Rob Portman Supports Gay Marriage.
-
@heckofajobbrownie said:
But it's also already won. It really has been. It's got majority support in the country. It's got 80% support in people under 30. As George Will noted this weekend, support for traditional marriage only is literally dying off.
This is where I'm at. Not the "inability to walk and chew gum at the same time" tack.
Virginia still has laws against BJs. Not really on the radar for most folks. Lets get on with it.
The SC is revisiting the "Silly name marriage act" of 2005/6 yes? They'll fix it - then it's up to the states.
-
@heckofajobbrownie said:
But it's also already won. It really has been. It's got majority support in the country. It's got 80% support in people under 30. As George Will noted this weekend, support for traditional marriage only is literally dying off.
This is where I'm at. Not the "inability to walk and chew gum at the same time" tack.
Virginia still has laws against BJs. Not really on the radar for most folks. Lets get on with it.
The SC is revisiting the "Silly name marriage act" of 2005/6 yes? They'll fix it - then it's up to the states.
Virginia still has laws against BJs. Not really on the radar for most folks. Lets get on with it.
You should be able to tell the difference between a BJ law that isn't ever enforced and a defense of traditional marriage law that actually affects people.
-
Why?
WSS
I and many independents feel religion should have little influence on American politics. so for me the R party catering to a religious portion of their base is costing them more then they gain. you lose votes that could be swayed to the other side and you alienate anyone who is not religious. whereas if you leave the religious right behind they are not going to suddenly vote for the other team. seems like the sensible thing to do.
I and many independents feel religion should have little influence on American politics. so for me the R party catering to a religious portion of their base is costing them more then they gain. you lose votes that could be swayed to the other side and you alienate anyone who is not religious. whereas if you leave the religious right behind they are not going to suddenly vote for the other team. seems like the sensible thing to do.
Actually if an anti religion plank is the most important part of a platform to you I think that's how you should vote.
But like it was just said, I, and many others might consider the looming financial disaster more important than gay marriage.
Even though I'm a supporter.
Also as it has been pointed out that looks like it's a shoo in, a done deal.
But let's not be naive, the reason that some want it elevated to the same important as the budget is because they need to keep the base in line.
And the national debt debate isn't really a winner for the left. Or it shouldn't be.
I'd also bet that there are some people who think the banning of large soft drink cups is an important issue.
WSS
-
Well if all these fat ass Americans have no self control and cost everyone else...
But no its a dumb ban. Its sad its coming to that
-
Well if all these fat ass Americans have no self control and cost everyone else...
But no its a dumb ban. Its sad its coming to that
Well if all these fat ass Americans have no self control and cost everyone else...
But no its a dumb ban. Its sad its coming to that
Uh, I only mentioned it because some issues are more important than others...
I just couldn't think of another 1 less interesting or vital than the soda pop ban...
WSS
-
I and many independents feel religion should have little influence on American politics. so for me the R party catering to a religious portion of their base is costing them more then they gain. you lose votes that could be swayed to the other side and you alienate anyone who is not religious. whereas if you leave the religious right behind they are not going to suddenly vote for the other team. seems like the sensible thing to do.
Actually if an anti religion plank is the most important part of a platform to you I think that's how you should vote.
But like it was just said, I, and many others might consider the looming financial disaster more important than gay marriage.
Even though I'm a supporter.
Also as it has been pointed out that looks like it's a shoo in, a done deal.
But let's not be naive, the reason that some want it elevated to the same important as the budget is because they need to keep the base in line.
And the national debt debate isn't really a winner for the left. Or it shouldn't be.
I'd also bet that there are some people who think the banning of large soft drink cups is an important issue.
WSS
Actually if an anti religion plank is the most important part of a platform to you I think that's how you should vote.
But like it was just said, I, and many others might consider the looming financial disaster more important than gay marriage.
Even though I'm a supporter.
Also as it has been pointed out that looks like it's a shoo in, a done deal.
But let's not be naive, the reason that some want it elevated to the same important as the budget is because they need to keep the base in line.
And the national debt debate isn't really a winner for the left. Or it shouldn't be.
I'd also bet that there are some people who think the banning of large soft drink cups is an important issue.
WSS
I'm not anti religion I just feel that by following the religious hard line they lose more than they would gain. All you have to do as an R is be better at the economy than the D's and neutral on all the religious issues and the party becomes infinitely more palatable.
-
http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/305b-federal-spending-not-down-first-5-months-fy13
The govt has spent 30.5 billion more in the first 5 mos of fisc2013 than the same time of fisc2012.
