The embrasure of supporting the rights of citizens is not a Conservative or Liberal issue. It's an issue of civil liberties and religious freedom.

You support religious freedom, then you should support churches that decide to perform same sex marriages. Plain and simple. You should likewise support churches that decide to NOT perform same sex marriages. Otherwise, keep the government out of the issue, save to be sure that all parties are consenting, and that they have equal protection under the law.

That the idea of the government getting involved one way or another on the issue shows how screwed up the party system has gotten.

As a Conservative, I don't care who gets married to who. It's none of my business--you don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one then. But never mind if your neighbors or their congregation want to perform the ceremony--and never mind if they don't either. None of your damn business.

So long as the parties are consenting, and have equal protection, drive on. None of my business either way. You want to get a quicky divorce? Drive on, so long as there are equal protections. You want a fast track marriage? Drive on, so long as there are equal protections.

Will it mean that some folks get married who maybe shouldn't? Probably, but that hasn't stopped folks in the past, and it won't stop folks in the future. Freedom is about letting people make their own damn mistakes, and maybe even learn from them.

In the end though, what your neighbors do with their genitalia doesn't affect you. Unless you've been invited to their house, why does it matter what they do behind closed doors, or in their back yard?

This isn't a Conservative issue--or rather, it's a no brainer if you support the Constitution, state's rights, and civil liberties in any way. And that there are some who like to poke their nose into other peoples' business, and call it "Conservative" is not just a misnomer, it's anathema to being a good citizen.

Life. Liberty. Pursuit of happiness. Not, "pursuit of happiness, except for them queers."

If you like personal liberty, and you like states' rights, then gay marriage should be an easy sell--unless of course, you've got a separate agenda that includes being a gottverdammit Nosey Nellie...

Good for him.

He's supporting civil unions, not marriage, but that's still further than 70% of Utah residents want to go. Good for him.

hopefully he can do something about it before he's up for reelection.

He's realized that Utah is a fast-growing state, and if they want their share of the California emigres that have bolstered Colorado, Oregon, and Arizona, then they better pull the moral stick out of their ass.

patrick767: He's supporting civil unions, not marriage, but that's still further than 70% of Utah residents want to go. Good for him.

Supporting civil unions rather than gay marriage makes him a hateful bigot. That's what we learned from the Prop 8 debate, anyway. You either support gay marriage all the way, or you're full of hate.

This is unexpected. Nice to see he has the courage to be right.

SkinnyHead: WHARRGARBL

Dude, you forgot to take your meds this morning.

SkinnyHead: Seriously man, time to buy a new tag. I came |___| that close to biting, then I saw your name.

Occam's Chainsaw: I came |___| that close to biting, then I saw your name.

Fark allows you the ability to color people's comments, even without Farky. The trolls get the darkest gray available. In order to read the text, you have to highlight it.

hubiestubert: f you support state's rights

I'm hard-pressed to remember a time when "states' rights" was anything other than a rallying cry to prevent the Federal government from preventing State government from restricting individuals' rights.

co-conspirator: hubiestubert: f you support state's rights

I'm hard-pressed to remember a time when "states' rights" was anything other than a rallying cry to prevent the Federal government from preventing State government from restricting individuals' rights.

Occasionally, states like New Hampshire want to lower the legal drinking age, but the Federal government threatens their highway money as leverage.

UNC_Samurai: Occasionally, states like New Hampshire want to lower the legal drinking age, but the Federal government threatens their highway money as leverage.

They have the right not to take the money. But point taken.

SkinnyHead: Supporting civil unions rather than gay marriage makes him a hateful bigot. That's what we learned from the Prop 8 debate, anyway. You either support gay marriage all the way, or you're full of hate.

You misspelled "willfully ignorant moron".

woah

All I heard was "blah, blah, blah, libs are evil; I dOccam's Chainsaw: SkinnyHead: Seriously man, time to buy a new tag. I came |___| that close to biting, then I saw your name.

