The reasons I have seen for this not being legal are absurd. If someone finds 2 Gay men together "disgusting", I find an obese person walking at the beach in a bikini disgusting but I'm not expecting it to be made illegal. There is no practical reason how this would have a negative impact on other people, period.

And the arguments I see being made in defense of Romneys position is the same ones that were used when interracial marriage was on the table. Yet this time around we are requiring a popular vote. Now that a popular vote would likely win, these jerks politicians are STILL against it for personal beliefs.

IMHO it's yet another example of our country going socially backwards in time, moving away from freedom and democracy. The word freedom seems to now be defined as "You should be free to live like I do, as long as you live and believe the same way I do."

Quote from: Jamie D on September 13, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
To be precise, Romney said, "I think at the time the Constitution was written, it was pretty clear that marriage was between a man and a woman, and I don't believe the Supreme Court has changed that."

Which is 100% correct.

We should not mistake "civil rights" - those created by legislation, with Constitution rights - those found in the Constitution, as amended.  And above both of those are natural rights (aka human rights), which are imbued by our own humanity.

It is actually more accurate that at the time the constitution was written, marriage was between one man and one woman OF THE SAME RACE. This continued until the Loving case overturned that in the late 1960's.

If there is no constitutional basis for allowing gay marriage, wouldn't that also mean that there is no constitutional basis for allowing mixed-race marriage?

Doesn't that mean the Loving ruling should be reversed?

Quote from: agfrommd on September 13, 2012, 09:43:22 AMl
It is actually more accurate that at the time the constitution was written, marriage was between one man and one woman OF THE SAME RACE. This continued until the Loving case overturned that in the late 1960's.

If there is no constitutional basis for allowing gay marriage, wouldn't that also mean that there is no constitutional basis for allowing mixed-race marriage?

Doesn't that mean the Loving ruling should be reversed?

The race issue was addressed specifically in the Reconstruction Amendments.

Not an apt analogy.

I just don't understand this thread and those who would support Romney while being under the GLBT umbrella. I DO understand that some who don't feel they fall under that because they are just a straight woman/straight man. Therefore they feel that they don't belong under that umbrella... However Romney and most other republicans will see you as just another member of the GLBT. I hate to be blunt about it but if we all go down, you will too. When they start repealing rights from us, do you really think they will just stop at the GLB?

Hell there are so many R. Politicians right now trying to pass laws taking women's rights back to the 50s. Not only that but as it was mentioned in this thread or another I honestly forget... Obama while so extremely far from perfect has been hamstrung by the extreme amounts of filibustering going on. It's hard to pass laws when the people who vote on it hate you and spend a large amount of their time telling you what a miserable president you are.

The debt? He came into the presidency with mass debt already in place. It was falling apart to begin with.

Fiscally I can understand, and I don't think there are many here who are socially conservative, I don't think voting for Romney will be wise for this country at all. Everything about him just feels off. Maybe Ron Paul would have been better, he wasn't pro gay but I don't think he would have been flat out NO on it either. Hell the man wanted to legalize pot, that makes him pretty Shinobro to me.

Poor Mitt. It must have been tough keeping face during such a progressively awkward conversation.

Gotta hand it to him, though. He's a charismatic guy ( = ).

"The story on same-sex marriage is that I have the same position on that I had when I ran from the very beginning," [Gov Mitt] Romney said in an interview last month with the Nashua Telegraph in New Hampshire.

"I'm in favor of traditional marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage. At the same time, I don't believe in discriminating in employment or opportunity for gay individuals. So I favor gay rights; I do not favor same-sex marriage. That has been my position all along."


"I oppose same-sex marriage," Romney told [CNN's Piers] Morgan. "At the same time, I would advance the efforts not to discriminate against people who are gay."

NPR: Romney Stance On Gay Rights? It's Complicated

Quote from: Snowpaw on September 13, 2012, 10:37:56 PM
I just don't understand this thread and those who would support Romney while being under the GLBT umbrella. I DO understand that some who don't feel they fall under that because they are just a straight woman/straight man. Therefore they feel that they don't belong under that umbrella... However Romney and most other republicans will see you as just another member of the GLBT. I hate to be blunt about it but if we all go down, you will too. When they start repealing rights from us, do you really think they will just stop at the GLB?

Hell there are so many R. Politicians right now trying to pass laws taking women's rights back to the 50s. Not only that but as it was mentioned in this thread or another I honestly forget... Obama while so extremely far from perfect has been hamstrung by the extreme amounts of filibustering going on. It's hard to pass laws when the people who vote on it hate you and spend a large amount of their time telling you what a miserable president you are.

The debt? He came into the presidency with mass debt already in place. It was falling apart to begin with.

Fiscally I can understand, and I don't think there are many here who are socially conservative, I don't think voting for Romney will be wise for this country at all. Everything about him just feels off. Maybe Ron Paul would have been better, he wasn't pro gay but I don't think he would have been flat out NO on it either. Hell the man wanted to legalize pot, that makes him pretty Shinobro to me.

A lot of excuses here.

First, with absolute control of both the House and the Senate from 2009 to 2011, Obama and the Democrats could have easily passed legislation like ENDA, or repealed  DOMA.  They chose not to.

