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.
If I was his son I would have banned him from the wedding and told him why to his face.
He may be biologically responsible, but he's no father.
Actually I think he is being a good father...he's putting his own stance on same sex marriage to support his son and his son in law.
Who knows, maybe by actually seeing the wedding and the happiness of his son, he'll change his mind the next time a vote like this comes up. A lot of people have changed their minds after someone the love comes out and lives their truth and finds their partner.
I'm not a lawyer, but at face value - unlike the Contraception bill - it appears benign. I would wonder what the first clause means in re: "national origin". For example, if CA decided to allow illegals to marry and gain some rights, then Arizona has to recognize that union? And provide the same "rights"?
But the actual quotes and actual debate would be most useful.
Illegals can get married together in the US. And lots of illegals get married to US citizens in order to gain legal status. They don't automatically gain any rights to be here legally If CA grants them rights that are above anything federally I don't see how AZ would have to give them the same rights.
I would think that most people understand that you have one family in your life. He was there for his son.
He didn't walk in a pride parade last month holding up a rainbow flag with his son. Then you would have a point. The lawmaker did not do anything to support the institution of same sex marriage. He supported the institution of family.
People like to highlight hypocrisy and mention Republicans are the party of family values. Well - here is family values put above political differences.
while I search for actual quotes from R legislators or video ...
from the Daily Signal; I ignore the politically-charged commentary to ponder this ...
Quote:
the bill would require federal recognition of polygamy if just one state requires it.
the bill would transform matters of disagreement—even on the basis of deeply and sincerely held religious belief—into discrimination.
the first phrase seems true at face value.
now, the 2nd phrase seems akin to me to the Kentucky(?) Register of Deeds who was trying to refuse a marriage license to a gay couple. I disagreed with her stance then and now, because her official government position required she issue the license.
If the Bill only disallows government "employees" from discriminating, I'm all for it. But I'd prefer to know what the real definition of a "person acting under color of State law". If it required every preacher to conduct a marriage based upon the government issuing a marriage license, then that would be wrong.
It's why, when asked before, I prefer civil unions in the eye of the Government, and not "marriage" because it's a religious ceremony
The topic is the congressman and his son. If the congressman supports his son's gay marriage, I don't see how he could vote against a bill to codify gay marriage.
Your other examples make no sense in this context. This is not about what his son would want him to do.
That's already been explained to you here several times.
1. As a congressman, he represents his constituents. His personal feelings about friends and relatives shouldn't play a role on how he votes for his district. If he can't separate the two, he shouldn't be a Congressman. He is still able to personally support his son in a non political way by attending the wedding.
2. He may see it as a state's rights issue vs a Federal issue which is a legitimate concern regardless of the topic he votes on.
Then maybe you should word your thread titles differently, because it sure makes you sound like one.
The thread title is the same as the story that I linked to. I did not create it. It does not make me a liberal to call out a conservative.
I am not on either side. I consistently post and comment on stories that make both the left and right look bad. I vote libertarian. And I would guess 95% of those in congress are hypocrites. Give me a story of a dem doing a similar stupid thing and I am happy to talk about it too.
Libertarians are less hypocritical because it comes down to civil liberties above all else. If you start with that first and foremost you talk the talk and walk the walk.
Illegals can get married together in the US. And lots of illegals get married to US citizens in order to gain legal status. They don't automatically gain any rights to be here legally If CA grants them rights that are above anything federally I don't see how AZ would have to give them the same rights.
I know that some illegals can marry a US Citizen and gain legal status. I have no reason to believe or understand that illegals are allowed to marry each other in the US. Given the hoops that an illegal has to jump through to marry a legal citizen, why would any such potentially favorable status be conferred upon 2 illegals marrying each other?
while I search for actual quotes from R legislators or video ...
from the Daily Signal; I ignore the politically-charged commentary to ponder this ...
the first phrase seems true at face value.
now, the 2nd phrase seems akin to me to the Kentucky(?) Register of Deeds who was trying to refuse a marriage license to a gay couple. I disagreed with her stance then and now, because her official government position required she issue the license.
If the Bill only disallows government "employees" from discriminating, I'm all for it. But I'd prefer to know what the real definition of a "person acting under color of State law". If it required every preacher to conduct a marriage based upon the government issuing a marriage license, then that would be wrong.
It's why, when asked before, I prefer civil unions in the eye of the Government, and not "marriage" because it's a religious ceremony
Good points. Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. But if some guy wants to be married to two women of legal age is that the governments business to say they cannot?
just for giggles, I find it interesting that 30 years ago, twice as many Democrats in the House voted FOR the Defense of Marriage Act (which became law) as Republicans just voted FOR this Respect for Marriage Act.
And that it was only 10 years and 2 months ago that Obama switched from opposing to supporting gay marriage.
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.
