If Clinton ever presumed to support or oppose an issue based upon the sanctity of marriage, yes, I would definitely feel he was less than objective. But beyond both men's violation of the sanctity of the marriage contract, there is still a major difference in their actions after which is significant....Clinton has remained married while Newt has terminated his marriages. Maybe I am biased because of my personal experience, but I Believe marriage is a lifetime commitment and only in rare instances should the contract be broken.

I think most people would be for letting each state decide. I also think for most people it's a low level issue.

 

The voters in California voted against gay marriage in Proposition 8 adn the gays threw such a fit, that a gay judge overturned the majority vote and allowed gay mariage, even though the majority voted against it in Calif. So much for your votes count.

Bingo!

 

The judge or preist or minister says by the power vested to me by the STATE of -------- and the almighty God, I now pronounce you man and wife.

 

It's not a federal issue. It's a matter for the states.

 

Of course I feel that way about most things that the federal government has taken over that according to the constitution fall under the authority of the states.

 

Just like abortion. My issue is not with should abortion be legal or illegal. My issue is with Roe v Wade and the federal government trumping states rights. It's not their call!

 

I don't recall the state being mentioned during my wedding (either of them for that matter) but maybe the Catholic church omits that.

So you would be fine with Newt's opinion if it agreed with yours yours? Or because he has divorced, he is not allowed an opinion at all?

 

Her point is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

It does not matter to me in the slightest...

It isn't even on my radar as I don't see why the government should even be involved in marriage be it between 2, 4 or 10 people as long as they are consenting adults.

I rank it as a Sin and goes against God's plan for humans. In fact the word marriage and same sex doen't fit, its like calling a soft drink a hm sandwich. Just doesn't fit in Webster book. Or Gods.

 

I have some verses I'll share if anyone wants to see them. The Bible is our guide and I can show you verses about Mitt's taxes and religion too. Also Newt's divorces can be found in the Bible.

 

We cannot pick and choose verses we like or fits what we want ot don't want.

God doesn't run our government...

Nice try at changing the topic and attempting to cut off debate. Let me know when you're ready to get back on track.

:lol:

 

I'll take this as a "I know"...

 

Btw, this is very much on topic. My belief is that in today's Republican Party you have to pander to the evangelicals and born-agains to win the nomination. This goes very much against their majority belief and could hurt Christie if he decides to seek the nomination in the future.

 

 

 

(If that isn't on topic, please enlighten me)

It isn't even on my radar as I don't see why the government should even be involved in marriage be it between 2, 4 or 10 people as long as they are consenting adults.

I agree with this, but if the government is going to give benefits to and recognize marriages between heterosexual couples then those same benefits should be applicable to homosexual couples.

My only question to those that say it should be put on the ballot is if the libs lose will they accept the loss or like in California will they then challenge the will of the electorate in court?

 

FWIW I could care less. I would vote against it but it really doesn't bother me one way or another. However I will be the first one here saying I told you so when polygamists want legal standing.

My only question to those that say it should be put on the ballot is if the libs lose will they accept the loss or like in California will they then challenge the will of the electorate in court?

 

FWIW I could care less. I would vote against it but it really doesn't bother me one way or another. However I will be the first one here saying I told you so when polygamists want legal standing.

 

And I think you'll find a lot of people who think it should be allowed feel the same way on polygamy...As Peprock said, if it's consenting adults, who cares?

Btw, this is very much on topic. My belief is that in today's Republican Party you have to pander to the evangelicals and born-agains to win the nomination. This goes very much against their majority belief and could hurt Christie if he decides to seek the nomination in the future.

 

I think it's more about the abortion issue. I think if a candidate is opposed to abortion (and not just "personally" opposed to it), he or she can realistically get the nomination. I think if Christie runs, he'll get ample support, so long as he doesn't do a crapper of a job in New Jersey.

 

What's going to be tough for him in 2016 is the field will be the exact opposite of what it is now, because I believe we'll see Jeb Bush throw his hat into the ring, along with Marco Rubio. 2012 was Christie's best chance IMO.

 

I agree with this, but if the government is going to give benefits to and recognize marriages between heterosexual couples then those same benefits should be applicable to homosexual couples.

 

Isn't this basically a civil union? I'm a bit unlearned on this, but I was thinking that some are in favor of civil unions, which would provide said benefits without permitting a full-blown marriage. I might be wrong though.

Basically the DOMA violates the equal protection of homosexuals by denying them of a fundamental right. However, since homosexuals are not a protected group, the court only needs to find that the defense of marriage act is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Yet, at the same time states can violate the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution that requires states to recognize legal standing and decisions handed down in other states. The DOMA says not to worry about marriages in other states, you don't have to recognize those. At the same time, the irresponsible mother w/ 6 kids from 5 different guys has to have access to your welfare benefits as soon as she establishes residency.

 

This doesn't phase me one way or the other, in my personal life. I just hate the hypocrisy of it all. It won't sway me in my vote. I don't plan on voting unless Ron Paul wins the nomintion. I'm done voting for the lesser of two evils.

Basically the DOMA violates the equal protection of homosexuals by denying them of a fundamental right. However, since homosexuals are not a protected group, the court only needs to find that the defense of marriage act is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Yet, at the same time states can violate the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution that requires states to recognize legal standing and decisions handed down in other states. The DOMA says not to worry about marriages in other states, you don't have to recognize those. At the same time, the irresponsible mother w/ 6 kids from 5 different guys has to have access to your welfare benefits as soon as she establishes residency.

 

This doesn't phase me one way or the other, in my personal life. I just hate the hypocrisy of it all. It won't sway me in my vote. I don't plan on voting unless Ron Paul wins the nomintion. I'm done voting for the lesser of two evils.

This is off-subject, but what about Gary Johnson?

Let me add this. Politicians, as a whole, are soooo far out of touch with average Americans. Until they cap what you can spend on a campaign, it will always be this way.