Actually, it is a Constitutional issue. You can’t have one state recognizing homosexual marriage where others can’t, especially since you have the likelihood of a couple “marrying” in a pro- state and then moving to an anti- state and having it end up in the courts (thereby giving activist judges an excuse to force it on an anti- state). This should be a Constitutional Amendment and put a screeching halt to this absurd notion.
But I’ll NEVER understand how you can say killing living human beings who can’t defend themselves is okay. It just doesn’t compute.
My belief is that this issue is a financial issue and when the tax code is reflective of the individual rather than the structure of the family or their habits - deductions - this issue will go away. Deductions for adults, deductions for children, tax owed. Eliminate all the boxes that determine marital status or head of household status. As for benefits for family members carried on employer policies, this should be defined by the employer. Legal issues, such as medical decisions and rights to property should be handled as “life directives” through wills, living wills, estate planning, written agreements in the event of seperation, (the lawyers would love this), all of these ways to put the power and responsibility back into the hands of the individual. The subject needs to be changed back to the economy and the impact of excess and punitive taxation.
i guess you miss the part where newt also says he wants a constitutional amendment..so is he still right on states rights?
bump.
Let me make a respectful dissent here. Of course Newt is against gay marriage and yes, he believes that it is constitutionally proper to have the people and state legislators rather than rogue justices and state court judges impose their own values. So far no disagreement.
But at the core of this debate lies the fact that our rights are derived from Nature’s God-our Creator. The Framers so believed this.
Thus you cannot say (just like with slavery, abortion, incest, bigamy, polygamy, necrophilia) that either process is right (legally or philosophically) in reference to something that is intrinsically evil. Such a position that seeks to straddle the issue by justifying one process over another is intellectually and morally deficient.
There are times when regardless of the candidate we support, we are called to stand up and proclaim that some issues can never be “legitimated” by process. Why? Because Natural Law tells us that evil can never be ordained as proper on account of legal process.