Posted on 01/07/2015 11:16:53 PM PST by NetAddicted
For the most part, the gay marriage debate now falls along partisan lines: Democrats support it, But within the crowded field of likely 2016 presidential contenders, there’s a lot of room for nuance. The would-be candidates have made much different arguments and have varying records on the issue. Meantime, the issue continues to change. On Jan. 6, Florida became the second-largest state to recognize gay marriage, bringing the total to 36. And on Friday, the Supreme Court will meet privately to decide whether to consider cases that could lead to a more definitive ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. Here’s a look at what 16 major presidential contenders think, in order from most opposed to most supportive. Bobby Jindal What he says: “I’m not a weathervane on this issue and I’m not going to change my position. I continue to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.” (Washington Examiner) What he’s done: The governor of Louisiana backs a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman and supported a gay marriage ban as a member of Congress. Where it stands in his state: Same-sex marriage remains illegal in Louisiana, but there is a pending appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2014 ruling that upheld Louisiana’s ban. Rick Perry What he says: “Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in our Constitution, and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens.” (POLITICO)
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Sorry. Here’s a link to the article: http://time.com/3656219/2016-candidates-gay-marriage/
Constitutional Amendment needed: We need a constitutional amendment that defines “marriage” as a union between a man and a woman.
If it’s like the state constitutions that defined marriage or the defense of marriage act, it’d be ruled unconstitutional by the queens in black dresses.
ask swordmaker on Free Republic. He is the resident Apple guru
“Opposed”
“Jeb Bush”
Time Lies.
They dredge up a statement against same sex marriage from Jeb in 1994. If we look at the comments by Bill Clinton in the 1990s and Barack Obama in the 2000s, you’d think THEY still publicly oppose it too.
Has Jeb Bush shown Republicans a new way to talk about same-sex marriage? (Neighbor #2 gay in USA)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3244430/posts
Jeb Bush on gay marriage: Couples making lifetime commitments to each other deserve respect
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/3244109/posts
> “Florida became the second-largest state to ***recognize*** gay marriage”
Second article today where I see the leftist press injecting the word “recognize” to describe State reactions to being coerced by federal courts to shut up and perform ceremonies for same-sex perversions.
Is the media coordinated?
Nah..........just a conspiracy theory by those right winger nuts. Tisk tisk, media conspiracies eh? What whack jobs those Tea Baggers are. /s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA
We don’t need one—”Just Law “ (the only Constitutional kind) can’t be irrational and pretend women and males are interchangeable. It is irrational and a lie and defies Science and Truth-—and our Constitution is based on Objective Truth and Natural Law Theory and God’s Law.
Homosexual “marriage” is a destruction of Language and an oxymoron.
All Just Law has to promote public virtue—and Sodomy is a Vice and always uses human beings in a degrading, unnatural, irrational way-—as a Means to an End. Vice can’t be legally enshrined in “Just Law” as Nuremberg Trials acknowledged.
If we allow our “Justice” System to deny the Natural Rights of children to their biological parents and allow Frankensteinian ethics to replace our Christian Ethics....then we have flipped Good and Evil and have a Marxist System of Law which reduces us all into Slaves for the State—and the State can deny all our Natural Rights if they are able to deny the Natural Rights of children and set up a system which thwarts people from performing their Natural Duty (to raise and nurture all offspring). It is an unnatural system which promotes Vice which is unconstitutional on many levels.
The Leftists are trying to destroy Reason and Logic which is the basis of our legal system-—they make base urges (evil) into “natural rights” which is impossible. All Positive Law has to be inline with our Constitution-—otherwise, as Justice Marshall stated, it is “Null and Void”.
As Montesquieu and all the Founders knew—Just Law always promotes “public virtue”. Sodomizing others is a learned, habituated dehumanizing behavior and that is why the Marxists have corrupted our schools to normalize sodomy in our children, through the Hollywood sodomites 24/7 promotion of Deep Throat ethics since the 60s.in all their “art”.
Destroy Virtue in the children, and you collapse culture. This promotion of sodomy is to destroy Virtue—corrupt children and collapse culture. Without Reason and Logic and Moral character—there is no possibility of a “Justice” system.
Are you sure you're logged in?
******
How can the Supreme Court rule that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional? It doesn't make sense.
Hello? It has already been taken over by the government through the federal courts.
BTW, look that the first Republican platform. It was against polygamy. Look at the issues surrounding accepting Utah into the Union. It required they ban polygamy. The marriage issue has been a federal and a state issue for a very long time.
Yes. Usually, when I want to copy, I hold down until it highlights, then go down the page, until I’ve highlighted everything I want to copy. Today, it wouldn’t work. I figured out how to highlight a paragraph, so, I had to input a paragraph at a time. Don’t know why it wouldn’t work today.
at the state level the can.
at the fedeal level they cannot because by its very nature a validly passed amendment IS by definition, constitutional - it is part of the constitution.
They would find a way. It just happened to with a federal “circus” court to Florida’s constitution.
There is nothing in the constitution about marriage or homosexuality.
My position on gay “marriage” has a lot of nuance too:
1. Decent people will lose this battle, at least in the sense that all levels of government will be required to pretend that it has something to do with real marriage.
2. The fact that government is working against decency will not change reality. Government has been pretending for decades that guns make good people less safe (and that spreading other people’s money around makes us more prosperous), but that has not changed how real Americans feel about guns.
3. The gap between those with no life who can devote their time to controlling government to control others (the liberal goal) and decent people with real families is growing day by day and year by year. We’re reaching the point where thugs and real Americans need to find a way to separate - amicable or otherwise.
"If the Supreme Court determines there is a right to 'gay marriage', will you instruct your Attorney General to enforce that decision, or not?"
Because that's really all a President can do.
The President's opinion about the subject is basically just rhetoric.
When the culture collapses you will have total anarchy. Then it will get real interesting. Everyone will know who advocated and forced the homo agenda. Then it will be pay back time.
Federal judges stepping on the States' attempts to ban homosexual marriage is akin to what a Constitutional Amendment would do - the 10th Amendment is being stepped on and if the States would insist on doing what it says they can do, it would solve much of today's problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.