Probably an alt.

PoopStain: Glas to see the transformation is complete: most people want to be told what to do from cradle to grave.

Funny, comin from a religious guy.

At the very least. So this is a big B+ for Utah and whatever is left of the GOP. But there's no point pussy footing around. We don't need separate but equal legal statutes.

Someone has finally evolved to separate but equal is ok and I'm supposed to be happy?

hubiestubert: he embrasure of supporting the rights of citizens is not a Conservative or Liberal issue. It's an issue of civil liberties and religious freedom.

Yeah, but we don't want Obama to jump the gun and initiate a culture war because of stuff like this, do we?

*cough*

hubiestubert: As a Conservative, I don't care who gets married to who. It's none of my business--you don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one then. But never mind if your neighbors or their congregation want to perform the ceremony--and never mind if they don't either. None of your damn business.

This isn't a Conservative issue--or rather, it's a no brainer if you support the Constitution, state's rights, and civil liberties in any way. And that there are some who like to poke their nose into other peoples' business, and call it "Conservative" is not just a misnomer, it's anathema to being a good citizen.


Can you and more of your kind take back the Republican party please?

PoopStain: co-conspirator: I'm hard-pressed to remember a time when "states' rights" was anything other than a rallying cry to prevent the Federal government from preventing State government from restricting individuals' rights.

And Thomas Jefferson rolls over in his grave...

Glas to see the transformation is complete: most people want to be told what to do from cradle to grave.

Five seperate states either have legislation on the books, or are currently reviewing legislation regarding restricting federal power over the states.

It is definatley not over yet.

Wasn't Obama against both Gay Marriages and Civil Unions?

So, go GOP??

Is that right?

OMG, that can't be right? is it?

Noooooooooooooooo

Of course he does. Once you let the sodomites marry, bigamy won't be far behind. Don't ever confuse a Mormon with a real Christian.

SkinnyHead: patrick767: He's supporting civil unions, not marriage, but that's still further than 70% of Utah residents want to go. Good for him.

Supporting civil unions rather than gay marriage makes him a hateful bigot. That's what we learned from the Prop 8 debate, anyway. You either support gay marriage all the way, or you're full of hate.

"Full of hate" is overstating. Feels that "It's fine to be gay, but, come on, who are we kidding, it's not the same as a real marriage" is more accurate.

Contents of a Space Wasp's stomach: Wasn't Obama against both Gay Marriages and Civil Unions?

So, go GOP??

Is that right?

OMG, that can't be right? is it?

Noooooooooooooooo

You're correct. That can't be right, and it's not right. Obama is for gay Civil Unions.

citizen905: Of course he does. Once you let the sodomites marry, bigamy won't be far behind. Don't ever confuse a Mormon with a real Christian.

Hee! You're funny!

PoopStain: And Thomas Jefferson rolls over in his grave...

Glas to see the transformation is complete: most people want to be told what to do from cradle to grave.

I love Thomas Jefferson - he's my #1 American of all time. But many of his socio-political ideas were flat out boneheaded. You really want us to be a nation of farmers?

citizen905: Of course he does. Once you let the sodomites marry, bigamy won't be far behind. Don't ever confuse a Mormon with a real Christian.

Yes! Start alienating the Mormons too! Start comparing their beliefs to your perception of the evils of homosexuality! It's not like the GOP needs the west.

Yeah because "separate and equal" worked so well in the South.

citizen905: Of course he does. Once you let the sodomites marry, bigamy won't be far behind. Don't ever confuse a Mormon with a real Christian.

And never confuse a REAL Christian with a REAL Christian either because you know...umm real Christians are like that one church I saw one time...I forget...and nobody can quite tell me which one is the REAL Christian church so for real...lets get real...really!!

lohphat: Yeah because "separate and equal" worked so well in the South.

I agree, can we strike the term "marriage" from all legal documents in this country now and replace it with "civil union" no matter the sex?

Please?

