Obama got it right about gay marriage . . . in 2004
What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman. But what I also believe is that we have an obligation to make sure that gays and lesbians have the rights of citizenship that afford them visitations to hospitals, that allow them to transfer property between partners, to make certain that they’re not discriminated against on the job.
OK, confession time: I didn’t create those opening sentences. Then-U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama did, in 2004.
Obama offered a different, “evolved” belief Wednesday, saying he thinks same-sex couples should be able to marry. He had it right the first time.
Well, not the first first time. Before tackling the issue, let’s review Obama’s “evolution.” In 1996, while running for the Illinois Senate, Obama noted on a questionnaire that he “favor[ed] legalizing same-sex marriages.” By 2004, he’d flipped on that position.
Last week — after an endorsement of gay marriage by Vice President Joe Biden and a report that wealthy gay donors had threatened to stop giving to his campaign, but before high-profile fundraisers with gay-rights supporters — Obama flopped.
He attributed his change of heart to experiences with gay friends and staffers; unnamed aides told the New York Times the president’s “brand” couldn’t withstand any more “hedging” on the issue.
But Obama did not propose a policy change, and he insisted he won’t campaign on the issue. Rather, he endorsed letting each state decide. That would be a tenable position had his administration not stopped defending against legal challenges to the law, the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act, that enables states to do just that.
This is not Obama the principled, but the cynical. And that’s a shame. Obama’s 2004 stance might pass bipartisan muster.
You’ve heard religious arguments against gay marriage. I won’t repeat them. Here’s a secular argument.
In the same 2004 interview, Obama said “we have a set of traditions” for marriage that “need to be preserved.” These social traditions have been recognized widely, for centuries, as the building blocks of a self-perpetuating civilization. It is not for government to change a social tradition any more than to ban social traditions that are harmless.
Nor should government change broadly accepted definitions of words, which is what proponents of same-sex “marriage” want. This time it’s the meaning of “marriage”; when auto makers were bailed out, it was “bondholder.”
If government legally redefines marriage now, on what grounds will social entities defend the right to their own definition? Obama’s personal pledge to protect religious liberty regarding marriage won’t hold up in court. It’s cold comfort anyway, given his attempt earlier this year to violate Catholics’ freedom of conscience concerning contraception.
At the same time, legal rights created by government, such as those governing hospital visitation, probably shouldn’t be subject to social tradition. Gay couples’ inability to fulfill the traditional definition of “marriage” should not render them unequal under the law.
Opinion polls depict gay marriage as more popular than actual referendums find: The cause is 1-for-35 in state votes, and the one win (in Arizona) was later overturned in a subsequent referendum. This may reflect a popular preference for granting gay couples equal legal rights while upholding marriage’s traditional definition, perhaps through a civil union.
The Obama of 2004 would have worked toward that goal. Too bad this vintage won’t.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
305 comments Add your comment
ragnar danneskjold
May 11th, 2012
10:28 pm
I cannot imagine any reason government should have any role in marriage, other than for the protection of children. Homosexuals would be better advised to embrace civil union contracts rather than yielding their lives and fortunes to the fickle legislatures and courts.
Oblama
May 11th, 2012
10:38 pm
Politicians flip flop depending on which way the wind is blowing and what they think it will take to get reelected. In other words Oblama will tell you what ever you want to hear ’cause he’s a politician and that’s what they do for a living : FLIP FLOPPER IN CHIEF. Says he wants to leave it up to the states but he says h is against the states passing a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage like the majority of voters in 32 states have already done. Can you say he flip flopped again?
Stephenson Billings
May 11th, 2012
10:43 pm
Since Obama has stated he won’t try to overturn the defense of marriage act or campaign on overturning it and has “evolved” on the subject, it’s obvious it’s all about “show me the money!” and just campaign rhetoric.
Stephenson Billings
May 11th, 2012
10:51 pm
And about this:
“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney earning 50% of the vote and President Obama attracting 43% support. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another three percent (3%) are undecided.”