Second, you can not quote a single statement from Romney indicating he would "start repealing rights" for GLBTQ people.  That's hyperbole.  As is "taking women's rights back to the 50s."

Third, the debt.  On July 3, 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama stated:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

Bush added $4 trillion in debt in eight years.  Obama added over $6 trillion in 3 1/2 years. "Unpatriotic" indeed!

Quote from: Jamie D on September 14, 2012, 04:19:47 AM
A lot of excuses here.

First, with absolute control of both the House and the Senate from 2009 to 2011, Obama and the Democrats could have easily passed legislation like ENDA, or repealed  DOMA.  They chose not to.

Second, you can not quote a single statement from Romney indicating he would "start repealing rights" for GLBTQ people.  That's hyperbole.  As is "taking women's rights back to the 50s."

Third, the debt.  On July 3, 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama stated:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

Bush added $4 trillion in debt in eight years.  Obama added over $6 trillion in 3 1/2 years. "Unpatriotic" indeed!

So voting for Romney will fix things for us? Is that what you believe? Or would you just prefer to stay home and not vote? I am genuinely curious. I mean honestly, if Obama is so bad and Romney only wants to stop us from getting married...

Edit: It's not whether one is perfect. Both candidates suck in my opinion. However I choose to go with the one who is more socially progressive. Neither has a decent plan to fix this economy, one made his money off the backs of  others, the other I don't know. One has been less of a pill about the whole gay marriage. He did have to "evolve" but now it seems like things are going the right direction. With the other every right will stop There will never be a chance at "signing" enda with him. That's not hyperbole. That's just obvious.

Quote from: Hikari on September 13, 2012, 07:07:51 AM
The problem is, the opposition of same sex marriage is divorced from practical reality. In the District of Columbia SSM is legal and sociey is the same there as it was before aside from a few more married couples. None of the practical criticisms that have been voiced by social conservatives such as increased suicide rates, crime, etc have came to pass. Some of the claims that were made were just ludicrous.

So lacking any tangible factor, all that can said is that they don't like it, but that is no reason at all for government to take a position. We don't like Nazis but we allow them thier freedom of speech, yet we don't want to allow homosexuals the pursuit of happiness?

And as far as the founding fathers go, I could care less what they thought, they were just bourgeois politicians, I see no reason to ascribe any sort of value to them above bourgeois politicians of this day and age.

The "Founding Fathers" recognized a natural right of all people to throw off the shackles of tyranny and oppression.  That was a radical notion for that period of time.  Hardly "bourgeois."

If you feel that you are oppressed by a tyrannical government, revolution is your right.

Quote from: Snowpaw on September 14, 2012, 04:24:38 AM

So voting for Romney will fix things for us? Is that what you believe? Or would you just prefer to stay home and not vote? I am genuinely curious. I mean honestly, if Obama is so bad and Romney only wants to stop us from getting married...

I'm not a single issue voter.  I believe the best thing for the GLBTQ community, and the country in general, is to fix the economy, shrink the size and scope of government, and let businesses begin to create jobs again.  Things Mr. Obama is incapable of doing.

You will recall that Obama was openly against same-sex marriage, until after his party was shellacked in 2010.  Pardon me if I don't take that "conversion" with a grain of salt.

Quote from: Jamie D on September 14, 2012, 04:34:09 AM
I'm not a single issue voter.  I believe the best thing for the GLBTQ community, and the country in general, is to fix the economy, shrink the size and scope of government, and let businesses begin to create jobs again.  Things Mr. Obama is incapable of doing.

You will recall that Obama was openly against same-sex marriage, until after his party was shellacked in 2010.  Pardon me if I don't take that "conversion" with a grain of salt.

What will Romney do that is so amazing and fantastic to fix the economy that it is worth putting aside his horrible civil rights issues? I haven't heard him mention anything that amazing that it is worth sucking up the 4 year stall/regression in our rights.

Again, lesser of the two evils. I will take the one who "evolved" and accept that this country is already too far into debt to china that it will matter much what is done.

Quote from: Snowpaw on September 14, 2012, 04:41:25 AM
What will Romney do that is so amazing and fantastic to fix the economy that it is worth putting aside his horrible civil rights issues? I haven't heard him mention anything that amazing that it is worth sucking up the 4 year stall/regression in our rights.

Again, lesser of the two evils. I will take the one who "evolved" and accept that this country is already too far into debt to china that it will matter much what is done.

"Horrible civil rights issues"?  Really?  What?

The country is evenly divided now on the same-sex marriage issue.  It is trending toward legalization.  That's good, and there is no going back.  My opinion is that marriage is not a federal issue.  Government shouldn't even be involved.

Obama's presidency has been a failed one on many levels, and disappointing to the GLBTQ community.

Quote from: Jamie D on September 14, 2012, 04:51:42 AM
"Horrible civil rights issues"?  Really?  What?

The country is evenly divided now on the same-sex marriage issue.  It is trending toward legalization.  That's good, and there is no going back.  My opinion is that marriage is not a federal issue.  Government shouldn't even be involved.