Sadly, this might be the thing that gets him unelected.

rohar: lohphat: Yeah because "separate and equal" worked so well in the South.

I agree, can we strike the term "marriage" from all legal documents in this country now and replace it with "civil union" no matter the sex?

Please?

Why? Why should we have to kowtow to bigots, and, in the process, undertake a lengthy and expensive process of altering thousands of additional laws?

rohar: I agree, can we strike the term "marriage" from all legal documents in this country now and replace it with "civil union" no matter the sex?

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to let two dudes get married?

lohphat: Yeah because "separate and equal" worked so well in the South.

Sure as hell beats separate and unequal. Not that I'm disagreeing with you.

Still gotta drive to Wyoming for beer

Wow. I'll have to ask my Mormon friend how he feels about this.

attackingpencil: Why? Why should we have to kowtow to bigots, and, in the process, undertake a lengthy and expensive process of altering thousands of additional laws?

Removing religious terms from our laws is probably worth the expense.

good for him

but you're still a bigot if you don't support same sex marriage

unless like you want government recognition of marriage abolished and all marriages past and future treated as civil unions

MrGumboPants: Removing religious terms from our laws is probably worth the expense.

Marriage has been a civil institution far longer than it has been a religious one.

MrGumboPants: attackingpencil: Why? Why should we have to kowtow to bigots, and, in the process, undertake a lengthy and expensive process of altering thousands of additional laws?

Removing religious terms from our laws is probably worth the expense.

Marriage is not a religious term.

MrGumboPants: Removing religious terms from our laws is probably worth the expense.

Marriage is not a religious term. It was co-opted by religion. That said, I agree, just make everything a civil union. Call it kowtowing all you want, but if it ends the debate and everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, I think it's worth the expense.

Mormon outrage in 5, 4, 3, 2..

sarcastrophe: Call it kowtowing all you want, but if it ends the debate and everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, I think it's worth the expense.

You know it won't end the debate. The people who oppose gay marriage wouldn't support letting gay couples and straight couples have the same institutional support, regardless of the name.

Gay people would lose more support by trying to take away people's marriage (as it would be campaigned) then they would just trying to get in the club.

sarcastrophe: but if it ends the debate and everyone is equal in the eyes of the law,

Tangent question: Will we see a change in common usage of inclusive language relating to spouses as a result of all this discussion of same-sex marriage?

I can't be the only one to perk up my ears when I hear a man introduce someone as "my husband Jim". Am I the only one who hears "husband" and thinks "power inequality"? Or at least some kind of inequality?

DamnYankees: You know it won't end the debate. The people who oppose gay marriage wouldn't support letting gay couples and straight couples have the same institutional support, regardless of the name.

Gay people would lose more support by trying to take away people's marriage (as it would be campaigned) then they would just trying to get in the club.

You're probably right.

DamnYankees: You really want us to be a nation of farmers?

To be fair, we should probably be growing our own food. Or pooling resources and going community with the harvest. Improvements in technology should allow a great many of us to work at home or within a few miles.

A nation of "gentlemen farmers" with 10 acres each, or at least a decent-sized yard in the city?

It's doable. Why throw out such a good idea? It's more workable than the death trip we're on right now...

/threadjack

So he opposes the Democrat's position against gay marriage. Well that kinda makes sense, doesn't it?

paygun: the Democrat's

Wow. There's only one left? Shiat.

Zagloba: Tangent question: Will we see a change in common usage of inclusive language relating to spouses as a result of all this discussion of same-sex marriage?

I can't be the only one to perk up my ears when I hear a man introduce someone as "my husband Jim". Am I the only one who hears "husband" and thinks "power inequality"? Or at least some kind of inequality?

I'm sure the term spouse is sufficient for any legal definition. DamnYankees would know more than me about that. I can't imagine they have "husband" or "wife" codified, and if they do, that needs to change anyway what with equal rights between the sexes regardless of sexual preference. As for our normal lexicon, I don't think it matters.