‘Would you attend a homosexual wedding?’ A simple question so many GOP candidates got wrong.
That is to say, the answer above is the answer that doctrinaire Republican primary voters are looking for. And yet, that so many candidates got the answer FLAT WRONG, may say something about the changing attitudes towards gays and gay marriage within the GOP.
Scott Walker (via CNN)
“Even though my position on marriage is still that its defined as between a man and a woman, and I support the constitution of the state but for someone I love, we’ve been to a (gay) reception,” he said at the end of the GOP Summit in New Hampshire.
Marco Rubio (via Politico)
Fusion host Jorge Ramos pressed Rubio on Wednesday about whether he would go to the same-sex ceremony of someone in his family or someone on his staff who happens to be gay. Rubio said yes.
John Kasich (via CNN)
“I went home and I said to my wife, ‘My friend’s getting married. What do you think? You wanna go?’ She goes, ‘Oh, I’m absolutely going,’ Kasich, who opposes same-sex marriages, said. “My friend knows how I feel about the issue, but I’m not here to have a war with him. I care about my friend, and so it’s pretty simple for me.”
Ted Cruz ducked the question. Santorum gave a flat no.
Santorum is the nominee
You can’t spell sanitorium w/o Santorum.
No, really, you can’t.
The party of hatred and mindless religious dogma
I had a legislator (who will remain unnamed) who told me he was voting against marriage equality but “if you and John get married, I would be happy to attend your wedding”. He wasn’t invited.
No, should be an easy answer. It’s not a real marriage. It wouldn’t be anything against the people involved.
Rubio is a double apostate. He said homosexuality isn’t a choice.
Oh Republican David, you’re a jackass. Marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people.
WHEW……..I thought you were gonna ask about bringin’ the kids 🙂 !
Talk radio republicans aren’t real humans
“It’s not a real marriage.”
OK, then you’re not a real person.
“It’s not a real marriage.”
…..yet Newt Gingrich’s third, Rush Limbaugh’s fourth, Ted Nugent’s two (one with a 17 year old when he was 30 and signed documents making him the guardian of her) all are “real.”
And if Republicans don’t show up for things that aren’t real, they may as well cancel any planned meetings for republican healthcare reform, immigration reform, environmental conservation, science and sound economic policy.
The “Jesus is my doctor” meeting is still on and will be held in the Biblevania room at the Indianapolis Airport Marriott.
I look forward to living to the day when we look back on statements like “Its not a real marriage” and chuckle at the ignorance and prejudice that underscores those sentiments. Until then, know that you are on the wrong side of history, and history is written by the winners. There is still time to reassess your thoughts, but the clock is ticking before you are regarded in the same light as those famous bigots of the past.
or those bigots who are still around today and just get a pass because ‘grandpa grew up in a small town, that word was accepted back then”.
Unlike Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama who held the same position that I still do, I don’t care what people think. I know the truth and the truth sets me free. Marriage is the fundamental building block of civilization because it is the merging of the sexes into one family unit. It is not the glue of civilized society. Only fools would tamper with it. We were fools when we issued no fault divorce. Look at the wreckage it has left.
No more experiments.
David, your view of marriage doesn’t hold up historically. You can believe whatever nonsense you want to believe about marriage and how it was employed in history, but that doesn’t make what you claim the slightest bit factual.
No, you don’t know the truth. What you know are lies, and they have imprisoned you.
Now go back to your own playpen and clean up the anti-Semitic trash.
It’s fun watching them squeal.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_04/jindals_counteroffensive_again055222.php
Pandora has it. David is factually incorrect. Marriage is what we say it is…
Or a contractual agreement to consolidate power between the monarchies of Europe.
Or a way to obtain a very nice dowry as a nest-egg.
Or arrangments between parents in the Asian subcontinent.
Or polygamy in the places where it is still practiced.
That’s what I call “the truth.” I don’t know if it’ll set me free, but I know it makes me more thoughtful than you, David. Plus it mean I’m not a dirty bigot. So that’s nice.
