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.
LOL. Fear? Well, then again, there are some people who are afraid of clowns, so the annual Gathering of the Clowns (aka C-PAC) may foster a few nightmares in that regard, I suppose.
Sounds like all of your birther arguments--it's gonna happen Any. Day. Now. Don't you get tired of being so consistently wrong?
///////////////////////////////////////////
You guys are going to wear out Birther Phrase where it no longer relevant to any fruitful augment. You may not understand because you blindness to the Golden One, But this is policy and what Conservatism is further is a outline of what improvements the country could have with a Conservative Candidate at the wheel.
There is direct reverse to the Clown in the white House, on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, as we speak. Obama could not even tell the American People the Sky is Blue. He would rather play golf than enforce the Constitution and follow the rule of law.
Clinton way to many issues and she has not really spoke to policy yet? Or will she? Jim Web is too much a moderate for Liberals and would put Clinton on the spot in a debate.
CPAC is just one of many groups within the republican party. Its like looking at Ron Paul by the reality of where he paced in primary to the hoopla before. He was about a 4%er in national actual voting among Republicans.
CPAC is just one of many groups within the republican party. Its like looking at Ron Paul by the reality of where he paced in primary to the hoopla before. He was about a 4%er in national actual voting among Republicans.
Don't try and get cute, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Ok, so Repubs don't care if a man wants to spend his life with another man, they just don't think that that couple deserves equal protections under the law the same as any straight couple.....
Fixed. Happy now?
No matter how you want to slice the pie, the GOP needs to drop the issue entirely, and quit taking stances against gay marriage. Maybe they don't have to support it, but they need to quit opposing it.
I quoted your own words to you. How is that getting 'cute?'
When the 'gay marriage' issue first started to come up, there was talk of gay couples not getting hospital visitation rights and other spousal rights. Fine; no one wants to see a gay partner denied hospital visitation. My solution, and that of many other conservatives, was to pass 'civil union' legislation that would fix that blind spot in the law.
But evidently most pro-gay-marriage advocates did not accept the solution of getting the same rights under a different label. That seems petulant and petty to me. They want to redefine a word that has had a particular meaning for at least one or two millennia.
All that said it is not a big issue to me. If conservatives have to cave on the redefinition of the word so that we can move on to debates of more significance such as economics and foreign policy, I'd say go ahead and cave. The only problem with that is that liberals will just move on to another phony wedge issue--say evolution--and we will never get to the issues that matter.
[quote=wutitiz;38638006]I quoted your own words to you. How is that getting 'cute?'
When the 'gay marriage' issue first started to come up, there was talk of gay couples not getting hospital visitation rights and other spousal rights. Fine; no one wants to see a gay partner denied hospital visitation. My solution, and that of many other conservatives, was to pass 'civil union' legislation that would fix that blind spot in the law.
But evidently most pro-gay-marriage advocates did not accept the solution of getting the same rights under a different label. That seems petulant and petty to me. They want to redefine a word that has had a particular meaning for at least one or two millennia.
its not they were being "petulant" and "petty". From the mid-90s-mid-2000s, "civil unions" were thought to be the only achievable protections in such a hardcore religious country such as this one. When some of the states passed civil union laws, it became obvious that they would not be valid when the couple crossed state lines or moved into other states in the way that a marriage would. So, if a couple were say visiting Mom and Dad in Georgia, then a near fatal heart attack happens, you'd have the issue of the hospital not recognizing the civil union of another state, the rights of the couple. "Marriage" is the only relationship that is recognized and entrenched across state boundaries and in all of the Federal, State and local laws. When I lived in Calif, I remember reading that were tons of definitions that had to be changed in existing State laws, Family Code, etc to delete the male/female verbiage and insert "partner" when they were establishing the civil union laws which preceded same sex marriage. marriage is a term that everybody recognizes and Civil Unions is NOT. The use of MARRIAGE for everyone precludes a hideous two track marker of relationships, SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL. Marriage is not owned by religion. It is a CIVIL RIGHT ordained by government. Holy Matrimony is a rite obtained through a church.
I quoted your own words to you. How is that getting 'cute?'
When the 'gay marriage' issue first started to come up, there was talk of gay couples not getting hospital visitation rights and other spousal rights. Fine; no one wants to see a gay partner denied hospital visitation. My solution, and that of many other conservatives, was to pass 'civil union' legislation that would fix that blind spot in the law.
But evidently most pro-gay-marriage advocates did not accept the solution of getting the same rights under a different label. That seems petulant and petty to me. They want to redefine a word that has had a particular meaning for at least one or two millennia.
All that said it is not a big issue to me. If conservatives have to cave on the redefinition of the word so that we can move on to debates of more significance such as economics and foreign policy, I'd say go ahead and cave. The only problem with that is that liberals will just move on to another phony wedge issue--say evolution--and we will never get to the issues that matter.
The problem with it being civil unions vs. marriage is that technically it is illegal. Remember separate but equal was legal in places in various degrees until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law. DOMA don't allow federal benefits including the ability for spouses to not face estate taxes and various other survivor benefits like a straight couple have.
OK, it seems that it should be possible to legislate civil unions such that all the rights of marriage are conferred, but if not then fine. I have heard suggestions that it should not even be limited to gay couples. Say a couple of divorced brothers figure they will never remarry and decide to buy a house together. They should be able to get the same hospital visitation rights, etc. as a married couple.
Anyway back to CPAC, the straw poll is out. Full results are here:
Rand Paul wins with 25.7%, Walker=21, Cruz=Carson=11, Jeb Bush=8.3.
Marco Rubio only 3.7%; I would have guessed that he would be higher on the list.
With 17 names on the ballot, it is a little tough to interpret the results. It is possible that Rand won mainly because he's in a unique niche, and thus his vote was not as much split. If it was between, say Rand Paul and Scott Walker only, I wonder whether Walker would not have won.
I think the interesting thing here is that both Paul and Walker nearly doubled the 3 place candidate.
I quoted your own words to you. How is that getting 'cute?'
When the 'gay marriage' issue first started to come up, there was talk of gay couples not getting hospital visitation rights and other spousal rights. Fine; no one wants to see a gay partner denied hospital visitation. My solution, and that of many other conservatives, was to pass 'civil union' legislation that would fix that blind spot in the law.
But evidently most pro-gay-marriage advocates did not accept the solution of getting the same rights under a different label. That seems petulant and petty to me. They want to redefine a word that has had a particular meaning for at least one or two millennia.
All that said it is not a big issue to me. If conservatives have to cave on the redefinition of the word so that we can move on to debates of more significance such as economics and foreign policy, I'd say go ahead and cave. The only problem with that is that liberals will just move on to another phony wedge issue--say evolution--and we will never get to the issues that matter.
No, you are just plain wrong here. Your party put in its platform that it would defend traditional marriage and make sure all other forms were illegal.
maybe there are a few who agree with you, but the majority did not. And your stance is just as petty as that of the people you are attacking, except your argument seems to be that when you lose, you will just take your ball and go home.
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.
Jim Web is too much a moderate for Liberals and would put Clinton on the spot in a debate.