Obama's presidency has been a failed one on many levels, and disappointing to the GLBTQ community.

One link from NPR does not dismiss his general attitude towards gays. He can say how he approves of discrimination laws to protect us but his cold attitude towards anything glbt related says more than that link.

Yeah they said the same thing about California and it's Gay marriage. There most definitely is a going back. It's been proven. No they shouldn't but the fact is there are many legalities wrapped around it and it needs to be addressed.

I would say the same is true of Romney's campaign. Utter failure on many levels. I won't even get into his comments as of late regarding the Libya incident.
Edit:
Honestly I digress. In the end it doesn't matter *peace sign* I'm out

Quote from: Jamie D on September 13, 2012, 10:18:42 PM
The race issue was addressed specifically in the Reconstruction Amendments.

Not an apt analogy.

Are you saying the framers of the reconstruction amendment INTENDED to allow interracial marriage?

I only ask, because the issue here is that Romney is claiming the original framers didn't intend to allow same sex marriage, therefore banning it can't be unconstitutional.

Quote from: Jamie D on September 13, 2012, 02:57:16 AM
We could list numerous other natural rights that apply:

The right to free association
The right to self defense
The right to profit from your sweat or ingenuity
et cetera

My libertarian view is that government has no business in the bedroom, or in the personal actions of consenting adults.

I strongly second that view!

Quote from: agfrommd on September 14, 2012, 07:38:21 AM

Are you saying the framers of the reconstruction amendment INTENDED to allow interracial marriage?

I only ask, because the issue here is that Romney is claiming the original framers didn't intend to allow same sex marriage, therefore banning it can't be unconstitutional.

Not to mention as someone born in Caroline County VA, same as Mr. Loving I know full well that it didn't happen until nearly a hundred years after reconstruction. The constitution doesn't have anything to do with marriage, not the federal one at least.

Tradition is just dead peoples baggage, let them keep it. It is quite silly to continue to try to ascribe meaning between the words or even from the historical era of a government document.

Talking about a 'revolution' because of 'government oppression' in our current situation only makes sane people walk the other  way.

Maybe I'm way off base but I recall at some point this country believed:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If wanting to marry the love of your life isn't the pursuit of happiness, I don't know what is. How we can now deny some people the rights that are given to others and -defend- this being done is what I just can't understand.

My point with interracial marriage was: This too was wrong to tell people who loved each other they can't marry, the courts stepped in and made it illegal to not allow it 45 years ago. Now same sex marriage comes along and we require it be put to a popular vote. Why hasn't the supreme court stepped up and ruled this unconstitutional? You can say what you want about marriage not being a constitutional issue, nor is it in Romneys opinion, but the supreme court thought otherwise.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Key point here is they ruled it unconstitutional.

And I really could give a crap about "it's not in the constitution" or these other distractions. This is a -Inalienable- right that Romney doesn't feel we should be allowed to have and he clearly says that in this video. You guys can try to spin this how ever you want but the bottom line is, he is NOT going to allow this to be passed and will most likely veto anything that comes across his desk on this issue. He believes it's OK to deny certain people their civil rights.

Quote from: Jamie D on September 14, 2012, 04:51:42 AM
"Horrible civil rights issues"?  Really?  What?

The country is evenly divided now on the same-sex marriage issue.  It is trending toward legalization.  That's good, and there is no going back.  My opinion is that marriage is not a federal issue.  Government shouldn't even be involved.

Obama's presidency has been a failed one on many levels, and disappointing to the GLBTQ community.

This video, he clearly plans to block any attempt of fixing this problem. If you can't see this is a civil rights issue, you are wearing blinders.

And yes marriage IS a federal issue right now and yes these conservative DO want to mandate who can get married at the government level and they regularly state they do. No republican I have seen wants to make this area of government smaller, they want to continue to control what people can do in their personal lives. What they mean by smaller government is disband the EPA, remove oversight on wall street etc.

And I guess you missed/ignored this other post of what Obama HAS done for GLBT rights and issues.

http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality

Please post the GLBT rights and issues that were moved forward by Bush and maybe a page of what Romney is promising to do for us?

Since all I have seen is posts about the 2-3 items that didn't get done by Obama I will ask this question then, when the republicans have had control why didn't they repeal DOMA or pass EDNA?

Quote from: agfrommd on September 14, 2012, 07:38:21 AM

Are you saying the framers of the reconstruction amendment INTENDED to allow interracial marriage?

I only ask, because the issue here is that Romney is claiming the original framers didn't intend to allow same sex marriage, therefore banning it can't be unconstitutional.

I am saying the Framers of the Constitution designed a method so that the  Constitution could be amended to meet nation, federal needs.

You mentioned the Loving case.  In that case, the Court's ruling was firmly based on its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, one of the three Reconstruction Amendments.

In my personal opinion, as I understand the Framers and Federalism, neither interracial marriage or same-sex marriage would have been deemed a federal issue.

Stephe, marriage is an administrative function which creates certain legal rights and responsibilities.

Your natural right is to associate with whoever you want.   I know of no law or candidate who says you cannot be with the person you love.  There exists no Constitutional "right to marry."  There do exist Constitutional prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of race.