Republicans From the West Give Support for Gay Marriage

Discussion in 'MKJ Off-Topic' started by egrimwad, Mar 3, 2014.

  1. Republicans From the West Give Support for Gay Marriage
    egrimwad

    egrimwad Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mar 3, 2014
    #1
    Evoking Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, a group of Western-state Republicans plans to enter the battle in favor of same-sex marriage on Tuesday, urging a federal appeals court to declare gay marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma unconstitutional.

    The most prominent of the approximately 20 signers of the brief are former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a longtime supporter of gay rights, and former Senator Nancy L. Kassebaum of Kansas, who said last year that she had reconsidered her former opposition to same-sex marriage. The document says that “marriage is strengthened” and “the social stability of the family unit are promoted” by allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.


    The document is a friend-of-the-court brief, being filed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver. That court is hearing appeals from Utah and Oklahoma to reinstate their restrictive marriage laws.


    The brief was the latest sign of widening cracks in Republican opposition to same-sex marriage, even deep in the country’s conservative heartland.


    Last month, a New York Times/CBS News poll found a rapid shift in Republican attitudes nationwide. Forty percent of Republicans said same-sex marriage should be legal, up from 33 percent last May and only 24 percent in September 2012.


    Sean Gallagher, a lawyer and Republican Party activist in Denver who helped prepare the brief, said many Republicans were rethinking their positions. “The themes of liberty and freedom resonate especially well in the West,” said Mr. Gallagher, who was chief counsel in Colorado for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2012.


    Early last year, dozens of Republicans, including four former governors and former White House officials, joined in a similar legal brief to the Supreme Court, arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry. Neither Mr. Simpson nor Ms. Kassebaum signed that document.


    In December, a federal court in Utah overturned the state’s amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman. In January, a federal court in Oklahoma struck down that state’s ban on gay marriage.


    Utah and Oklahoma appealed, and the cases are on a fast track in Denver, with hearings scheduled in April.


    If the appeals court upholds the current rulings, same-sex marriage could become legal throughout the judicial circuit — in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming — barring a counterdecision by the United States Supreme Court.


    In other signs of change in the mountain West, in December the New Mexican Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry. Gov. Susana Martinez, a Republican, accepted the decision as “the law of the land.”


    In Nevada, the state prevailed in court in 2012 in its defense of marriage restrictions. The gay and lesbian plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, and last month Nevada’s Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, agreed to withdraw from the case, saying that defense of a same-sex marriage ban was not legally tenable.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/us/republicans-from-west-give-support-for-gay-marriage.html?hp

     
       
  2. SCBIGTIME

    SCBIGTIME Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    11,511
    Likes Received:
    32,268
    Mar 3, 2014
    #1
    I'm sensing an Oscar entry in the best documentary category.
     
  3. GLYCERINE

    GLYCERINE Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,644
    Likes Received:
    1,825
    Mar 3, 2014
    #1
    Cool.

    It is such a stupid issue. I don't get why Republicans just don't concede. They would get a lot of independents to consider voting for them again. Plus it is harmless.
     
  4. TheRealAirbns

    TheRealAirbns Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    13,887
    Likes Received:
    47,055
    Mar 3, 2014
    #1
    We've talked about this many times, so it's really baffling that you're still making silly and dismissive statements like this. Do you really need to be spoon-fed this stuff every time it comes up?

    Gay marriage is a less than ideal solution to the problem of equal treatment by government institutions. There have been other proposals - specifically, getting the government out of marriage altogether, or switching to civil unions for all - that do a far better job of solving the problem without introducing the new ones regarding religious freedom that gay marriage creates.
     
  5. CCTrojans

    CCTrojans Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    186
    Mar 4, 2014
    #1
    Politicians care only about re-election, they care nothing about what is right or wrong.

    Sandoval allowed our Dem AG in Nevada to withdraw her support for Nevada's constitutional amendment because he is guaranteed to be re-elected and so there is no reason to stay the course.

    As soon as separation of church and state became synonymous with separation of morality from government, this result was inevitable.
     
  6. fssca51

    fssca51 Junior Member

    WeAreSc Member
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,319
    Likes Received:
    3,693
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    Pols can call it gay marriage........ Doesn't matter what they call it here on Earth. Marriage was defined for us a long time ago by our Creator when he created men and women and gave them the ability to procreate. Pols can't change that.
     
