Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Simple. The reality is that they are largely anti-gay. They don't want equal rights, and their religious control freak bigot base won't tolerate it.
Remember, this is a party that spent an entire election campaign running around the country bashing gay people and desperately trying to deny equal rights, and they did so with great success. This is the party of senators who stand on the floor and deliver long speeches about how gay people should be denied equal rights. That's not a fringe position in the party; Rick Santorum won a lot of votes in 2012. Mike Huckabee, relentless gay basher who opposes marriage, civil unions, repealing DADT, ENDA, etc, got a lot of support in 2008.
Not all Republicans are like that, though. Locally, I've voted for a Republican state senator who sponsored Oregon's domestic partnership legislation. Nationally, the Republicans have wholeheartedly embraced bigotry.
In reality when it comes down to it, one is either pro gay or anti gay. I know many that are pro gay and support marriage equality but not necessarily calling it marriage. I can respect that opinion. I work in particular with a few non profits aimed at ending homophobia in sports. What I always find is that if an athlete is ok with a gay teammate, 9 times out of 10 they also support marriage equality. That includes for example all the baseball players that made "it gets better" videos, and hockey players that made "you can play" videos, and I have to be honest most of them are moderate right leaning. So it is not always so much Republicans, as much as it is their base and politicians. Some GOP politicians that have supported "civil unions" are Chris Christie, Jon Runyon, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson that I can think of off hand, but not to many more.
What does McCain have to do with this? Add to that, what did Obama promise and what has he delivered,but then, that is another topic altogether. It has nothing to do with Gays, abortion or this thread.
The problem is that Repub. have said that they will say anything( gay rights ok?), then when in control of state Legis. or the House they push laws that do not support their statement. It is about this thread
The Pres. does not have the power to create legis., can only suggest it and sign it into law.
Yes, but it will never happen because the Republican party sold their soul to the religious nutjobs.
They did, but I think that next major election they are going to drop the right wing religious zealots because they quite obviously are doing more harm than good for the GOP.
Likewise, the dems might well drop any group that swings too far left. The two parties are becoming increasingly more alike. Both bought by corporations and special interests.
I wrote the vows for my ceremony. We even had an ordained minister do the ceremony. There are no ceremonial requirements by law.
of course there are no ceremonial requirements, did I say there were? I am talking about the standard ceremony and yes, I am aware many do write their own vows. Not all clergy will perform services this way, but many will. I will say this one more time then it is time for me anyway to drop the debate as we are never going to agree: I have never said same sex marriage should not be legal, I have said, personally I have a problem with this...There is no way we are all going to agree on the issue but that doesn't make you right or make me right. Remember I have a gay foster daughter that has mixed feeling about gay marriage as well, plus many friends, my wonderful bosses, before I retired a month ago and had a lot of gay clients. I don't think this makes me anti gay, do you?
of course there are no ceremonial requirements, did I say there were? I am talking about the standard ceremony and yes, I am aware many do write their own vows. Not all clergy will perform services this way, but many will. I will say this one more time then it is time for me anyway to drop the debate as we are never going to agree: I have never said same sex marriage should not be legal, I have said, personally I have a problem with this...There is no way we are all going to agree on the issue but that doesn't make you right or make me right. Remember I have a gay foster daughter that has mixed feeling about gay marriage as well, plus many friends, my wonderful bosses, before I retired a month ago and had a lot of gay clients. I don't think this makes me anti gay, do you?
I never said you were anti gay. I simply said that there is no legal requirement for any ceremony. Once the license is signed you are legally married. People get married underwater, sky diving, bungy jumping, in a drive through by an Elvis impersonator, etc... If the only thing you are against is the ceremony, then join a church that won't do the ceremony. You can't control what anyone else does in their ceremony. The legal issue is the one I'm concerned about.
I have been refused visitation when my wife was in the emergency room even with a medical POA. I would probably have to sell our families home to pay estate taxes in the event of her death. Look at the Edith Windsor case over $300,000 in estate taxes that a hetero couple wouldn't have been required to pay. Legally my wife has no claim to 2 of our children. If something were to happen to me, it would be a legal nightmare for her and them. We have spent thousands of dollars to legally protect ourselves as much as possible, but even that doesn't provide the legal protections that a $60 marriage license provides.
What are the chances if the GOP becomes more socially liberal and not being so prejudice?
Do you think if the Republican party makes these changes they could be in favor to win future elections?
No I don't think that is the path to winnig ewlctions. Rmember they have won others with same platform on issues.Those basically are not deciding factors as is evident from elctions.But why have two parties with same chocie anyway.The major factors change o what top issues decide ecltion and often people opinions depend on conditons and what is hot topic at moment.
I am trying to work through this to be honest. Maybe it is because it is part of the ceremony, even in a civil one: Very clearly it says,one man and one woman. I also happen to beleive it is up to a clery person, and I have said this before, to decide to perform or not gay marriage. I have never said it should be illegal, I just have my own beliefs on this particular issue. Have you ever seen me say it should not be legal? BTW, yes, some churches do perform marriages between two people but it isn't thousands like you say, and I am not sure about the Synagogues..I could be wrong. I will ask you again though, have you ever seen me say it should not be legal? I have many times said, it is against my views...
I appreciate this point, but it doesn't really matter what you personally think.
The official position of the Republican Party nationally is not only to oppose same-sex marriage, but also to oppose any other arrangement that would carry with it the legal benefits of marriage, such as federal tax benefits, immigration benefits, or any of the hundreds of other legal benefits that married couples are entitled to automatically.
On a national level the Republican Party is also spending federal tax dollars fighting to maintain the Defense of Marriage Act.
Many state Republican Parties have pushed through constitutional amendments to prevent same-sex marriage, as well as such discriminatory practices as prohibition of adoption by same-sex couples.
Since we've also been talking about private groups, many Republicans, including national figures such as Rick Perry, have supported continued discrimination against gays by the Boy Scouts of America, and we have seen similar arguments here on these very threads.
So as I say, even if your personal views were evrything I would endorse, it is quite clear that the national program of the Republican Party calls for continued institutional discrimination against gays and lesbians.
I have been refused visitation when my wife was in the emergency room even with a medical POA. I would probably have to sell our families home to pay estate taxes in the event of her death. Look at the Edith Windsor case over $300,000 in estate taxes that a hetero couple wouldn't have been required to pay. Legally my wife has no claim to 2 of our children. If something were to happen to me, it would be a legal nightmare for her and them. We have spent thousands of dollars to legally protect ourselves as much as possible, but even that doesn't provide the legal protections that a $60 marriage license provides.
With the Edith Windsor case is a good example of why same sex marriage is necessarily I doubt many people would be in her position since one has to be quite wealthy to be hit by federal estate taxes. As such I seriously doubt anyone would have to sell a family house for estate taxes unless said house was a large estate, and or something like a really high end townhouse in Manhatten.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
