Marco Rubio: Obama has "political reasons" for gay marriage stance

Can someone take this guy's crack pipe away please?

 

yah, cause creating more upward economic growth and job creation in three years than republicans did in 8 years is a bad thing, coupled with the fact that romney's economic plan is the bush plan on steroids, and at no point in human history has that style of governence ever worked.

Marco Rubio, go back to lieing about your parents immigration status so you can pretend to play both sides of the racist right wing stance, and leave governance to people who can know their own name without having to check the sewn in tag on their underpants.

 

Well of course he has political reasons for coming out in favor of marriage equality. It's called political and moral cowardice. Also known as the democratic strategy. The numbers now support him. Ergo, he's in favor of the morally right position.

 

embellishing their heritage...well, he's just following Elizabeth Warren's lead.

And Republicans only had control for 6 years...not 8. But, those last 6 years of Republican Congressional control were terrible from a fiscal conservative point of view.

But the 3 years of complete Democratic control were even worse.

During the 3 short years the Democrats had complete control they racked up close to $5 Trillion in new debt...as I said many times before, at least it took the Republicans 6 years to rack up $6 Trillion.

This is the worst Presidential first term fiscal record in US History.

But that's beside the point...and off topic...and for be it from me to derail a thread.

Of course the President's view is political. In his defense, NO ONE that reaches that level of political accomplishment makes a decision that is not political.

For the record, as I have stated before, the President's stance is the appropriate one...meaning that it is a state issue..the Federal Government has no business meddling in this.

 

RedState, to say that same-sex marriage is a states' rights issue is to say that Loving v Virginia was wrongly decided.

 

The Federal Government had nothing do with that, to be fair. The Supreme Court ruled and caused every state bans on interracial marriage to overturn, and everyone was forced to comply. It'll probably be the same way for SSM in the next few years.

Plus, it's all about DOMA in Congress as to whether it is actually recognized marriages.

 

The federal executive branch had nothing to do with it, but it was the federal judicial branch that overturned several states' bans on interracial marriage. If the federal government, whether legislative or judicial, shouldn't overturn same-sex marriage (which was how I interpreted Obama's statement that it should be left to the states) then the same should apply to interracial marriage.

 

Not only is it a 10th Amendment issue it is also a 1st Amendment issue.

It is not the federal government's place to charge a faith to redefine one of their sacraments..period.

Truth be known, I don't believe the government should sanction opposite-sex marriage...none of their business.

If you live in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, and you have a church that also recognizes and supports it, that is wonderful..knock yourself out.

But that will be a decision made by that individual faith and church and not by any government..not as long as I have a voice anyway.

You may disagree with it...you may not like it..but that kind of authority placed in government is dangerous and I will never support such an intrusion.

 

That's equivocation. Marriage, as a legal construct, has only a superficial resemblance to marriage as a religious construct. The same word is used to refer to two very different things. The government has allowed divorced people, including divorced Catholics, to remarry for decades without it in any way harming the RCC's definition and standard of marriage. Why? Because Catholic marriage and legal marriage aren't the same thing. Divorced people can get married, and call it marriage, without the Catholic Church being harmed in the slightest. There's no reason gay people can't either.

 

No...the difference is the government hasn't FORCED the Catholic Church to recognize it by law.

The government can sanction and recognize that type of union all day long...that's fine (although I think it's none of their business as I stated, but that's beside the point). But the moment, by law, they say a Faith MUST recognize such a union..that is a different, and dangerous point...and that is what I'm getting at. I will never have a part of it.

 

This may have escaped your notice, it's only like same-sex marriage advocates have stressed it repeatedly every time people make your objection and something that's immediately obvious to anyone who take even a cursory glance at our arguments, but no one is arguing that churches should be forced to recognize same-sex unions. That is a thing that is not happening.

 

Maybe in Maryland, perhaps. The current legislation they are considering should be a model..because it provides protection for individual faiths.

>>>No one is arguing that churches should be forced to recognize same-sex unions

I thought it was marriage. But anyway.

Well good..glad to hear that.

But this notion that it should be a nation wide statue is something that I will never go along with. It is a state issue ..period. I'm following my President on this.

 

I don't understand how faith came into this conversation at all? Marriage licenses come from the state, not any particular faith. That's why when pastors/preachers/fathers marry someone, they say, "...by the power vested in me by the state of California/Ohio/Montana, I now pronounce you man/man/wife/wife." So? Church weddings are actually totally irrelevant to the legality of marriage. They're for show, and that's about it. The only thing mainstream LGBT advocates are championing are gender-neutral marriage laws.

Sums it all up nicely;

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxidhcy0[/YOUTUBE]

 

Yes, but it was decided "for want of a federal question" and is binding precedence on a technicality, and nothing more than that. Precedence is, in itself, not as strong as a lot of people would like to think it is. I mean, look at what happened to Bowers v Hardwick and Lawrence v Texas. It was a total and complete reversal of constitutional law in only 17 years.

 

Can't say that I disagree with Rubio.

Man, I really hope Romney wins in November. Obama is destroying this country.

---------- Post added 17th May 2012 at 11:31 PM ----------

Romney has a very good shot at winning the election, especially if unemployment remains as high as it is (which seems likely).

 

Well, this whole Obama gay marriage thing does prove two polar opposites completely wrong ironically.

It proves that the crazies on the far right that say he is a Muslim wrong.

It proves the crazies on the left (as evidenced by the latest edition of Newsweek) that he is not gay.

If he were both he would have stoned himself by now.

 

Only thanks to your dear friend President Bush. Something Republicans seem to fail to acknowledge. What did you expect him to actually somehow pull off a great fiscal term after the complete train wreck Georgie-boy made of the country? Yeah it's why I blame USA almost going into default on Bush NOT Obama.

But hey, you won't listen, it's in your nature. And as usual you'll tell me to mind my own business being a Canadian.

---------- Post added 18th May 2012 at 03:21 AM ----------

Well I do say, you might be right. And then I will watch in absolute glee when you watch your unemployment rate skyrocket from 8.1% to well over 10% with the election of Romney. But hey, what do I know, I'm a Canadian.