Gay Marriage Thorny Issue for Obama

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yet, the Republican nominee "covertly" accepts gay marriage, as a state governor, yet that is okay to wholeheartedly endorse him with the mantra that his "conservative Mormonism" would serve him well? Somehow that does not compute.

"The provision is explicitly set forth in the Massachusetts Constitution. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Legislature should act within a certain time to implement same-sex marriage, but the Legislature refused to act. Yet, Gov. Romney on his own went ahead of the Legislature and forced the implementation of same-sex marriage. Not only was he not required to implement same-sex marriage, the Massachusetts Constitution gave him no authority to do so. Gov. Romney should not have acted until the Legislature acted as that is the body vested by the Massachusetts Constitution with authority over marriage."

This man could have set an all time precedent, at the state level, for this country for all time, but he chose not to do it. That is not a courageous leader and it certainly is not a conservative.

Don't give me the blather about his "conservative Mormon background" serving him well - HOGWASH!!!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Judges are empowered to interpret the Constitution. I don't know how the overturning of referendums protecting the centuries old accepted definition of marriage is an upholding of Constitutional principle. Marriage isn't a civil right. It's an age old relationship that has served humanity better than any other arrangement in history and to suddenly decide that gay marriage is virtuous is insane. There's no tyranny in upholding a standard that existed for thousands of years. We told polygamists many years ago that multiple wives was unacceptable. The majority of Americans embraced that opinion. We forced mutual, consenting adults to abandon the practice, and prosecuted and jailed people for it. Why didn't the courts overturn that decision? Was that the tyranny of the majority?

Slavery was obviously wicked and unjust. Denying gay marriage doesn't come close.

Maybe we overstepped our bounds on polygamy. Not that I would practice it or have any desire to practice it or to see it practiced but I find no compelling reason to avoiding having legal precedents established for groups that enter in private contracts and relationships outside the law. These relationships though outside the law are not illegal. One man can live with as many women as he wants and have sex with as many of those as he wants. That's not illegal. He can expel any of those women for cheating on him and they can leave him if he cheats on them with someone outside that group. There's noting illegal about 2 gays living together and having sex (well possibly sodomy laws but those are pretty much unenforced anyways).

The point is none of these activities are illegal. If none of these activities are illegal why does it matter if we give such people legal recourse for these private relationships. I mean really the only difference between a legal marriage and 2 gay people living together without being married is that the married people have actual legal recourse to address certain grievances they have with the person they are living with.

The point is that by banning gay marriage we aren't banning homosexual activities and that's what christians act like the ban does. We are simply banning any unique legal recourse they might have if that unique relationship goes bad. It's not the same kind of relationship that 2 male roommates have and I can't find any reason that it should be treated the same as the relationship 2 male roommates have. What about you?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

We are about to do the same thing we did with Obama, vote in a candidate that we refuse to vet It's just amazing. We threw all the other candidates and splattered them on the concrete, but don't touch Romney, he has great hair. LOL!

Not true! Romney was and has been vetted by the media, the other GOP candidates and conservative blogs. You cannot honestly compare the vetting of Obama and Romney. Romney's been eviscerated by conservatives and the media. His mormon religion, previous positions and policies, investments, previous employment...even how he treats his dog for crying out loud.

As far as the other candidates....Ron Paul is weak on foreign policy, Gingrich is a womanizer, and Santorum is the American taliban. They splattered themselves on the concrete, not anyone else.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Not true! Romney was and has been vetted by the media, the other GOP candidates and conservative blogs. You cannot honestly compare the vetting of Obama and Romney. Romney's been eviscerated by conservatives and the media. His mormon religion, previous positions and policies, investments, previous employment...even how he treats his dog for crying out loud.

As far as the other candidates....Ron Paul is weak on foreign policy, Gingrich is a womanizer, and Santorum is the American taliban. They splattered themselves on the concrete, not anyone else.

Depends on where you are sitting as you view whether he is being vetted and protected. He will be vetted by Obama, that's for sure.

[Dagwood]

Originally Posted by n david

Not true! Romney was and has been vetted by the media, the other GOP candidates and conservative blogs. You cannot honestly compare the vetting of Obama and Romney. Romney's been eviscerated by conservatives and the media. His mormon religion, previous positions and policies, investments, previous employment...even how he treats his dog for crying out loud.

As far as the other candidates....Ron Paul is weak on foreign policy, Gingrich is a womanizer, and Santorum is the American taliban. They splattered themselves on the concrete, not anyone else.

Figures. So, in your mind, Thomas Jefferson was too.