Everything that I said is 100% historical. All of those things you say contradict it don’t, they are variations on a theme, the union of the sexes to form a stable family which is the crux of civilization. That is what I said not some romantic notion. It is the silliness of putting romance in front of society that leads people down the confused road of what is fair. As a conservative, I don’t care about fair. Fair is for fools. I don’t care who arranges it–You, your parents, or the matchmaker that you choose.
Polygamy is a legitimate form of marriage just not the best for society because it leaves too many men who are not wealthy, disconnected. Marriage in a large part is about civilizing men. Societies without men being connected to families are violent and unruly.
Throughout history marriage has taken many forms and served many purposes (see Dorian’s examples) but rarely, until maybe recently (and even that’s debatable) has its purpose been to form a “stable” family.
And your citing romance/love as a basis for marriage is a relatively new concept. Marriages, throughout history, were a contract which bestowed property (which often times included women as property) and money to the mostly male parties involved. The reason for having children had more to do with inheritance/titles (rich people) or producing additional labor (poorer families).
And… nice to know you think it’s a woman’s job to civilize a man. Guess that’s why you guys always like to blame women for your lack of… honor? masculinity? Violence? If only we ladies did the job you assigned to us since you have no moral or ethical compass.
You do realize there were same sex unions in premodern Europe, right?
@Sussexanon–Don’t bother. I tried explaining John Boswell’s work to David several years ago. He read a review of the book on a Christian apologetics website, shrugged his shoulders and said effectively, “Nah, he made it up.”
There is no real use attempting to besiege such a well-defended fortress.
I particularly enjoy the idea that our entire culture has to organize itself around the strictures of David’s personal mental illness. It’s so strange it’s entertaining. The fucking gall of that guy… I mean you have to be real fucked up to come up with that… incredible and awesome.
Pandora, that is all irrelevant, but inaccurate. Have you not read the Book of Ruth from 3000 years ago or the Song of Solomon? How about the book of Genesis and the story of Israel and Rachel. I would not say romance is a new concept. All I am saying is that it is not the basis of society. You learn to love people. Love is a choice. It is the structure. How you get to the structure is not my concern from a public policy perspective. I like romance, but if you rather find your spouse from a computer match up based upon scientific compatibility or have your parents choose, or have the matchmaker do it, doesn’t matter. What matters is that a stable family is formed with a man and woman raising children as the norm.
Dorian, you are the one changing the structure of society for a whim. Society has organized itself on 5 basic institutions, the family, faith institutions, economic institutions, educational establishments, and government. The foundation of all of them is the family. How do you not understand this? You are intelligent. Is it willful ignorance?
The foundation of the United States is the individual, not the family. Really.
Family has existed in many different forms throughout human history just like the other institutions you list.
“How do you not understand this? You are intelligent. Is it willful ignorance?”
right back at-cha
Your definition of “family” is extremely narrow and based on ideas nobody else is bound to accept.
Now if you republicans would just read a science book. And no one is denying you people a traditional heterosexual marriage. I’m in one myself but I could care less if 2 homosexuals want to have the same type things. It hurts nothing and no one
@David: While your theories are fascinating, in a primitive elephant-paints-pictures kind of way, you — to be exceedingly kind — don’t have any idea what the fuck you’re talking about. Take your Jesus-humping bullshit back to the three anti-Semitic assholes who are still allowed to comment at Delaware Politics.
While you’re at it, you might tell that asshole Ayotte that he keeps printing a demonstrable non-fact when he claims the Bodenweiser prosecution cost $2 million, or even $1.2 million, for that matter. The budget for the entire office is just $34 million per year, and that prosecution involved nothing more complex than interviewing the victim and filing lots of paperwork to counter Joe Hurley’s blizzard of paperwork. People in the AG’s office work on salary, not by the hour. But of course you would have to know something to know that.
I realize that you have no idea how to run anything more complex than a church picnic, but you might consider that letting your “reporters” censor corrections is a less-than-responsible way to run a media outlet.
Hear Hear dammit