• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP senator reverses gay-marriage stance after son comes out

VanceMack said:
Absolutely. When it is someone ELSES kid...well...he believes what he believes. When it becomes HIS kid...well...now...let me examine that...huh...OK...I changed my mind.
I mean...come on...at least Obama changed his mind to earn campaign cash and votes.

I have no problem with someone taking a good hard look at their belief system..challenging said belief system, and even changing their mind. Thats a good thing. My opinion on abortion and the death penalty has changed after debate and some consideration. But this is tantamount to a death bed confession.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. I see where you are coming from. :)

Thanks for answering.
 
ocean515 said:
I don't think it's a GOP issue. That is where the issue falls on it's face. If voters in extremely liberal California can pass a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage, the GOP excuse is clearly misguided.

It's an awesome talking point to rally the faithful, but it has no basis in reality.

Pushing for state recognition achieves nothing. It's the Fed's who must extend the benefits already granted to heterosexual couples. Lose the "must call it marriage" demand, and it likely passes without much delay. People seem quite firm about maintaining the traditional definition of the word "marriage".
Click to expand...

Using your logic NO state would ever have that. However you are incorrect as gay marriage has been voted in other states.

Again small steps. California anti-SSM proponents had huge influxes of money from Utah.

Besides a simple SCOTUS ruling invalidates all you say.
 
Gina said:
Ok, fair enough. I see where you are coming from. :)

Thanks for answering.
Click to expand...
Digsbe said it best in a similar thread. I just would have respected him more if he came out with a change of position BEFORE it involved his son.
 
Fiddytree said:
What a luxury it would be to dismiss a potential ally! Spare us the silly idealism.
Click to expand...
Help me understand where you see "dismissing a potential ally" or for that matter, the idealism.
 
VanceMack said:
Absolutely. When it is someone ELSES kid...well...he believes what he believes. When it becomes HIS kid...well...now...let me examine that...huh...OK...I changed my mind.
I mean...come on...at least Obama changed his mind to earn campaign cash and votes.

I have no problem with someone taking a good hard look at their belief system..challenging said belief system, and even changing their mind. Thats a good thing. My opinion on abortion and the death penalty has changed after debate and some consideration. But this is tantamount to a death bed confession.
Click to expand...

Sometimes until someone experiences something for themselves, they don't change. That change, even though it happens because of some event, doesn't nullify the person's change nor make it tainted.
 
TheNextEra said:
Sometimes until someone experiences something for themselves, they don't change. That change, even though it happens because of some event, doesn't nullify the person's change nor make it tainted.
Click to expand...
I disagree but OK.
 
VanceMack said:
Digsbe said it best in a similar thread. I just would have respected him more if he came out with a change of position BEFORE it involved his son.
Click to expand...

I would have more respect too, but I'm glad he is standing by his son, in public, rather than keeping it private and still working against SSM. I'm also aware that he might have some sway with other Republican/conservatives. That could be very valuable to the movement.

To me, SSM and staying out of peoples' bedrooms should have been the Republican/conservative position all along. Support stable families and privacy. Period.
 
Perotista said:
I think that goes without saying. Gay marriage is illegal in my home state of Georgia, but legal in Iowa. If a gay couple travels to Iowa to get married and brings back the marriage certificate, both the federal government and the state of Georgia must recognize that certificate the same as any heterosexual marriage certificate from another state. Failure to do so would bring in Section 1 and 2 of Article IV of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Per section 1:
Once you are legally living in Georgia, however, you are no longer a part of Iowa, hence the certificate would be invalid.

Per section 2:
This would require Iowa to tailor their marriage licenses so that they cannot be used and are invalid outside of Iowa. specifically in states that prohibit such marriages. Iowa must respect other states laws.
 
Perotista said:
Since the constitution does not give the federal government the power to determine who can or can't be married, I am perfectly happy to let the states decide this issue. If some states want to recognize gay marriages and some don't, that is the states right. I don't have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

States should not get to recognize who can and can't get married. What is Mississippi decides that blacks and whites shouldn't marry? Yeah. No thanks. It's a federal institution for a good reason.
 
vendur said:
Per section 1:
Once you are legally living in Georgia, however, you are no longer a part of Iowa, hence the certificate would be invalid.