@@
May 11th, 2012
11:05 pm
Last week — after an endorsement of gay marriage by Vice President Joe Biden and a report that wealthy gay donors had threatened to stop giving to his campaign, but before high-profile fundraisers with gay-rights supporters — Obama flopped.
“Just words? Just words? Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” said Barack Obama in 2008. He was responding to criticisms from the Hillary Clinton campaign that he had never done anything but deliver speeches.
Mr. Obama then recited the lines from Dr. King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech. He followed it by offering “All Men are Created Equal,” from the Declaration of Independence. And he closed with “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
All those hallowed words were followed up by actions.
Words without action are just words.
Hillary was right.
The gay community bought a pig in a poke.
Papito Gonzalez
May 11th, 2012
11:06 pm
Class of ‘98
May 11th, 2012
7:13 pm
Do people in favor of gay marriage also favor polygamy? If not, why not? Are the people involved in polygamous relationships not also loving, consenting adults?
Wow! What an insightful question Class. Perhaps we can ask Mitt Romney what his Mexican grandfather taught him about polygamy.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Luke 6:41
May 11th, 2012
11:14 pm
@Ray
May 11th, 2012
9:40 pm
Views in this country are obviously evolving on equality/ same- sex marriage rights. Just like interracial marriages, it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriages will be declared a civil right. 70% of those under 30 are already in favor of it. And, 50% of the general population does today. It will very likely be a single Supreme Court judicial decision that finally sets out the ability to marry, for all, is a civil right.
*****************************************************************
Why are people trying to legislate who one should or should not marry.
Just like they tried to legislate who could vote and who could not vote.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Luke 6:41
May 11th, 2012
11:16 pm
@Stephenson Billings
May 11th, 2012
10:51 pm
And about this:
“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney earning 50% of the vote and President Obama attracting 43% support. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another three percent (3%) are undecided.”
**********************************************************************
MITT WITT 50%?
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehheee
HE WISH.
Stick a fork in Mitt Witt….
HE IS DONE.
J. Christ
May 11th, 2012
11:17 pm
Matt 15:1-3 “Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?”
J. Christ
May 11th, 2012
11:20 pm
Matt 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Luke 6:41
May 11th, 2012
11:21 pm
@Obamination
May 11th, 2012
10:28 pm
And I often wonder if Obama has someone hiding in the closet, he sure does lisp (not that that’s a bad think now – Don’t want a bunch of cross dressers hiding behind my bushes) a lot when he speaks. Just saying.
***********************************************************************
KEEP WONDERING.
If he did………..THE WHOLE WORLD WOULD KNOW.
THAT DOG WON’T HUNT.
Obama’s closet is full of his sharp suits.
Obama's Nation
May 11th, 2012
11:25 pm
Obamination
May 11th, 2012
10:28 pm
And I often wonder if Obama has someone hiding in the closet, he sure does lisp (not that that’s a bad think now – Don’t want a bunch of cross dressers hiding behind my bushes) a lot when he speaks. Just saying.
Not sure what is worse…. your close-minded bigotry or lack or grammar skills.
M. Romney
May 11th, 2012
11:30 pm
“I am not unaware of my opponents considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”
-Letter from Mitt Romney to Mass. Log Cabin Club during 1994 Senate Race
If evolving is “flip-flopping”, what do you call devolving?
M. Romney
May 11th, 2012
11:35 pm
Please visit my new campaign website!
http://p.twimg.com/Aohsm8fCAAA6VYh.jpg
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Luke 6:41
May 11th, 2012
11:48 pm
@Oblama
May 11th, 2012
10:13 pm
This election is about the economy, jobs and how to reduce this alarming multi trillion dollar Fed debt. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. Soon we will be singing to Oblama – turn out the light YOUR parties over.
************************************************************
In November when Obama is re-elected the CONS will have to stand in line
to get a window to JUMP OUT OF.
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehehheee
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Luke 6:41
May 11th, 2012
11:59 pm
@M. Romney
May 11th, 2012
11:30 pm
“I am not unaware of my opponents considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”
-Letter from Mitt Romney to Mass. Log Cabin Club during 1994 Senate Race
If evolving is “flip-flopping”, what do you call devolving?
