68 questions for POTUS (Includes 3rd parties)

[GhostWriter16]

I'd be okay with a "civil unions for all" thing if the terminology is really that contentious, but I don't see why it ought to be. Nobody's forcing you personally to recognize it as a marriage.

Its not contentious for me to the point where I'd pick a candidate or not pick a candidate based on it. But I do think if the government is going to define marriage (I don't necessarily think it needs to do so) it should define it properly as a union between a man and a woman.

That does not mean gay people cannot have a similar legal union, in fact, I have stated support for such.

And you do come up with the rather thorny issue of two husbands who move to a state where marriage is constitutionally defined as not what they have. Can they file jointly for taxes or be compelled to testify against one another? Federal involvement to clear this up isn't forbidden by the Constitution as far as I know.

Legalize civil unions for crying out loud

Yes, GW, but you're stating your opinion as if it's a fact. Gay marriage is highly important to some people, as I know you're well aware.

No duh I'm aware.

Considering how people are being arrested without a warrant, our economy is in the tank, we're STILL in Afghanistan, we're STILL wiretapping peoples phones, people are getting seuxally assaulted in airports, the unborn are being killed while our government does nothing to protect them, and lives are being ruined but the drug war, yes, I am quite comfortable saying I don't consider it a huge issue.

Constitutionality is irrelevant here, actually. There's nothing about marriage in it at all (unless I'm completely wrong - I honestly don't know).

It's pretty insulting to gay people (and Yes, you almost certainly have a gay relative, a gay teacher, a gay friend) to say that their legal situation is not a real issue.

Because for millions of our compatriots, it is a VERY real issue. And if you turn out to be gay, it will also become a huge issue for you.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-cross-in-the-closet-timothy-kurek/1112999942

This book sounds pretty interesting. He lived as an openly gay man for a couple of years, and it completely changed his views on homosexuality. He even brought his mother's views around (she had been pretty anti-gay before).

Millions? I might question that high of a number.

Marriage recognition isn't going to change the culture for good or ill.

Its just a manipulative tactic and it gets a lot of people focused away from the real issues.

My ambivalence to this is not an ambivalence to the plights of gay people. Uganda proposed a law to EXECUTE homosexuals. That's certainly horrifying. Saudi Arabia and Sudan do similar. And so many other countries. There are a lot of countries where gays can be imprisoned or executed for their choices.

America? We don't persecute gays as a whole very much. The worst is that we don't recognize their legal unions. We aren't physically preventing them from doing anything. As such, it is NOT an "End of the world" issue.

 

[Arakhor]

I could make an identical case for abortion and you'd think it was the most horrible self-justifying spiel in the world. There are many things wrong with the world, but deliberately minimising one of them because you don't agree with it is not a likeable attitude.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, but even if I agreed with gay marriage (I'm really not as strongly opposed to it as you might think) I still would not consider it an issue that should be at the forefront of public attention.

 

[sophie]

Millions? I might question that high of a number.

Yes Dommy, millions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

 

[Kennigit]

I'm genuinely surprised romney is so pro-evolution (or should I say pro-fact), at least from the position cited on that website.

would have expected him to be generic "well I think all options should be taught" blah blah for "intelligent design" or whatever. Good for him.

though that was 2007.

 

[_random_]

That does not mean gay people cannot have a similar legal union, in fact, I have stated support for such.

Eh, I appreciate your intent, but I'm not digging the "seperate but equal" vibe.

Legalize civil unions for crying out loud

At the federal level?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Eh, I appreciate your intent, but I'm not digging the "seperate but equal" vibe.

I'm not really either, which is why the government should stop playing with religious terms.

But I reject any effort for the government to define marriage as anything OTHER than between a man and a woman.

I know some people are going to throw me in with the WBC for that... that's on them.

At the federal level?

Ultimately the Federal government shouldn't really be recognizing marriage period, as it is not within their constitutional authority to do so (Tenth amendment). Instead they should just be lowering everyone's taxes, and anyone should really be able to have anyone that they want to have visit them in the hospital be allowed to visit.

If the Federal government is going to ignore the constitution and get involved in this game, then yes, they should recognize civil unions for gay couples. Although I do agree with the other part of DOMA. South Carolina shouldn't have to recognize a New York gay marriage if they don't want to.

 

[_random_]

South Carolina shouldn't have to recognize a New York gay marriage if they don't want to.

Dude.

 

[GhostWriter16]

OK, there's literally no way they were possibly thinking about marriage licenses when they made that statement.

The point is that I can't be accused of a crime in New York, be acquitted, and yet still get tried again if I cross the New Jersey border.

By the wording however, its congress who decides, it seems, what acts are considered to carry over, so I suppose requiring recognition would be constitutional. I'm glad we don't do it though.

 

[_random_]

You're glad we don't follow the plain text of the Constitution? Can I get you to say it just like that so I can sig it?

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, its exactly what the Constitution says, that Congress shall decide what it applies to.

That said, if we can fix all of our other constitutional problems, I'll give you that one with a cherry on top. I really just don't care all that much.