View Single Post
Old 03-16-2013, 08:35 PM   #31
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 991
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
I've never quite understoon this, some, well most to be honest, Republicans who on the one hand espouse freedom, individualism and escaping from under some oppressive government yet in the next breath have no compunction about interjecting, by dint of law and punishment, the heavy hand of government to arbitrate and dictate our most personal and private aspects of our lives. Many of these are basically trying to interject and interpose a veiled or not so veiled theocracy into our national civil life (DOMA), never mind the First Amendment of the Constitution they declare such stringent fealty to.

I wish more GOP/TPers would espouse the same sanctity of the private bedroom as they do the sanctity of the corporate boardroom.
Republicans trust people to make more socially beneficial choices with their money than the govt would. But they don't trust people to make socially beneficial choices with regards to moral choices (abortion, religion, marriage).

Democrats don't trust people to make socially beneficial choices with their money, so they want to take it away and give it to the govt to spend appropriately. But they think everything else should be fine for people to do.

Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
While I dont' agree with Rand Paul on a whole lot, I think he's basically right here in that government should have little say in this realm and what say it does have should be unbiased with regard to gender.

I think the French have it right in that the government officiates over a civil union, say over at the local courthouse that morning, while couples are then free to sanctify their union however they see fit by whatever faith institution they subscribe to, say at the local church that afternoon. Call the civil union just that and the faith based sanctification a marriage just to keep it clear.
As long as the "marriage" isn't legally recognized, no sweat. But the govt has to be consistent for everyone. The argument that gays can have civil unions while straights can have marriage is not acceptable.

Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
As for Portman's announcement, good, I'm glad he did, I think it was the right thing to do, if belatedly. We should actually congratulate, not chide, Portman for publicly supporting his son and subsequently gay marriage rather than trying to distance himself or sweep the situation under the rug.
But hey, better late than never.

I guess my one dismay is that it is only after a deeply personal involvement that too many GOP/TPers come around to a more caring and less judgemental, and prejudgiced, position. When its "them," a harsh, cold judgementalism. When its suddenly one of their own, their own family, sudden conversion to warm empathy, caring and understanding. I guess when your beliefs are centered narrowly around self and individual achievement, empathy is often hard to find. It never means anything to too many republicans until it affects them personally...from unemployment to healthcare to gay rights. We're trying to have a society here...can you people please think of others BEFORE you are directly impacted.

I do think Portman's position regarding leaving the question of marriage equality to the states is wrong. Human rights are human rights--not states' rights. The state's rights approach was tried with slavery and that ended badly (Civil War). DOMA denies protections and benefits to people who share their lives with the same intentions as my wife and partner of 15 years and I do and is clearly unconstitutional as now even many conservatives are arguing, even to the Supreme Court.
Neither party has a monopoly on hypocrisy. Focusing solely on that exhibited by one side is ridiculous.

Any Dem/lib would flip on their gun-control position the moment they were stuck in a situation where they needed a gun to protect themselves or their family, high capacity mags and all.

Gay marriage is not a human rights issue. Marriage is a civil institution, so it's a civil rights issue.

Originally Posted by sammk View Post
So now that Portman Jr.'s son has come out of the closet, is it ok for Portman Sr. to not represent the views of the so-called large conservative base in the state he represents? Which is why I say the bigotry is appalling. Whichever way you slice the pie.
People that are voted into political office have obligations that supersede what the majority of their constituents want. A basic principle of this country is that all people have inalienable human rights (not that we have a great track record for defining and sticking to them) that cannot be legislated away by the majority.

It's obviously a bit of a quandary when a politician can't get elected unless he promises to do just that. But obviously that happens on both sides of the aisle all the time.
We will not tolerate intolerance.
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote