(04-15-2015 01:30 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  I personally think that people who vote based on social issues more heavily than fiscal issues are idiots, and are missing the bigger picture.

I would give anything to have a strong fiscal conservative with moderate social policies. Banning abortion is stupid. Banning late-trimester abortion is smart. Outlawing gay marriage is stupid. Forcing religious folks to actively participate in said gay marriage is also stupid.

We wouldn't be so damn pissed off at each other if the economy were booming.

Problem is, this is exactly why these relatively silly "issues" are driven to the fore. They have emptied the chamber on fools errands like stimulus, cash for clunkers, the "green" energy flop and pumping trillions of fake dollars into the economy and we still have next to nothing to show for it.

Sooooo? Quick look over there! That pizza shop won't CATER a gay wedding!!! Whup whup whup torches and pitchfork time! Rabble, rabble rabble...

Fundamentally transforming America...

(04-15-2015 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Here is my thing on it.

I'm one of the few who actually believes in the sanctity of marriage because I've been married to the same woman for 22 years by church.

In my opinion, only a church marriage is holy. Not a government marriage.

So go ahead and marry whomever you want by the government for legal reasons or whatever reason you want.

It isn't the same thing.

I generally agree with this AND with Rand's position.

The only problem is that the government has 'hijacked' a word that really only means something in religion... Marriage... so if we call it a civil union, SOME gays claim it's not the same... even if we call ALL 'governmental recognition of that which we heretofore referred to as a marriage' a civil union. I think that's a minority opinion, but it's vocal. I think MOST of them want the 'default contracts' and don't care what it is called.

They aren't major religions but I'm sure there are religions that don't recognize the marriages of other religions for a variety of reasons... like the catholic church (as I understand it) didn't used to recognize second marriages etc.... so even within religion, there can be different definitions of marriage.

So yeah... If you choose to name some person your 'life partner' (of any gender) for governmental/legal purposes.. whether or not you get 'married' in a church... then you have entered into a civil union. If you want to be 'married', then find a church that will marry you... and if you can't, then start your own church for the day and call yourself married anyway if you want.

I realize that isn't what the right wants... but it IS what the government should do.

Frankly, it irritates the hell out of me that so many leftists want to beat moderate Republicans and Libertarians up for trying to walk 'the right' to this position. It's as if they insist that people be hammered over the head for their beliefs or they won't accept the outcome. Given that by definition, 'they' hold minority beliefs themselves, this just astounds me.

I don't care what the government calls it. People can call it whatever they want. You want to call yours a union? Great. You want to call it a marriage? Great. Someone else doesn't want to use the same term that you use? Who cares? It's still your choice what you refer to your own relationship as.

I don't see why it's anyone else's business what you call it, so long as the government call them all and treats them all the same.

(04-15-2015 11:30 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  Here is my thing on it.

Marriage has been around forever, and for the most part started as a religious event ceremony, that wasn't governed by an actual government. A man and woman were pronounced married by a minister, and bam, that was it. No laws created by the government oversaw it. Then government steps in, and says what does and doesn't constitute marriage.

As a Christian, the US government can't tell me if I am or am not married. That is between me, my minister, my wife, and god. Sure, there are legal perks that come with being married, but in the religious sense, they have nothing to do with it.

So what is the big deal about giving those same government issued benefits to a gay couple. Call it something other than marriage in the government terms, and let the gay couple decide to call it whatever the hell they want to call it. There are plenty of churches and pastors out there that will conduct a ceremony for a gay couple. Problem solved.

You're being a rational person without prejudice, and your view is consistent with the court cases on the matter. I specifically agree with your statement of concern over the government thinking it can tell you who you are allowed to marry, which is something I don't think many christian conservatives think about. If it's truly a special religious act, then you should want the government to stay the hell out of it.

Marriage should never have been codified in the manner it was, with the religious underpinnings it had. It should have always been a civil partnership, legally speaking.

(04-15-2015 02:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 11:30 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  Here is my thing on it.
Marriage has been around forever, and for the most part started as a religious event ceremony, that wasn't governed by an actual government. A man and woman were pronounced married by a minister, and bam, that was it. No laws created by the government oversaw it. Then government steps in, and says what does and doesn't constitute marriage.
As a Christian, the US government can't tell me if I am or am not married. That is between me, my minister, my wife, and god. Sure, there are legal perks that come with being married, but in the religious sense, they have nothing to do with it.
So what is the big deal about giving those same government issued benefits to a gay couple. Call it something other than marriage in the government terms, and let the gay couple decide to call it whatever the hell they want to call it. There are plenty of churches and pastors out there that will conduct a ceremony for a gay couple. Problem solved.