  7. egrimwad

    egrimwad Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    This sounds like the judge who sentenced the Lovings to prison for an interracial relationship:

    "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
     
  8. egrimwad

    egrimwad Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    The distinction wasn't blown away until 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. Like the Virginia judge in the Loving case, many people disapproved of interracial marriage on religious grounds.

    More than 90% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage in 1960. More than 80% disapproved of interracial marriage in 1967, the year the Court declared it unconstitutional. And it was not until 1996 that a majority of Americans finally began to support interracial marriage. Today, 87% support it.

    The morality of marriage has evolved over time, particularly over the last 20 years:

    [​IMG]
     
  9. denali

    denali Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    1
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    Back to the OP...you realize that Alan Simpson (the father of Reagan's amnesty for illegals) and Kassebaum are on the more liberal wing of the Rep. party, for what it's worth. Neither of them really speak for most Reps. It does show, however, that there is far more diversity of opinion among Republican lawmakers than among Dems, who tend to fall in lock-step.
     
  10. egrimwad

    egrimwad Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    Your distinction between "disapproval" and "legalization" belies a more essential point:

    Why would you actively prevent a group of people (gays and lesbians or interracial couples) from enjoying the right to marriage? Why can't you simply disapprove of their "chosen" lifestyle without making it illegal?

    Social acceptance of interracial relationships was not possible until conservative Republicans began to come around to the idea (or died off). Even today, while over 90% of moderates and liberals approve of interracial marriages, nearly 1/4 conservatives or Republicans continue to oppose interracial marriages.

    Do you approve or disapprove of marriage between blacks and whites? % approve
    [​IMG]
     
  11. 901 Club

    901 Club Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    13,723
    Likes Received:
    25,464
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    If the morality of anything has evolved, I think we're in trouble. For instance, is it a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or is that just a reflection of the morality of the times, and in fact all men are not created equal?

    Public opinion may have changed. But morality?

    As to the Bible, it does not use the word race in reference to people. Thus, there can be no teaching on interracial marriage.

    Actually, the teaching – as I understand it – is that all humans are called of “one blood” (Acts 17:26). We are all related as descendants of the first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). As Jesus Christ also became a descendant of Adam, being called the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), this is why the Gospel can be preached to all tribes and nations. Any descendant of Adam can be saved, because our mutual relative by blood (Jesus Christ) died and rose again.

    There is a teaching about being “unequally yoked.” Paul states in 2 Corinthians 6:14, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” Thus, a Christian should marry only a Christian. Race doesn’t matter.
     
  12. egrimwad

    egrimwad Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    The person who wrote these words also owned slaves. Not only did he own slaves, but DNA evidence has shown that he had sex with his human property. It would be hard to argue that having sex with one's human property could be deemed consensual.

    Yes, the morality of the time permitted owning (and having sex with) your human property. This is no longer the case.

    The Bible can be interpreted in numerous different ways to conform to the reader's own moral vision.

    Was slavery permitted in the Bible? Yes, in both the new and old testament.

    The Bible also endorses the killing of witches.

    St. Paul, who condemned homosexuality, also prohibitted women from speaking in church.

    Has morality evolved over time? I don't think there's any doubt if you're paying attention to history.
     
  13. TheRealAirbns

    TheRealAirbns Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    13,887
    Likes Received:
    47,055
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    Seriously? Where have you been?

    The problem, in California at least, is that as soon as the state put itself in the gay marriage business, it opened the door to political activists insisting that anyone who conducts marriages must conduct them for everyone eligible, in the interest of equality. Sound familiar?

    This wasn't an issue of rights, since California already had constitutional provisions ensuring that gays had equal rights. Nor was it an issue of equality, since there were other ways of dealing with the State's taking on the creation of an equal footing for both gays and non-gays that would have been acceptable to straights, too. This was, instead, the gay lobby in California purposefully getting in the face of religious people.

    Most religions practiced widely in the western world - Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and a handful of others, consider homosexuality a sin. By asking religious people to sanction gay marriage, and all that goes with the term from a religious perspective, you're asking them to sanction sin. Worse, though, marriage in the Catholic Church is one of the seven sacraments - it's one of the pathways to heaven. By having the state in the marriage business, you open the door to forcing priests (and religious leaders from other sects) to conduct gay marriages, engaging in a practice that is against their religion. The alternative is to force them to shut down the church practice altogether, closing down one of the sacraments, and also violating their right to practice their religion.