***************************************************************************************
Evolve – To work (something) out
Devolve – To pass on or delegate to another
Flip Flop – To move from one position to the reverse or opposite
Chris Salzmann
May 12th, 2012
12:15 am
Why not ban divorce? After all, divorce is mentioned a lot more times in scripture than homosexuality is. Oops, that would just screw up too many people’s lives, wouldn’t it? Imagine people like Newt and Rush being restricted to just one marriage…………
davetv
May 12th, 2012
3:20 am
Enter your comments here
davetv
May 12th, 2012
3:34 am
The President of the United States supports sodomy. Great, just great. Oh, how far we’ve come as a nation. Or, perhaps it’s how far we’ve gone. This nation is doomed and you people who believe that approving of sodomy to be a step in the right direction have made Satan a very happy fallen angel.
BlahBlahBlah
May 12th, 2012
5:42 am
“These social traditions have been recognized widely, for centuries, as the building blocks of a self-perpetuating civilization.”
What a bunch of garbage. We’ve got a 50% divorce rate among heterosexual marriages and tons of kids born out of wedlock. We’re doing nothing about it. But somehow Bob and Doug tying the knot erodes centuries of building blocks.
Baloney.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward...Again)
May 12th, 2012
5:45 am
davetv, your comments are counterproductive and not appreciated. Just think of all the good libtards have done by destroying other institutions which made, and kept, America strong.
Public schools for example; they used to provide a world-class education that enabled people to become productive, intelligent citizens. Now they’re really expensive jobs programs for Democrat-voting union thugs (oh, and if they’re feeling up to it, they’ll show kids how to put a condom on a cucumber.)
Or health care…it’s so much more affordable and we’re so much healthier now with all the government mandates, regulations, prohibitions, market manipulations, and price controls…right?
Remember when we had a work ethic? Two-parent families? Democrats eliminated the need for those, and it’s worked out just fine.
Thanks, Democrats.
So davetv, when the Democrats get to work on destroying marriage, please, just step aside. You’re slowing down “progress”.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward...Again)
May 12th, 2012
5:50 am
I hope Kyle can do something about these spam posts for some other websites:
Mary Elizabeth
May 11th, 2012
9:52 pm
Please read…my own blog
——————————————————-
Mary Elizabeth
May 11th, 2012
9:54 pm
See link below:
—————————————————
We don’t come here to read advertisements.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 12th, 2012
6:36 am
OK, jumping into the jaws of the lion . . . .
First of all, this non-announcement from the current Liar-in-Chief is stunning in it’s ramifications. I never knew state’s rights were so important to Obama before. If he had only taken this same approach to health care reform, he wouldn’t have wasted a year of his (hopefully only) term of office trying to get that passed while taking his eyes off the economy. Saying he’s for something, yet not doing anything about it except to speak on it, is the opposite of leadership which unfortunately suits him to a “T”.
So enough about his decidedly less than courageous stance on this issue.
However, what goes on between two (or more) CONSENTING ADULTS in the execution of their daily lives is no business of government, so long as those people are not trying to take your life, liberty or property through the use of force or fraud.
Once government inserted themselves into the marriage business by “licensing” them, they lost any legitimate Constitutional claim to stop anyone defined above from getting legally married.
In short, what part of EQUAL RIGHTS do you opponents NOT get?
More importantly, I have yet to have anyone specifically answer the following challenge when debating this subject: “Please explain exactly how your continued existence (life), freedom to do as you do now (liberty) or the ability to earn money and prosper (property) will be negatively affected in any way if gays were allowed to marry”.
Feel free to provide such specific answers. You’d be the first to do so.
As to the religious argument, some people do not consider religions other than Christian-based religions to be valid. Does this mean Mormon marriages are not valid? Shinto? Hindu? Where do you draw the line on religious beliefs, given the First Amendment?
I’ve defined the parameters (two or more consenting adults) and the terms of the challenge. Anyone care to step up and answer with specifics?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward...Again)
May 12th, 2012
6:47 am
Please explain exactly how your continued existence (life), freedom to do as you do now (liberty) or the ability to earn money and prosper (property) will be negatively affected in any way if gays were allowed to marry
————————-
All I need to know about marriage, I learned in biology class. Human children are best raised by one female and one male parent.
Single-parent households weren’t supposed to negatively affect me either, but they do, through higher taxes and higher crime.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 12th, 2012
7:05 am
You’re dodging the challenge, LBB.
And you have now degraded the institution of marriage to the level of animals mating.
Congratulations.
Sure you wouldn’t want to try again, this time maybe thinking about your answer and sticking to the parameters of the challenge? Thanks in advance.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward...Again)
May 12th, 2012
7:16 am
Pardon me if I don’t stick to the parameters of the challenge. Feel free to ignore my post if failure to comply compels you to do so.
My argument against the attempts to redefine marriage is based on the biological underpinnings as mentioned earlier, and the unintended, unforeseeable consequences which I alluded to.
I don’t oppose two guys or two gals hanging out together, being able to visit each other in the hospital (lamest justification in the world, btw) or being able to exercise many of the other privileges of marriage. I do oppose tax subsidies and imposition of other costs that married people enjoy–we extend those benefits in order to support formation of normal families, which, as I stated, are natures intention.
midtownblue
May 12th, 2012
7:27 am
So many of the posters on this site are just vile, disrespectful, ignorant, and horrid. I am ashamed that my taxes support you. How dare you speak this way about other human beings, much less the President of the United States. Have you no shame? You cannot have a civil debate if you cannot be civil.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward...Again)
May 12th, 2012
7:34 am
midtownblue: I am ashamed that my taxes support you.
————–
Amen, sister. Folks who are so pathetic that they rely on taxpayers for their sustenance really should be spending their time working rather than sitting in front of the keyboard.
ByteMe
May 12th, 2012
7:46 am
The cause is 1-for-35 in state votes, and the one win (in Arizona) was later overturned in a subsequent referendum. This may reflect a popular preference for granting gay couples equal legal rights while upholding marriage’s traditional definition, perhaps through a civil union.
Most of the votes were 8-10 years ago when a majority of people still didn’t want same-sex marriage. Times change.
Fools don’t change.
jconservative
May 12th, 2012
7:54 am
Nice column Kyle. But the constitutional question must be answered before all others. It is necessary that we have a national discussion on the issue. This blog would be a nice place for a discussion, but way to many of our fellow bloggers prefer to keep it in the political sphere.
But first to the politics. Both Obama and Romney have “evolved” on the issue. Both have gone to the position of their respective political bases. This is the norm for our times. And unfortunate.
Now to the Constitutional question. The 14th Amendment: “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If we deny equal protection to A is it ok to deny it to B and C? Where do we stop? Who decides? The Taliban? Are some more equal than others?
The California Prop 8 case is now making its way through the Federal court system. The last decision was by the Appeals Court which struck down Prop 8. It will end up in the Supreme Court. It is being conducted by Ted Olsen (conservative Republican) and David Boies (liberal Democrat) whom you will recall as the respective lawyers in Bush v Gore (2000).
Also on its way to the Supreme Court is the DOMA case. The administration has declined to defend the law and it is being defended with private donations.
One or both of these cases should hit the Court in the 2013 term.
The Prop 8 case failed in the Appeals Court because Prop 8 took away a right previously held. Here also the State is not defending the case, private funds are doing so. The case is on Appeal to the full Ninth Circuit.
The North Carolina vote the other day did the same as Prop 8, took away a right previously enjoyed. And note that the Supreme Court has said in 14 different cases that “marriage is a basic fundamental right”. And the court has said dozens of times that those basic fundamental rights cannot be voted away by the majority.
Kyle is touching on what might be the solution eventually reached by the Court. Some type of “civil,” as opposed to “religious”, sanctioned contract granting rights of union within the various states. But they cannot go too far in this area because of the First Amendment’s establishment clause on religion.