You're being a rational person without prejudice, and your view is consistent with the court cases on the matter. I specifically agree with your statement of concern over the government thinking it can tell you who you are allowed to marry, which is something I don't think many christian conservatives think about. If it's truly a special religious act, then you should want the government to stay the hell out of it.
Marriage should never have been codified in the manner it was, with the religious underpinnings it had. It should have always been a civil partnership, legally speaking.

Common sense says that this is the obvious solution. So obvious that the greatest minds in government can't figure it out. I saw a meme on Facebook today, "I'm trying to figure out whether our government is really smart people who are putting us on, or imbeciles who mean it."

(04-15-2015 01:37 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:30 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  I personally think that people who vote based on social issues more heavily than fiscal issues are idiots, and are missing the bigger picture.

I would give anything to have a strong fiscal conservative with moderate social policies. Banning abortion is stupid. Banning late-trimester abortion is smart. Outlawing gay marriage is stupid. Forcing religious folks to actively participate in said gay marriage is also stupid.

We wouldn't be so damn pissed off at each other if the economy were booming.

Problem is, this is exactly why these relatively silly "issues" are driven to the fore. They have emptied the chamber on fools errands like stimulus, cash for clunkers, the "green" energy flop and pumping trillions of fake dollars into the economy and we still have next to nothing to show for it.

Sooooo? Quick look over there! That pizza shop won't CATER a gay wedding!!! Whup whup whup torches and pitchfork time! Rabble, rabble rabble...

Fundamentally transforming America...

Meanwhile, in Tennessee....http://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-house-approves-bill-bible-official-state-book-190243532.html

(04-15-2015 05:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:37 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:30 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  I personally think that people who vote based on social issues more heavily than fiscal issues are idiots, and are missing the bigger picture.

I would give anything to have a strong fiscal conservative with moderate social policies. Banning abortion is stupid. Banning late-trimester abortion is smart. Outlawing gay marriage is stupid. Forcing religious folks to actively participate in said gay marriage is also stupid.

We wouldn't be so damn pissed off at each other if the economy were booming.

Problem is, this is exactly why these relatively silly "issues" are driven to the fore. They have emptied the chamber on fools errands like stimulus, cash for clunkers, the "green" energy flop and pumping trillions of fake dollars into the economy and we still have next to nothing to show for it.

Sooooo? Quick look over there! That pizza shop won't CATER a gay wedding!!! Whup whup whup torches and pitchfork time! Rabble, rabble rabble...

Fundamentally transforming America...

Meanwhile, in Tennessee....http://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-house-approves-bill-bible-official-state-book-190243532.html

Amazingly idiotic. Why in the **** would any state need to vote for a "state book". From the article:

Quote:Representative Bud Hulsey, a Republican, told colleagues in support of the bill it is worth the fight "now more than ever."

Want to know why the GOP is going down the **** chute over the long term? It's because they continue to tether themselves to the religious right. Maybe Tennessee can vote to spend tax payer dollars to encourage kids to go to the museum too...like this one: http://creationmuseum.org/

(04-15-2015 05:56 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 05:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:37 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:30 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  I personally think that people who vote based on social issues more heavily than fiscal issues are idiots, and are missing the bigger picture.

I would give anything to have a strong fiscal conservative with moderate social policies. Banning abortion is stupid. Banning late-trimester abortion is smart. Outlawing gay marriage is stupid. Forcing religious folks to actively participate in said gay marriage is also stupid.

We wouldn't be so damn pissed off at each other if the economy were booming.

Problem is, this is exactly why these relatively silly "issues" are driven to the fore. They have emptied the chamber on fools errands like stimulus, cash for clunkers, the "green" energy flop and pumping trillions of fake dollars into the economy and we still have next to nothing to show for it.

Sooooo? Quick look over there! That pizza shop won't CATER a gay wedding!!! Whup whup whup torches and pitchfork time! Rabble, rabble rabble...

Fundamentally transforming America...

Meanwhile, in Tennessee....http://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-house-approves-bill-bible-official-state-book-190243532.html

Amazingly idiotic. Why in the **** would any state need to vote for a "state book". From the article:

Quote:Representative Bud Hulsey, a Republican, told colleagues in support of the bill it is worth the fight "now more than ever."

Want to know why the GOP is going down the **** chute over the long term? It's because they continue to tether themselves to the religious right. Maybe Tennessee can vote to spend tax payer dollars to encourage kids to go to the museum too...like this one: http://creationmuseum.org/

There's going to be a fight among Americans United, the ACLU, and any number of liberal groups in the race to see who can sue over this and win the inevitable lawsuit and the legal fees that will happen from this.

(04-15-2015 05:56 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 05:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:37 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:30 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  I personally think that people who vote based on social issues more heavily than fiscal issues are idiots, and are missing the bigger picture.