Per section 2:
This would require Ioqa to tailor their marriage licenses so that they cannot be used and are invalid outside of Iowa. Iowa must respect other states laws.
Click to expand...


Section 1 states: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.

To me this means if Georgia is going to recognize all other states marriage licenses, it must recognize IOWA’s. Now I am no lawyer, so I may be screwed up here. It is like all 50 states recognize each states driver’s licenses. Heck, Georgia even recognized my marriage license or certificate and we were married in Thailand.

Per section 2:
This would require Ioqa to tailor their marriage licenses so that they cannot be used and are invalid outside of Iowa. Iowa must respect other states laws.

As far as I know, Georgia has no law against gay marriage, they just do it. Notice I said as far as I know as I hadn’t heard any uproar coming out of Atlanta one way or the other.
 
Hatuey said:
States should not get to recognize who can and can't get married. What is Mississippi decides that blacks and whites shouldn't marry? Yeah. No thanks. It's a federal institution for a good reason.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not a federal institution. It use to be wholly a church institution until the mid 1800's when states first started to keep records of marriages. Up till that point marriages and most deaths records were kept by the churches. My bottom line is government shouldn't have a say of who can or can't be married.
 
Hatuey said:
GOP senator reverses gay-marriage stance after son comes out | The Ticket - Yahoo! News



Good for him. However, this won't mean much considering:

Rob Portman on the Issues
Click to expand...

I have to disagree Hatuey. As a man with his standing in the party, he could have a very positive influence on others to change their minds and he should be welcomed into the SSM movement.

I would have liked to see him change his mind before, but it is what it is and as I said to Vance already, it's good he's standing by his son in public, rather than maintaining that voting record you posted. I hope he will become an advocate beyond this day. The tale will be told there as to how much meaning this change of heart has for him. Will he embrace it, or let the news cycle digest it and be done? Let's hope he continues to speak out.
 
Perotista said:
Section 1 states: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.

To me this means if Georgia is going to recognize all other states marriage licenses, it must recognize IOWA’s. Now I am no lawyer, so I may be screwed up here. It is like all 50 states recognize each states driver’s licenses. Heck, Georgia even recognized my marriage license or certificate and we were married in Thailand.
Click to expand...

Ya, you are "screwed up here". You don't seem to realize that legally living in another state makes you a citizen of THAT state, not your old state.

Perotista said:
As far as I know, Georgia has no law against gay marriage, they just do it. Notice I said as far as I know as I hadn’t heard any uproar coming out of Atlanta one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Iowa must tailor its laws with the understanding that other states are different. It's pretty simple. If not, Iowa would be the one in violation.
 
vendur said:
Ya, you are "screwed up here". You don't seem to realize that legally living in another state makes you a citizen of THAT state, not your old state.



Iowa must tailor its laws with the understanding that other states are different. It's pretty simple. If not, Iowa would be the one in violation.
Click to expand...

So explain why Georgia recognizes a marriage that takes place in Thailand and not one from Iowa? The marriage was even in Thai, not English. So Iowa can also choose not to recognize a Georgia's drivers licence, is that what you are saying.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Perhaps - but I believe he's a Catholic so you can have the Catholic principle of "love the sinner, hate the sin" and not change your core view. If my son robs a bank, I'm still going to love my son but not suddenly think robbing a bank is okay. I know that's a poor analogy, so people, keep the hate to yourselves, I'm just making the point that you don't want people who lead to be making decisions that affect the entire population based on personal or family needs.
Click to expand...

But you're doing nothing but making a big assumption. He MAY'VE changed his view based on family needs OR a change in the situation in his life forced his mind to reevaluate the entire idea and notion which ended with a different view point.

I also love the sanctimony on this thread, as if everyone here hasn't had some moment in their life where something happened to you or people around you and that caused you to reevaluate some view/thought/action/idea/etc. Bitching about that is bitching about the human experience and how people function. New experiences present new information and cause the brain to look at whatever is before them in a different way and react to it going forward using that new information.
 
TheNextEra said:
Using your logic NO state would ever have that. However you are incorrect as gay marriage has been voted in other states.

