APP - My Official Position on Conservative Candidates Signing onto the NOM Pledge

DamnYankee

DamnYankee

Loyal to the end
Statement of Fact

In signing NOM's marriage pledge, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum pledged to:

  • Support and send to the states a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman,
  • Defend DOMA in court,
  • Appoint judges and an attorney general who will respect the original meaning of the Constitution,
  • Appoint a presidential commission to investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters,
  • Support legislation that would return to the people of D.C. their right to vote for marriage.
Click to expand...
Source



Analysis and Position

Like it or not this country was founded on religious principles. We claim inalienable rights given to us by our Creator. Then we secured the Blessings of liberty by forming a limited government to protect those rights.

Legal marriage isn't a right; it is a privilege recognized by State governments through the licensing process because it is extremely helpful to society. Stable marriages produce fine children who form the next generation of leaders, therefore it stabilizes society. It's the same reason why we license doctors, plumbers, engineers and lawyers. If you are deemed qualified for a license then the state grants you the privilege.

Homosexual relationships are inherently as well as statistically less stable and they can't naturally produce children. Some argue that licensing would add to the stability of these relationships and I recognize that. However marriage, unlike the professions, also has a religious component, so it doesn't make sense to defy the very basis of our national claim, that of inalienable rights, if we are at the same time defying our Creator.

A reasonable and rational solution would be for States to provide a licensing venue for monogamous homosexual relationships, with the same privileges, but a different term, then the word "marriage".

Adherence to the NOM pledge does nothing to prevent this. It merely provides a uniform standard for the definition of traditional marriage, thereby recognizing its importance to a stable society.
 
So its ok if we have gay marriage as long as we don't call it gay marriage? So its semantics.

I think we should send our elected officials instructions to get the gov't out of the marriage business completely.
 
WB, meaning government should only do civil unions? marriages or to use the word you need be married by a religious ceremony?
 
Rana said:
WB, meaning government should only do civil unions? marriages or to use the word you need be married by a religious ceremony?
Click to expand...

Rana, the entire "licencing of marriage" thing by the gov't is meddling where it does not belong. A simple civil union for everyone would be the best. If they get a religious ceremony in addition to that civil union, that would be fine. But cut the gov't interference to the absolute minimum.
 
"The Congress shall have Power To... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
 
your entire position is fail because of the following statement.

"Legal marriage isn't a right; it is a privilege recognized by State governments through the licensing process because it is extremely helpful to society."

The right to form a union, procreate, raise offspring is an inherent natural right, NOT a privilege granted by the government.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
your entire position is fail because of the following statement.

"Legal marriage isn't a right; it is a privilege recognized by State governments through the licensing process because it is extremely helpful to society."

The right to form a union, procreate, raise offspring is an inherent natural right, NOT a privilege granted by the government.
Click to expand...

I notice that legal marriage isn't in the list that you, yourself, are proclaiming as natural rights.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Statement of Fact

Source

Analysis and Position

Like it or not this country was founded on religious principles. We claim inalienable rights given to us by our Creator. Then we secured the Blessings of liberty by forming a limited government to protect those rights.

Legal marriage isn't a right; it is a privilege recognized by State governments through the licensing process because it is extremely helpful to society. Stable marriages produce fine children who form the next generation of leaders, therefore it stabilizes society. It's the same reason why we license doctors, plumbers, engineers and lawyers. If you are deemed qualified for a license then the state grants you the privilege.

Homosexual relationships are inherently as well as statistically less stable and they can't naturally produce children. Some argue that licensing would add to the stability of these relationships and I recognize that. However marriage, unlike the professions, also has a religious component, so it doesn't make sense to defy the very basis of our national claim, that of inalienable rights, if we are at the same time defying our Creator.

A reasonable and rational solution would be for States to provide a licensing venue for monogamous homosexual relationships, with the same privileges, but a different term, then the word "marriage".

Adherence to the NOM pledge does nothing to prevent this. It merely provides a uniform standard for the definition of traditional marriage, thereby recognizing its importance to a stable society.
Click to expand...


