involve approval and "coming to terms with" to be limited to mean only "tolerate." So if you want to be specific, then you can say that laws can force people to TOLERATE something that they would otherwise NOT tolerate.

Oh, and by the way, please take a good course in English. Learn what words mean and learn about grammar. Until then, don't even try to make arguments based on the meanings of words. You're essentially illiterate, but your vocabulary is so limited you don't realize it.