I would give anything to have a strong fiscal conservative with moderate social policies. Banning abortion is stupid. Banning late-trimester abortion is smart. Outlawing gay marriage is stupid. Forcing religious folks to actively participate in said gay marriage is also stupid.

We wouldn't be so damn pissed off at each other if the economy were booming.

Problem is, this is exactly why these relatively silly "issues" are driven to the fore. They have emptied the chamber on fools errands like stimulus, cash for clunkers, the "green" energy flop and pumping trillions of fake dollars into the economy and we still have next to nothing to show for it.

Sooooo? Quick look over there! That pizza shop won't CATER a gay wedding!!! Whup whup whup torches and pitchfork time! Rabble, rabble rabble...

Fundamentally transforming America...

Meanwhile, in Tennessee....http://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-house-approves-bill-bible-official-state-book-190243532.html

Amazingly idiotic. Why in the **** would any state need to vote for a "state book". From the article:

Quote:Representative Bud Hulsey, a Republican, told colleagues in support of the bill it is worth the fight "now more than ever."

Want to know why the GOP is going down the **** chute over the long term? It's because they continue to tether themselves to the religious right. Maybe Tennessee can vote to spend tax payer dollars to encourage kids to go to the museum too...like this one: http://creationmuseum.org/

I don't necessarily agree with your disdain for the "religious right", most of them are good average people, you do know there is a religious left, correct(?). But I do shake my head, fist and probably part of my asss at these most obviously stupid, begging for negative headlines, needlessly provocative stunts that serve no real purpose whatsoever. It's mind numbing how dumb, politically, some of these people can be.

I don't get it, it's counterproductive to everyone involved on their "side", yet some of these good folks keep making the same grandstanding dumb*** mistakes year after year. Like 10, 15 years or more. Someone needs to figure out a way to yank that choke chain to get them to shut up before they blather out more needless idiocy.

(04-15-2015 01:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 11:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I totally agree with Rand on this issue. I see no reason why 2 adults can not contract with each other and share each others assets, and benefits under the law. My guess is though...it still would not satisfy the LGBT community. Nothing short of forcing churches to marry them will satisfy these terrorists.

So long as 'marriage' does not convey any rights to anyone, I have no problem with everyone having civil unions (and everyone having to go down to the courthouse to fill out paperwork).

But there would be literally tens of thousands of bills that would have to be offered in order to sort this out.

But the GOP isn't really serious about this...because they fought civil unions when they were possible. Now that they're going to lose...only now do they want civil unions.

---

If a church that is not subsidized or benefited by state policy wants to discriminate fine. No problem there.

I don't understand what the big deal is. Make both types of "marriage" equal under the law and be done with it. If equality is REALLY what the LGBT community is seeking?...They should seize the moment and push for civil unions. I have a feeling it goes beyond that. There is an underlying agenda beyond equality IMO.

(04-15-2015 01:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If a church that is not subsidized or benefited by state policy wants to discriminate fine. No problem there.

Now the true agenda reveals itself. You want your tax exemption? Marry gays.

The problem is that this clearly violates "separation of church and state," as the left calls the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment. Separation of church and state must implicitly recognize that religious organizations do discriminate between those who hold their beliefs and those who don't. And it must necessarily permit such discrimination as long as it serves a legitimate religious purpose.

The main issue with Paul and now Rubio is they are way too easily taken off message and way to willing to get into the weeds on this crap.

Gay marriage brings about a lot of feels.

The sheepish voters in this country normally base their votes off one or two social issues like this one and care not about anything else.

Democrats realize this. Republicans don't.

(04-16-2015 08:10 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The main issue with Paul and now Rubio is they are way too easily taken off message and way to willing to get into the weeds on this crap.

Excellent observation.

Rand Paul got baited into a tirade on his very first interview. The guy is a hot head. Look for him to lose his cool come debate season.

(04-16-2015 09:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 08:10 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The main issue with Paul and now Rubio is they are way too easily taken off message and way to willing to get into the weeds on this crap.

Excellent observation.

Rand Paul got baited into a tirade on his very first interview. The guy is a hot head. Look for him to lose his cool come debate season.

Damn I hope so.

Yeah... I'm not sure that a person who won't really answer your questions and sticks to 'what he wants to tell you' is really the best for the country.

Do you want a salesman to answer your questions, or do you want them to stay on message?

Their employers want them to stay on message. As consumers, we want them to answer our questions.

I understand why 'staying on message' wins... I just don't think it says good things about our electorate. It essentially says that the comment about PT Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.

I'd actually be embarrassed if I supported a candidate BECAUSE they stayed on message. If you agree with their message, fine... but even supporters would like to have their 'off message' questions answered.

(04-16-2015 12:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yeah... I'm not sure that a person who won't really answer your questions and sticks to 'what he wants to tell you' is really the best for the country.

Do you want a salesman to answer your questions, or do you want them to stay on message?