A reasonable and rational solution would be for States to provide a licensing venue for monogamous homosexual relationships, with the same privileges, but a different term, then the word "marriage".

But there will always be people trying to chip away at the "different term" by drawing up exceptions.

Look at the "equal but different" laws. Discrimination by any other name would smell as stinky.
 
apple0154 said:
But there will always be people trying to chip away at the "different term" by drawing up exceptions.

Look at the "equal but different" laws. Discrimination by any other name would smell as stinky.
Click to expand...
Licensing by its very nature is discriminatory. The state needs to discriminate between those who meet the qualifications and those who don't.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Statement of Fact


Source



Analysis and Position

Like it or not this country was founded on religious principles. We claim inalienable rights given to us by our Creator. Then we secured the Blessings of liberty by forming a limited government to protect those rights.

Legal marriage isn't a right; it is a privilege recognized by State governments through the licensing process because it is extremely helpful to society. Stable marriages produce fine children who form the next generation of leaders, therefore it stabilizes society. It's the same reason why we license doctors, plumbers, engineers and lawyers. If you are deemed qualified for a license then the state grants you the privilege.

Homosexual relationships are inherently as well as statistically less stable and they can't naturally produce children. Some argue that licensing would add to the stability of these relationships and I recognize that. However marriage, unlike the professions, also has a religious component, so it doesn't make sense to defy the very basis of our national claim, that of inalienable rights, if we are at the same time defying our Creator.

A reasonable and rational solution would be for States to provide a licensing venue for monogamous homosexual relationships, with the same privileges, but a different term, then the word "marriage".

Adherence to the NOM pledge does nothing to prevent this. It merely provides a uniform standard for the definition of traditional marriage, thereby recognizing its importance to a stable society.
Click to expand...

" it is a privilege recognized by State governments through the licensing process because it is extremely helpful to society. Stable marriages produce fine children who form the next generation of leaders, therefore it stabilizes society." Gay marriages are no less helpful to society. The only thing a straight couple offers that a gay one does not is child bearing without outside assistance.

"Homosexual relationships are inherently as well as statistically less stable and they can't naturally produce children." We have argued the statistics before, but where does the "Inherently" come from?

" However marriage, unlike the professions, also has a religious component, so it doesn't make sense to defy the very basis of our national claim, that of inalienable rights, if we are at the same time defying our Creator."
There is a religious component if the couple includes it. But that is completely outside the realm of the state's licencing. And how would we be defying our Creator?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Licensing by its very nature is discriminatory. The state needs to discriminate between those who meet the qualifications and those who don't.
Click to expand...

So saying, "A reasonable and rational solution would be for States to provide a licensing venue for monogamous homosexual relationships, with the same privileges, but a different term, then the word "marriage", is neither reasonable nor rational because some people would always try to differentiate between them just as what happened to the "equal but different" laws. Been down that road before.

Once again, to paraphrase Obama, "The Repubs/Conservatives always come up with old, tired, worn out ideas."
 
Damn Yankee said:
However marriage, unlike the professions, also has a religious component, so it doesn't make sense to defy the very basis of our national claim, that of inalienable rights, if we are at the same time defying our Creator.

A reasonable and rational solution would be for States to provide a licensing venue for monogamous homosexual relationships, with the same privileges, but a different term, then the word "marriage".
Click to expand...

So if we allow gays to marry we are defying our Creator? But if we give them the same privileges and call it something else, we won't be defying our Creator?
 
apple0154 said:
So saying, "A reasonable and rational solution would be for States to provide a licensing venue for monogamous homosexual relationships, with the same privileges, but a different term, then the word "marriage", is neither reasonable nor rational because some people would always try to differentiate between them just as what happened to the "equal but different" laws. Been down that road before.

Once again, to paraphrase Obama, "The Repubs/Conservatives always come up with old, tired, worn out ideas."
Click to expand...

Some people always try to equate privileges with rights. What's your point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top