Posted on 04/13/2015 11:56:02 AM PDT by thetallguy24
The federal government has had it’s own relationship with marriage from the very first, even with the Continental congress, there are marriage decisions regarding the military, federal employment, immigration, and today, foreign policy.
Rand Paul is running for federal office, not state office, we need to know what his positions are because he will be making decisions at the federal level.
Obama just approved gay marriage for the military for example.
Great question!!!
“The primary purpose of marriage in society is to insure that the two people who conceive a child also raise the child who bears their genetic likeness.”
No, that used to be the primary purpose, but that hasn’t been true for several decades, since we passed the easy peasy divorce laws.
I completely agree with Mr. Paul on this.
If a homosexual man wants to marry a woman, he should be able to. And if a homosexual woman wants to marry a man, I think she should have that right.
Beware anyone saying gummint should be fair.
...or not regulated by the government at all.
States do have a right to regulate marriage. I don’t think I would want my eleven year old daughter running off and getting married just yet.
I am disappointed that Rand Paul is giving in to the left's habit of redefining terms in his apparent attempt to finesse his answer. We have to start clearly framing the parameters of debate, rather than accepting the left's deceptive characterizations.
Exactly. The promiscuity rate (unfaithful to their "spouse") is something like 95% for homosexuals compared to 25% for heterosexuals.
And even among the promiscuous heterosexual population, the average number of other partners is around 1.8. It is at least 10 times that among the homosexual crowds with some reliable surveys numbering it in the dozens or even higher.
They can't be legally treated like us because they are not like us. Sexual intercourse is just something we "breeders" occasionally do, it doesn't define who we are
Lucky for him; I'll be glad to do just that. Leave him alone. I'll not vote for him, that's for sure.
Gay, gay, gay! Let’s talk about gayness. Gay this, gay that...it’s just gay, gay, gay 24-7. The most important issue of the day. Damn!
Thanks for playing Rand, you’re can step aside now.
“What about pedophiles?”
That was my first thought too.
People should be treated fairly, under the law.
But, if you don’t believe in gay marriage, then destroy the law and licensing aspect of it by marrying in the church or doing it the old fashioned way by declaring you are married.
Eventually, if heterosexuals refuse to marry under the license of the state and refuse marriage tax benefits, then the system itself will implode.
No. Not a "right".
From the standpoint of the People, States do not have rights - States have powers. And, except where otherwise controlled by the U.S. Constitution, the States only have those powers granted by the People via each State's Constitution.
If the People of your State have granted the government of your State the power to regulate marriage, then your State has that power. If they have not, then it does not.
We don't need someone like that at the helm.
Well here in CA we have state initiatives...the power to pass laws at the ballot box. I recall in 2008 we passed an initiative defining marriage as between one man and woman. What happened to that?
Fwiw, people who commit crimes against homosexuals get prosecuted, that’s more fair than can be said for a lot of people at some point or another in U.S. History.
Just more single mothers:
Without Polygamy, Somali Bantu Wives Scrape by in USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyv2JLJezAU
Not sure. You should probably ask your governor....
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.