Would you care to explain, not to get too far off topic?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Depends on where you are sitting as you view whether he is being vetted and protected. He will be vetted by Obama, that's for sure.

It's one thing to be biased against a candidate. That's fine if you are. But at least retain some semblance of honesty in doing so. Because either you're not being honest, or you are woefully ignorant to the coverage and vetting Romney has received. One only needs to scroll through your posts to find links and quotes from an incredible amount of vetting and information gathered by conservative bloggers and others, not to mention countless articles and round-table discussions from the media.

New story in Washington Post.... Romney targeted and assaulted alleged gay student while in high school. No really, it's posted on the Drudge Report.

Tell me again Romney is as unknown and protected by the media as Obama. By the time the debates start and the election heats up, there will be nothing left for Obama to vet.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

It's one thing to be biased against a candidate. That's fine if you are. But at least retain some semblance of honesty in doing so. Because either you're not being honest, or you are woefully ignorant to the coverage and vetting Romney has received. One only needs to scroll through your posts to find links and quotes from an incredible amount of vetting and information gathered by conservative bloggers and others, not to mention countless articles and round-table discussions from the media.

New story in Washington Post.... Romney targeted and assaulted alleged gay student while in high school. No really, it's posted on the Drudge Report.

Tell me again Romney is as unknown and protected by the media as Obama. By the time the debates start and the election heats up, there will be nothing left for Obama to vet.

Just because I don't happen to share your view, doesn't make me dishonest.

As various Not-Romneys have emerged, they have been slammed and smeared with negative MSM stories about everything from a rock in west Texas to sexual misconduct. Rick Santorum is the latest, with this bizarre story about his wife having lived with the abortion providing doctor who delivered her, before meeting and marrying Santorum. Challenger rises, gets whacked in the MSM.

This speaks well of Romney’s skill as a campaigner, and doesn’t speak well of his opponents’. All of his opponents, and Rick Perry in particular, have superior records to Romney’s in governance. They all do. Newt Gingrich led welfare reform and balanced the federal budget. Rick Santorum was reliably conservative in the Senate. Rick Perry’s record as governor is as arguably the best in the country over the past 20 to 30 years, racking up a gaudy record on both the fiscal and social sides of the conservative coin. But no one has gotten through Romney’s media game to scuff him up or make him answer for his own record.

That needs to change, and the hour is very late.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/18...inglepage=true

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Just because I don't happen to share your view, doesn't make me dishonest.

Agreed. I don't believe you have to share my view, or are dishonest if you don't. My contention is this: you cannot honestly say (regardless of the bolded quote included from the opinion of pjmedia.com) that Romney hasn't been vetted; or is comparable to Obama in that regard.

The "MSM" has put Romney through the ringer.....much, much more than they did Obama. There's no comparison between Obama and Romney. Even Romney's jeans were subject to media scrutiny. His financial investments, previous employments, tax returns, religion, family, dog, what else is left to vet?

If Romney has breezed through this primary, as you insinuate, I'd hate to see what a vetted candidate would have to be subject to.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Agreed. I don't believe you have to share my view, or are dishonest if you don't. My contention is this: you cannot honestly say (regardless of the bolded quote included from the opinion of pjmedia.com) that Romney hasn't been vetted; or is comparable to Obama in that regard.

The "MSM" has put Romney through the ringer.....much, much more than they did Obama. There's no comparison between Obama and Romney. Even Romney's jeans were subject to media scrutiny. His financial investments, previous employments, tax returns, religion, family, dog, what else is left to vet?

If Romney has breezed through this primary, as you insinuate, I'd hate to see what a vetted candidate would have to be subject to.

No, they haven't put him through the ringer like they have Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, etc., and of course, that is my personal view. But, they are fixin' too! And you are fixin' to find out what the "ringer" really is. Just sayin'...

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by n david

It's one thing to be biased against a candidate. That's fine if you are. But at least retain some semblance of honesty in doing so. Because either you're not being honest, or you are woefully ignorant to the coverage and vetting Romney has received. One only needs to scroll through your posts to find links and quotes from an incredible amount of vetting and information gathered by conservative bloggers and others, not to mention countless articles and round-table discussions from the media.

New story in Washington Post.... Romney targeted and assaulted alleged gay student while in high school. No really, it's posted on the Drudge Report.

Tell me again Romney is as unknown and protected by the media as Obama. By the time the debates start and the election heats up, there will be nothing left for Obama to vet.

Why no MSM coverage of Obama's college days?
Why no MSM coverage of Obama's book he wrote?
Why no MSM coverage of Obama's alleged drug use?

And the list could go on!