So this gay marriage issue: ZZZzzzz
No shit you don't care about an issue that doesn't affect you or anyone close to you.
You guys have made the "why does this even matter" argument before.
Just because something doesn't affect YOU doesn't mean its a worthless and pointless issue.
No shit you don't care about an issue that doesn't affect you or anyone close to you.
You guys have made the "why does this even matter" argument before.
Just because something doesn't affect YOU doesn't mean its a worthless and pointless issue.
Not to say its unimportant, but doesn't an issue that affects the entire population and the rest of the world (our economy) trump an issue that affects approximately 10% (I've heard 1/10 are gay so I'm using that) of the United States population? Get your priorities straight.
Who honestly gives a fuck? Let them marry, but fix the economy and get "president" obama out of office first. Priorities.
-
No shit you don't care about an issue that doesn't affect you or anyone close to you.
You guys have made the "why does this even matter" argument before.
Just because something doesn't affect YOU doesn't mean its a worthless and pointless issue.
Not to say its unimportant, but doesn't an issue that affects the entire population and the rest of the world (our economy) trump an issue that affects approximately 10% (I've heard 1/10 are gay so I'm using that) of the United States population? Get your priorities straight.
Who honestly gives a fuck? Let them marry, but fix the economy and get "president" obama out of office first. Priorities.
Not to say its unimportant, but doesn't an issue that affects the entire population and the rest of the world (our economy) trump an issue that affects approximately 10% (I've heard 1/10 are gay so I'm using that) of the United States population? Get your priorities straight.
Who honestly gives a fuck? Let them marry, but fix the economy and get "president" obama out of office first. Priorities.
Well if you are one of the 10% I imagine it sucks pretty hard. Remove married filing joint, change it to filing joint, set up the parameters to identify what is needed to file joint, and remove marriage from the legal books. let the people have their religious or non-religious unions as they see fit. its in the middle as far as both sides are concerned and there is no stepping on someones toes.
-
I can't help anyone super polarized in politics. You know, hating the other side and throwing insults simply because they are on the other side...
Why are we only allowed to work on one thing at a time? We have plenty of resources to tackle more than one issue at once
As far as getting Obama out... your side lost bro, get over it. You have 3 more years. And if the Reps go super hard right social conservative the whole time... then get ready for another 4 of a guy I'm sure you'll hate too...
-
It's not one in ten. That was always propaganda. Recently they actually got a pretty good handle on what the number is, and it's about 2.5%-3.0% of the population is gay. So, about the same number that is Jewish.
But, I'm not gay and it's a very important issue to me. I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who is rabidly anti-gay, or even moderately anti-gay. I really don't understand the argument that since there are other important issues we shouldn't discuss or address the lack of civil rights for a certain category of our fellow Americans.
It's a big deal to a lot of people. As Rob Portman just found out. You might even say it goes to the whole notion of "the pursuit of happiness." Also "equal protection" and "freedom." I think I remember reading about those somewhere.
-
Actually if an anti religion plank is the most important part of a platform to you I think that's how you should vote.
But like it was just said, I, and many others might consider the looming financial disaster more important than gay marriage.
Even though I'm a supporter.
Also as it has been pointed out that looks like it's a shoo in, a done deal.
But let's not be naive, the reason that some want it elevated to the same important as the budget is because they need to keep the base in line.
And the national debt debate isn't really a winner for the left. Or it shouldn't be.
I'd also bet that there are some people who think the banning of large soft drink cups is an important issue.
WSS
I'm not anti religion I just feel that by following the religious hard line they lose more than they would gain. All you have to do as an R is be better at the economy than the D's and neutral on all the religious issues and the party becomes infinitely more palatable.
I'm not anti religion I just feel that by following the religious hard line they lose more than they would gain. All you have to do as an R is be better at the economy than the D's and neutral on all the religious issues and the party becomes infinitely more palatable.
Don't misunderstand, I completely get your rationale.
Personally I'm pretty open minded on all of these social issues.
But since gay marriage and abortion and all of that crap is going to take care of itself anyway no matter who is president I vote on the issues I think 1 party or the other could change.
I mean seriously, we're not going to get a constitutional amendment no matter who's in the White House.
I also don't care if a kid wants to say a prayer at a school function.
WSS
-
-
-
I'm not anti religion I just feel that by following the religious hard line they lose more than they would gain. All you have to do as an R is be better at the economy than the D's and neutral on all the religious issues and the party becomes infinitely more palatable.
