It should be the Republican position to support marriage equality.

The party of Lincoln should be in full support of this. On grounds of freedom of religion. On grounds of expectation of privacy. On grounds of equality under the law. The ONLY arguments against marriage equality, are based eventually in Scripture.

If you want government out of your ministry or temple's business, then you should support marriage equality. If you oppose government interference in your private life, then you should support marriage equality. If you support equality under the law, then you should support marriage equality.

Not every ministry and temple is agreed on the eternal damnation portion of the show where homosexuals are concerned. I have no problem with a ministry banning its priests from performing same sex marriages. That is your right. You don't have the right to insist that every other faith has to follow that ruling. It is akin to insisting that a Mohel be included at every birth, because God hates foreskin.

Please, hate on homosexuals within your own ranks. Purge them from your faithful. Drive them out. But, understand, that there are a lot of homosexuals who have deep and abiding faith, and their God, he's not quite such a dick. It is akin to insisting that only men head up ministries and temples, in other faiths. It's like going into a Unitarian Universalist Society and telling everyone that they will have to pray like Baptists, and all those women folk are going to need to get out of the pulpit--and mind you, there are Baptist ministries who support marriage equality. If Baptists can't even get it together on this issue, how in the 10,000 Hells and 7 Heavens, can you expect anything like consensus on the issue?

You can't. Which is why you keep the government's nose the Hells out of it. Which is what our freedom of religion is about. Not just the freedom to practice, but the freedom from other folk's practices--not the freedom to not know about their practices, not the freedom to be insulated from practices you don't agree with, but the freedom from being bound by other folk's practice.

Marriage equality is an issue where the historic Republican position, both intellectually and ideologically should be in support of greater freedom and less government imprint in our personal lives, and is twisted up by forces who really don't like their neighbors, and see the Republican Party as a convenient bludgeon, and believe that freedom is a slogan, not our watchword and code.

We're done here.

I wish I lived in a state where voting for Johnson could fark over one party or the other.

Nicely done hubiestubert, +1

DarnoKonrad: This is a basic issue of American liberty and equality under the law. There shouldn't be anything partisan about it.


Pretty damn much. If you like the Constitution and privacy, then you should support marriage equality. Period.

Shaggy_C: Government shouldn't being the business of recognizing marriage. It's an archaic construct that should stay restricted to churches and bedrooms. That being said, I have yet to see a legitimate argument for why gay marriage should be recognized by the state but not polygyny. Either recognize all forms of marriage or none; don't pick and choose because you like some parts of tradition.

Devils advocate time...

Even adult sibling incest?

Zoophagous: Gary Johnson is RON PAUL without the crazy. Or the racism. Or a monetary policy that would destroy our economy.

Zoophagous: Gary Johnson is RON PAUL without the crazy. Or the racism. Or a monetary policy that would destroy our economy.

Zoophagous: Gary Johnson is RON PAUL without the crazy. Or the racism. Or a monetary policy that would destroy our economy.

Zoophagous: Gary Johnson is RON PAUL without the crazy. Or the racism. Or a monetary policy that would destroy our economy.

Zoophagous: Gary Johnson is RON PAUL without the crazy. Or the racism. Or a monetary policy that would destroy our economy.

Zoophagous: Gary Johnson is RON PAUL without the crazy. Or the racism. Or a monetary policy that would destroy our economy.

Zoophagous: Gary Johnson is RON PAUL without the crazy. Or the racism. Or a monetary policy that would destroy our economy.

Zoophagous: Gary Johnson is RON PAUL without the crazy. Or the racism. Or a monetary policy that would destroy our economy.

Zoophagous: Gary Johnson is RON PAUL without the crazy. Or the racism. Or a monetary policy that would destroy our economy.

He was the only Rebublican candidate i liked. He did a good job as governor of New Mexico. I cant wrap my head around why he was so ignored. The wingnuts we have left on the Republican side make me want to pull my hair out and/or move to Costa Rica. So even though im a registered Libertarian, im going to vote for Obama, just to do my part to make sure wingnuts dont get into office. Gary Johnson is pragmatic, level headed, and able to compromise. He doesnt consider his political opposition to be evil country destroyers, which gives him extra marks in my book.

// so sick of the hyperbole.

Shaggy_C: Government shouldn't being the business of recognizing marriage. It's an archaic construct that should stay restricted to churches and bedrooms.

Except there are a lot of vital things connected to marriage that are important for a lifelong commitment (property rights, inheritance, child guardianship, visitation rights, etc) which are absolutely the provenance of government. Sure, all these things could be done privately but then you'd be requiring people to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to lawyers when they could instead just register their partnership with the government and get them all bundled, for free. (And before anyone says "civil unions" I would ask why we should bother changing the name just to suit crazy fundies.)

That being said, I have yet to see a legitimate argument for why gay marriage should be recognized by the state but not polygyny. Either recognize all forms of marriage or none; don't pick and choose because you like some parts of tradition.

I actually agree with this. Sure, it makes property rights pretty wonky but I don't think that "it will make the law harder" is a good reason to deny the right of people to wed as they wish. I will give the caveat that I firmly think that marriage should be only entered into by adults, not 13-year-olds with their parents' "permission." In fact, I think minimum age for marriage should be 21. If you aren't mature enough to legally drink, you sure as hell aren't mature enough to legally wed.

save russian jews: * * * *GARY JOHNSON OPPOSES THE IDEA OF NET NEUTRALITY* * * *

This can not be stated enough. I like many of his policies, but this ruins him for me. And it should for you as well.

In summation:

* * * *GARY JOHNSON OPPOSES THE IDEA OF NET NEUTRALITY* * * *

Not everyone that is running will ever fit your positions perfectly. If this happens, they are bullshiating you and telling you what you want to hear.

DarnoKonrad: Shaggy_C: DarnoKonrad: Because there are a lot more variables. Say you divorce your husband, do your co-wives also pay you child support? Do you have to litigate each individually? Do you have visitation rights with their children? Legally you were their parent. It's a fustercluck in the making.

Children should be decided by proven heredity, the same as it is today. You don't think Stepdad gets visitation rights just because he happens to be currently married to Mommy, do you?

I know a step dad with full custodial rights and the biological father has none shaggy.

Sounds like the courts already straighten out complicated family situations akin to what would happen in a polygamy/polyandry situation, then.