    By specifically choosing gay "marriage," instead of simple civil unions for all sexual orientations (or the state getting out of the marriage/union business altogether), the state is unnecessarily engaged in the beginning of a direct attack against people's rights to practice their religions. And that's why religious people have an issue with gay marriage. The gay lobby was certainly aware of this.

    So in my own case, I oppose gay marriage in California because it opens the door to a huge confrontation - it grants rights to one group by attacking those belonging to another group. It's a solution that simply creates more problems, and does so unnecessarily. If we still want to grant unions a special legal status in order to incentivize their creation, it would be preferable if the state only be in the civil union game. Leave marriage to the religions. Problem solved.
     
  14. egrimwad

    egrimwad Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    This is a total red herring. If gay marriage is permitted, the Freedom of Religion Clause prevents the state from requiring that religious institutions perform marriages of any kind.

    The Mormon Church, for example, was not required to perform interracial marriages or to allow blacks to become ordained into the lay priesthood.

    The Catholic Church is still not required to allow women into the priesthood, despite Title VII's prohibition on gender discrimination in employment.

    Ending the state's recognition of all marriages will NEVER happen, so that is a poor excuse for perpetuating the inequality of gays and lesbians.
     
  15. fssca51

    fssca51 Junior Member

    WeAreSc Member
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,319
    Likes Received:
    3,693
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    eGrimwad has deftly hijacked this thread with his rant on interracial marriage. This is a common tactic of the Libs and Progressives.
    When they don't have a valid argument they change the subject. I'm wondering what he would say about the morality of a man who wants to marry his dog.
     
  16. egrimwad

    egrimwad Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    I started the thread, so you can hardly say it was hijacked. And I am a moderate and registered independent.

    The parallels of interracial marriage are very obvious with gay marriage. We're taking about a discrete and insular minority of gay people, who have faced a long history of discrimination (including criminalization until 2003).

    A man marrying his dog is an insulting analogy for gay couples, but it is one I will entertain here. Dogs cannot give their consent and dogs are not persons entitled to the rights and privileges accorded to citizens under the Constitution. Therefore, I would advise you to consider not proposing to your dog.
     
  17. ca4usc

    ca4usc Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    670
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    Homosexuality and bestiality are both perversions and crimes against nature. what is insulting, and rather silly, is a comparison of race and homosexuality.
    Some of us won't be conditioned or shamed into changing our beliefs. if all of your freinds were jumping off a bridge........?
     
  18. fssca51

    fssca51 Junior Member

    WeAreSc Member
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,319
    Likes Received:
    3,693
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    eGrimwad wrote; "The parallels of interracial marriage are very obvious with gay marriage".

    Its a mistake to attempt to draw parallels between things that are fundamentally different. You should have learned by this time that there are differences between men and woman and it's those very differences that make the essence of a marriage. Our Creator planned it that way and there's nothing we mere creatures can do to change it. A marriage is still a marriage and a civil union is still a civil union no matter what you or anyone else calls it. .
     
  19. uscvball

    uscvball Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    11,135
    Likes Received:
    18,269
    Mar 5, 2014
    #1
    Comparing sexual behavior among/between species is silly. What we understand as human homosexuality is different than what is observed in the animal kingdom. For starters, what is described in the animal kingdom is done so through a human filter. Despite the over a thousand species described as having engaged in "homosexual" behavior, it is rare that the behavior continues beyond the random encounter. Animals display varying behavior without the inclusion of an emotional or "intimate" aspect which is unique to humans. That in itself, makes the comparisons silly. As for animal/human bestiality issues....there are some species of ape that have attempted sexual behavior with humans so.....
     
  20. denali

    denali Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    1
    Mar 6, 2014
    #1
    Getting back to the OP...opposing gay marriage is a winner for Reps, obviously. Gay Marriage loses most of the time when it's on the ballot and, while I agree that opinions are changing, when you're a politician you won't waste time thinking about those that would never vote for you. If you take an electorate, there are probably 35-40% who just look for the letter next to the name. Why bother with someone who would never vote for a Rep? But you are guaranteed to lose by losing your base. So for now, in 2014, a Rep is better politically opposing this. Not perhaps in 2020 but certainly today.

    We know that by the Reps you chose to cite. You don't win elections taking advice from Alan Simpson. I'm guessing Dems wouldn't win elections listening to whomever the Dem equivalent is, i.e. a washed up Dem pol who is to the right of the party.
     

Share This Page