Don't misunderstand, I completely get your rationale.
Personally I'm pretty open minded on all of these social issues.
But since gay marriage and abortion and all of that crap is going to take care of itself anyway no matter who is president I vote on the issues I think 1 party or the other could change.
I mean seriously, we're not going to get a constitutional amendment no matter who's in the White House.
I also don't care if a kid wants to say a prayer at a school function.
WSS
Don't misunderstand, I completely get your rationale.
Personally I'm pretty open minded on all of these social issues.
But since gay marriage and abortion and all of that crap is going to take care of itself anyway no matter who is president I vote on the issues I think 1 party or the other could change.
I mean seriously, we're not going to get a constitutional amendment no matter who's in the White House.
I also don't care if a kid wants to say a prayer at a school function.
WSS
If only the conservatives were to come out tomorrow and say we take a strict no social issue stance and run, I think it would be an easy win for them. The Moral high ground stuff kills them in popular opinion.
-
Don't misunderstand, I completely get your rationale.
Personally I'm pretty open minded on all of these social issues.
But since gay marriage and abortion and all of that crap is going to take care of itself anyway no matter who is president I vote on the issues I think 1 party or the other could change.
I mean seriously, we're not going to get a constitutional amendment no matter who's in the White House.
I also don't care if a kid wants to say a prayer at a school function.
WSS
If only the conservatives were to come out tomorrow and say we take a strict no social issue stance and run, I think it would be an easy win for them. The Moral high ground stuff kills them in popular opinion.
If only the conservatives were to come out tomorrow and say we take a strict no social issue stance and run, I think it would be an easy win for them. The Moral high ground stuff kills them in popular opinion.
Could be. I don't think people really want to be that conservative and use religion as an excuse.
I don't see all that many evangelistic Republican candidates, do you? Mitt Romney? John McCain? George W Bush?
On the other hand the president himself has Bragg often about his deep Christian roots and his dedication to that religion, right?
The church he joined, and I understand it was for show, was farther to the outside then any other presidential candidate.
I have a good friend who is Jewish and said he couldn't vote for an evangelistic Christian governor here in Ohio because they thought he was going to hell.
I asked him if he believed there was a hell and he said no.
So I wonder then who cares?
Of course he voted for Methodist minister Strickland.
So yes I guess you can blast the Republicans for being too Christian for your taste.
Maybe you could point out the Democrats stand up and says that Christianity is a crock of.....
WSS
-
If only the conservatives were to come out tomorrow and say we take a strict no social issue stance and run, I think it would be an easy win for them. The Moral high ground stuff kills them in popular opinion.
Could be. I don't think people really want to be that conservative and use religion as an excuse.
I don't see all that many evangelistic Republican candidates, do you? Mitt Romney? John McCain? George W Bush?
On the other hand the president himself has Bragg often about his deep Christian roots and his dedication to that religion, right?
The church he joined, and I understand it was for show, was farther to the outside then any other presidential candidate.
I have a good friend who is Jewish and said he couldn't vote for an evangelistic Christian governor here in Ohio because they thought he was going to hell.
I asked him if he believed there was a hell and he said no.
So I wonder then who cares?
Of course he voted for Methodist minister Strickland.
So yes I guess you can blast the Republicans for being too Christian for your taste.
Maybe you could point out the Democrats stand up and says that Christianity is a crock of.....
WSS
Could be. I don't think people really want to be that conservative and use religion as an excuse.
I don't see all that many evangelistic Republican candidates, do you? Mitt Romney? John McCain? George W Bush?
On the other hand the president himself has Bragg often about his deep Christian roots and his dedication to that religion, right?
The church he joined, and I understand it was for show, was farther to the outside then any other presidential candidate.
I have a good friend who is Jewish and said he couldn't vote for an evangelistic Christian governor here in Ohio because they thought he was going to hell.
I asked him if he believed there was a hell and he said no.
So I wonder then who cares?
Of course he voted for Methodist minister Strickland.
So yes I guess you can blast the Republicans for being too Christian for your taste.
Maybe you could point out the Democrats stand up and says that Christianity is a crock of.....
WSS
If the D's were to take a Christianity is crock stance it would be just as damaging for me(and others). I really think that taking a position on religion only hurts you. your analogy was a perfect example of this. why alienate a potential voter based on religion? Its just needlessly divisive. run on a platform of government issues and become more palatable. It gives less BS reasons for a person to dismiss you as a candidate.
Trust me I am not a religion bashing atheist.