What has hurt the religious argument against same sex marriage is that our society has ignored the Bible in creating its now loose laws on divorce. With 50% of marriages now ending in divorce, marriage has become little more than a legally sanctioned “shack up”. If the Biblical standard for marriage and divorce is thrown out, it is difficult to make a Biblical argument based just on the sex of the partners. (From the NKJ version: “Matt 5:32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”) Tough standard, isn’t it?
Rafe Hollister
May 12th, 2012
8:09 am
He was for it in 96, against it in 2008, and for it in 2012. Sounds like a charlatan to me, saying whatever he needed to say to get a vote.
Gun control is going to be the same way, he was for gun control laws almost his whole life until he ran in 2008, when he suddenly decided he liked the second amendment. I am sure after 2012 he will be for gun control again.
I guess we could say he is the Panderer in Chief. Post racial, post partisan, and now post intellectually honest.
Visit the Oblama store and order your “Your two Dads for Oblama, tee shirt. Whoda thunk it, they were ready as soon as he announced his flip flop on the issue.
Samantha
May 12th, 2012
8:11 am
Obama “evolved”. More like “necessity is a mother”.
His strategy is to divide the country and maximize the turnout from his various ‘bases”. He will do all he can to convince women that there is a war against them, that blacks are being attacked. He needed something to fire up his progressive base becasue his policies sure were not gettiing the job done.
When Slo Joe Biden jumped out front, Obama did not have much choice.
Rather than evolution, it’s more like the magic moment when hypocrisy meets opportunity.
Wingnut
May 12th, 2012
8:23 am
Oh, come on, Kyle, you look a tad bit light in the loafers yourself. Don’t you want the same respect that other closeted conservatives ’secretly’ want? I’m in support, man! You’ll feel much better about yourself.
Jack
May 12th, 2012
8:27 am
If I’m having a conversation with someone and they start quoting scripture, I start looking for the nearest exit.
Oblama
May 12th, 2012
8:35 am
The Dems will do anything to change the subject. This election is about this pathetic economy, lack of jobs and how to reduce this alarming multi trillion dollar Fed debt. It’s not about class warfare/ sex warfare/ age warfare/ victim warfare/ etc, etc etc……… Oblama is “The Great Divider” and our 1st “Reality Show President”. There is one good thing I can say for Oblama. Anyone that would choose Joe ( Clueless) Biden as his running mate must have a sense of humor ’cause ole Joe Blow is a sick joke. Oblama is all smoke and mirrors – bait and switch. My daddy told me that you can never trust a class action suit trial lawyer. Good advice.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 12th, 2012
8:36 am
So in other words, LBB, you have no logical argument against gay marriage.
Got it.
Let’s try to narrow this down a bit further, shall we?
Is marriage a “right” which government needs to protect? If so, please find me the specific passge in the Constitution which allows government to protect such a personal institution.
And if it IS a right, what part of EQUAL RIGHTS do you NOT get?
And if it ISN’T a right, why is government in the business of protecting it?
Oblama
May 12th, 2012
8:37 am
Jack – Good idea . Don’t let the screen door hit you in the butt on the way out. No one cares and yo won’t be missed.
Oblama
May 12th, 2012
8:41 am
Tiberius – Where do you draw the line. PETA is floating the idea of spousal rights for human/pet “marriages”.. …. Oblama was against it but now that the cash is flowing in he is “evolving”.
MrLiberty
May 12th, 2012
8:44 am
Ron Paul has been right all along about marriange. Government should have NO role whatsoever in marriage.
He has also been right about a whole lot more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM&feature=youtu.be
PETA
May 12th, 2012
8:46 am
Oblama- Human/Pet union should be a right… just common sense.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 12th, 2012
8:49 am
Oblama, if you read my earlier post, you would see that I highlighted in caps “two (or more) CONSENTING ADULTS”.
I have been consistent on that since this argument began. Conservatives CONSTANTLY ignore that parameter and bring up children, animals and inanimate objects to deflect from answering the hard questions.