Their employers want them to stay on message. As consumers, we want them to answer our questions.

I understand why 'staying on message' wins... I just don't think it says good things about our electorate. It essentially says that the comment about PT Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.

I'd actually be embarrassed if I supported a candidate BECAUSE they stayed on message. If you agree with their message, fine... but even supporters would like to have their 'off message' questions answered.

They HAVE to stay on message or the media will continue to make these elections about social issues. People complain that the GOP won't drop them and then complain if they don't get into the weeds and play ball with the media. Can't have it both ways. The candidates should answer questions, but they should not be getting into the weeds with the media on gay semantics and absurd hypotheticals (would you attend your straight son's wedding if it were a gay marriage?).

(04-16-2015 01:02 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  They HAVE to stay on message or the media will continue to make these elections about social issues. People complain that the GOP won't drop them and then complain if they don't get into the weeds and play ball with the media. Can't have it both ways. The candidates should answer questions, but they should not be getting into the weeds with the media on gay semantics and absurd hypotheticals (would you attend your straight son's wedding if it were a gay marriage?).

There is no way to avoid getting into the weeds with the media... Wherever you draw the line on the question, they will insist that your unwillingness to respond represents something else.

I think you can answer the questions once, and then defer to the previous answer from then on. I think a good politician (what few there are) would know the difference between a hypothetical worthy of an actual answer and one not. Unfortunately, good politicians don't make it very far while people good at staying on message do.

I wouldn't hire someone who deflected from every legitimate question and repeated some platitude over and over. I'd respect them a lot if they took an illegitimate question and told me why it was illegitimate and then perhaps answered the legitimate portion of it...

i.e. in your hypo... my personal answer would be to take the question away. Replace that hypothetical with two extremes... his Presidential inauguration or his prison sentencing. Like most fathers, my love and support for my son doesn't rest on my approval or disapproval of his choices. I love him unconditionally. I'd be anywhere he asked me to be. It would have nothing to do with my approval or not of the event. If you're asking my position on gay marriage as a public policy, I've already answered that question.

(04-16-2015 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If a church that is not subsidized or benefited by state policy wants to discriminate fine. No problem there.

Now the true agenda reveals itself. You want your tax exemption? Marry gays.

The problem is that this clearly violates "separation of church and state," as the left calls the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment. Separation of church and state must implicitly recognize that religious organizations do discriminate between those who hold their beliefs and those who don't. And it must necessarily permit such discrimination as long as it serves a legitimate religious purpose.

I don't that at all see how that violates church and state. I understand you might be against it, but levying the same taxes against a church that you would for any other property holder isn't religious discrimination. If anything, allowing the government to somewhat arbitrarily decide what gets special tax treatment due to 'being a religion' is religious discrimination. At that point you're deciding the credibility of a 'religion'.

(04-16-2015 06:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If a church that is not subsidized or benefited by state policy wants to discriminate fine. No problem there.

Now the true agenda reveals itself. You want your tax exemption? Marry gays.

The problem is that this clearly violates "separation of church and state," as the left calls the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment. Separation of church and state must implicitly recognize that religious organizations do discriminate between those who hold their beliefs and those who don't. And it must necessarily permit such discrimination as long as it serves a legitimate religious purpose.

I don't that at all see how that violates church and state. I understand you might be against it, but levying the same taxes against a church that you would for any other property holder isn't religious discrimination. If anything, allowing the government to somewhat arbitrarily decide what gets special tax treatment due to 'being a religion' is religious discrimination. At that point you're deciding the credibility of a 'religion'.

You are correct. There is nothing in the constitution saying you can't tax churches. It is written in the tax code via congress and can be changed via congress. Good luck with that. What you can't do is treat churches differently based on a litmus test on their beliefs. You either tax all of them or none of them.

(04-16-2015 06:33 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 01:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If a church that is not subsidized or benefited by state policy wants to discriminate fine. No problem there.

Now the true agenda reveals itself. You want your tax exemption? Marry gays.

The problem is that this clearly violates "separation of church and state," as the left calls the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment. Separation of church and state must implicitly recognize that religious organizations do discriminate between those who hold their beliefs and those who don't. And it must necessarily permit such discrimination as long as it serves a legitimate religious purpose.

I don't that at all see how that violates church and state. I understand you might be against it, but levying the same taxes against a church that you would for any other property holder isn't religious discrimination. If anything, allowing the government to somewhat arbitrarily decide what gets special tax treatment due to 'being a religion' is religious discrimination. At that point you're deciding the credibility of a 'religion'.

You are correct. There is nothing in the constitution saying you can't tax churches. It is written in the tax code via congress and can be changed via congress. Good luck with that. What you can't do is treat churches differently based on a litmus test on their beliefs. You either tax all of them or none of them.

Which, ostensibly, they already do now.