-
It's not one in ten. That was always propaganda. Recently they actually got a pretty good handle on what the number is, and it's about 2.5%-3.0% of the population is gay. So, about the same number that is Jewish.
But, I'm not gay and it's a very important issue to me. I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who is rabidly anti-gay, or even moderately anti-gay. I really don't understand the argument that since there are other important issues we shouldn't discuss or address the lack of civil rights for a certain category of our fellow Americans.
It's a big deal to a lot of people. As Rob Portman just found out. You might even say it goes to the whole notion of "the pursuit of happiness." Also "equal protection" and "freedom." I think I remember reading about those somewhere.
You might even say it goes to the whole notion of "the pursuit of happiness." Also "equal protection" and "freedom." I think I remember reading about those somewhere.
Clearly an antiquated document.
-
It's not one in ten. That was always propaganda. Recently they actually got a pretty good handle on what the number is, and it's about 2.5%-3.0% of the population is gay. So, about the same number that is Jewish.
But, I'm not gay and it's a very important issue to me. I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who is rabidly anti-gay, or even moderately anti-gay. I really don't understand the argument that since there are other important issues we shouldn't discuss or address the lack of civil rights for a certain category of our fellow Americans.
It's a big deal to a lot of people. As Rob Portman just found out. You might even say it goes to the whole notion of "the pursuit of happiness." Also "equal protection" and "freedom." I think I remember reading about those somewhere.
It's not one in ten. That was always propaganda. Recently they actually got a pretty good handle on what the number is, and it's about 2.5%-3.0% of the population is gay. So, about the same number that is Jewish.
But, I'm not gay and it's a very important issue to me. I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who is rabidly anti-gay, or even moderately anti-gay. I really don't understand the argument that since there are other important issues we shouldn't discuss or address the lack of civil rights for a certain category of our fellow Americans.
It's a big deal to a lot of people. As Rob Portman just found out. You might even say it goes to the whole notion of "the pursuit of happiness." Also "equal protection" and "freedom." I think I remember reading about those somewhere.
I can't disagree with defending one's right to "the pursuit of happiness" as I am a huge advocate of the constitution being the law of the land. Don't miss what I'm saying in my post. Gays should be allowed to marry. It has absolutely zero effect on my life. However, the economy has a HUGE affect on everyone's life and I feel it should have been the main focus of the last election. Life's not fair and sometimes people need to wait to get things so if that means putting gay marriage on hold to fix the economy then so be it. It sucks, yeah, but that's what I believe we should be doing. I just don't understand how social politics pull so much weight over an impending financial crisis.
-
Well like you said, it gas zero affect on YOUR life
-
It's not one in ten. That was always propaganda. Recently they actually got a pretty good handle on what the number is, and it's about 2.5%-3.0% of the population is gay. So, about the same number that is Jewish.
But, I'm not gay and it's a very important issue to me. I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who is rabidly anti-gay, or even moderately anti-gay. I really don't understand the argument that since there are other important issues we shouldn't discuss or address the lack of civil rights for a certain category of our fellow Americans.
It's a big deal to a lot of people. As Rob Portman just found out. You might even say it goes to the whole notion of "the pursuit of happiness." Also "equal protection" and "freedom." I think I remember reading about those somewhere.
I can't disagree with defending one's right to "the pursuit of happiness" as I am a huge advocate of the constitution being the law of the land. Don't miss what I'm saying in my post. Gays should be allowed to marry. It has absolutely zero effect on my life. However, the economy has a HUGE affect on everyone's life and I feel it should have been the main focus of the last election. Life's not fair and sometimes people need to wait to get things so if that means putting gay marriage on hold to fix the economy then so be it. It sucks, yeah, but that's what I believe we should be doing. I just don't understand how social politics pull so much weight over an impending financial crisis.
I can't disagree with defending one's right to "the pursuit of happiness" as I am a huge advocate of the constitution being the law of the land. Don't miss what I'm saying in my post. Gays should be allowed to marry. It has absolutely zero effect on my life. However, the economy has a HUGE affect on everyone's life and I feel it should have been the main focus of the last election. Life's not fair and sometimes people need to wait to get things so if that means putting gay marriage on hold to fix the economy then so be it. It sucks, yeah, but that's what I believe we should be doing. I just don't understand how social politics pull so much weight over an impending financial crisis.
It is really a pretty easy fix that could be done in days, just a few changes in existing law mostly in terminology. Like I said earlier it would suck if I were the 10%(or whatever the number may be). Just because there are larger issues does not exclude it from being an issue.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login