Want to take a stab at it? My 6:36 awaits a reply.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 12th, 2012
8:50 am
Tib, marriage is not a right. It’s a religion-based institution which government decided was a good idea to support. As with so many other things in life, government involvement has not improved the institution. Now this essential institution is all mixed up with public policy.
Without government intrusion, people would have been free to organize their lives without any political implications.
As with schools, health care, home ownership, college costs, and so many other things, more government means more failure.
Just Sayin'
May 12th, 2012
8:51 am
@BranNue @9:25 p.m.:
Instead of giving the entire list, it would have sufficed to say “the entire GOP, and such”.
Just Sayin’…
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 12th, 2012
8:52 am
Tib, we’re conservatives…aren’t we supposed to be marching in lockstep on this?
Rafe Hollister
May 12th, 2012
8:53 am
Tiberius, your challenge
I have been sitting here thinking for awhile about this issue. It is hard, very hard to put into words just what my opposition is, so be kind with your criticism. My objection is more just doesn’t seem right, than problematic. I have no problem with what adults do in the privacy of their castle. But here is what I came up with.
It is standards. My mother always stressed that their are standards and you must live up to standards. The standard for marriage is one man, one wife, and children hopefully. If you change that standard, what are you opening up yourself and your country to. I personally have nothing against polygamy, just amazed that you can get that many people to peacefully get along. I am not even sure what society has against polygamy, other than some damage to the children, which I don’t think can be proven.
Standards, like boys go into the Boy Scouts, girls into the Girl Scouts, men into the YMCA, and women in the YWCA are some examples. If girls are not happy with the Girl Scouts they should try to change the Girl Scouts, or start an organization of their liking, like the Liberal Girl Scouts or the Multigender Scouts or the Multisexual Preference Scouts, but do try to force themselves into the Boy Scouts. They should not force the Boy Scouts to change what has made them the organization that they are. They should not eliminate, in effect, the organization as it presently exists.
So, if “marriage” could be left as is, I have no problem with the same social benefits being extended to homosexual couples. The standard of what a “marriage” is should not change after being consistent for tens of thousands of years.
Oblama
May 12th, 2012
8:53 am
Marriage is a LEGAL arrangement – therefore the government has a right to be involved. I suppose you think any one has a right to do any thing they want? That’s called lawlessness.
DannyX
May 12th, 2012
8:55 am
Kyle,
you must have several horror stories you can tell us from your time living in Belgium where gay marriage is legal. Don’t hold back. Tell us how it destroyed your own marriage. Were there animal marriages too? Did God destroy anything there in anger? Did you have to get out of there before you ended up married to a dude?
It must have been very traumatic, tell us about it.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 12th, 2012
8:57 am
“Tib, marriage is not a right. It’s a religion-based institution which government decided was a good idea to support.”
So now you’re saying that since marriage is not a right, government “support” for the institution is un-Constitutional, LBB? After all, don’t you believe in the Constitution? Limited government?
Or are you just like liberals who believe in the Constitution when it suits you, but ignore it when it doesn’t? State’s rights are good enough for Obama on gay marriage, but not on health care? Do you really want to be like him, picking and choosing that which suits your whims?
Are we not a nation of laws, not of men?
“Without government intrusion, people would have been free to organize their lives without any political implications.”
And so? How is this a bad thing?
marko
May 12th, 2012
9:03 am
Mitt’s great grandfather, Miles Romney, defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman. As a traditional Mormon, he was a staunch believer of polygamy. He wouldn’t drink coffee though, that would be an abomination.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 12th, 2012
9:05 am
Rafe, good answer. Much more thought out than others I’ve seen in the past.
Here’s my issue with it: Who sets “standards” on personal decisions which do not affect others? Government? Given their lousy track record of success, do we really want THAT institution setting standards on issues which affect no one else’s rights?
And standards evolve. Slavery used to be a standard. We grew out of that standard. Race inequality, women’s rights; both used to be standards. And they actually affected a person’s life, liberty or property.
So why is this “standard” so tough to get past?