Again small steps. California anti-SSM proponents had huge influxes of money from Utah.

Besides a simple SCOTUS ruling invalidates all you say.
Click to expand...


So you're trying to suggest that voters in one of the most liberal states in the United States can be bought off by people in Utah?

If that's true, California is in worse shape than it appears. However, it may explain how it got in the shape it is.

Of course, the SCOTUS didn't invalidate anything I wrote. It may invalidate the results, but it can't invalidate the votes.

Try to keep it real.
 
Zyphlin said:
But you're doing nothing but making a big assumption. He MAY'VE changed his view based on family needs OR a change in the situation in his life forced his mind to reevaluate the entire idea and notion which ended with a different view point.

I also love the sanctimony on this thread, as if everyone here hasn't had some moment in their life where something happened to you or people around you and that caused you to reevaluate some view/thought/action/idea/etc. Bitching about that is bitching about the human experience and how people function. New experiences present new information and cause the brain to look at whatever is before them in a different way and react to it going forward using that new information.
Click to expand...


eh? The dude endorsed legislation banning it, essentially, but as soon as junior likes packing some fudge his story and opinion suddenly changes? Doubtful at absolute best. i'm guessing this guy is pre-empting some smushed turds in his own closet or has some kind of political aspirations.
 
Perotista said:
Marriage is not a federal institution. It use to be wholly a church institution until the mid 1800's when states first started to keep records of marriages. Up till that point marriages and most deaths records were kept by the churches. My bottom line is government shouldn't have a say of who can or can't be married.
Click to expand...

No. Your point was that states should get to define, as as history has show, that's a TERRIBLE idea.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I heard the interview and I have to say irrespective of his decision to now support gay marriage, Mr. Portman proved himself unfit to be President or Vice-President for the way he made his decision. He claimed that his change in view is based on his son being gay and wanting his son to have the ability to marry whom he wants. That's fine, but you don't make a decision on principles based on an emotional reaction to your child's needs or wants. Make the decision because you believe all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the same rights, not because you want something special for your son.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately humans are emotional creatures, not machines that operate soley on logic and have no emotion or feelings of empathy.
 
Good for him.. I bet adults children coming out makes many people rethink their views on this issue now these days.
 
Perotista said:
So explain why Georgia recognizes a marriage that takes place in Thailand and not one from Iowa? The marriage was even in Thai, not English. So Iowa can also choose not to recognize a Georgia's drivers licence, is that what you are saying.
Click to expand...

... Can you back this up with a source?
 
Hatuey said:
No. Your point was that states should get to define, as as history has show, that's a TERRIBLE idea.
Click to expand...

Sure, if some states want to recognize gay marriage, fine by me. If mine doesn't, that too is fine. The constitution does not give the power to the federal government to determine who can or who can't be married. Hence if DOMA ever got to the SCOTUS, I would expect it to be knocked down. In section 10 of Article one, determining who can or who can't be married is not one of the no no's of the state. So we move on the the tenth amendment which that power lies with the state or the people, not the federal government.

But if you read Article IV section 1 and 2, it seems to say since marriage is a public record, that all states must recognize other states marriages.

Time will tell.
 
Perotista said:
Sure, if some states want to recognize gay marriage, fine by me. If mine doesn't, that too is fine. The constitution does not give the power to the federal government to determine who can or who can't be married. Hence if DOMA ever got to the SCOTUS, I would expect it to be knocked down. In section 10 of Article one, determining who can or who can't be married is not one of the no no's of the state. So we move on the the tenth amendment which that power lies with the state or the people, not the federal government.

But if you read Article IV section 1 and 2, it seems to say since marriage is a public record, that all states must recognize other states marriages.
Click to expand...

And I've stated twice now why that is a terrible idea. States within a federal body shouldn't get to decide who is married and who isn't. It should be a standard law for all living under the same political entity.
 
Hatuey said:
And I've stated twice now why that is a terrible idea. States within a federal body shouldn't get to decide who is married and who isn't. It should be a standard law for all living under the same political entity.
Click to expand...

The several states or a single state is a political entity although a lot of people want to do away with the states and have only the fed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom