My Position on Marriage

“I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. ... So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization.”

This is definitely one of those things that bothers me about Clinton. I wish she were just up front about her past positions of being against marriage equality. She tried to pretend now that she was always a supporter of the LGBT community, but as we can clearly see here (and in other statements she has made) that this is clearly not the case.

However, that being said, she is still decades ahead of all the republicans who are absolutely on the wrong side of history and will be viewed in the future in the same way we view the people who opposed interracial marriage: backwards.

So, if one weighs LGBT rights in the decision for electing president, it would be Sanders > Clinton >>>>>>>> any republican.

I wonder where JL stands on marriage equality.

This is definitely one of those things that bothers me about Clinton. I wish she were just up front about her past positions of being against marriage equality. She tried to pretend now that she was always a supporter of the LGBT community, but as we can clearly see here (and in other statements she has made) that this is clearly not the case.

However, that being said, she is still decades ahead of all the republicans who are absolutely on the wrong side of history and will be viewed in the future in the same way we view the people who opposed interracial marriage: backwards.

So, if one weighs LGBT rights in the decision for electing president, it would be Sanders > Clinton >>>>>>>> any republican. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Basically, she just takes the position she thinks will get her votes. I don't believe she cares either way, as long as she gets what she believes she deserves - power.

Basically, she just takes the position she thinks will get her votes. I don't believe she cares either way, as long as she gets what she believes she deserves - power. Originally Posted by DSK

Well, in her defense, she basically shifted her position with the entire democratic party. It's almost as if she, as a representative, represents her constituents. I don't mind the shift in policy, what I mind is the pretending that she was always on one side, when that clearly isn't the case.

Get government out of marriage.

My position on marriage is that it should not be the government's business.
If a man and a woman can live together and declare they are married and it is common law then why should you pay a tax to the government for a piece of paper that never expires.
May as well let to guys or two women claim common law as well and then the government is not involved at all.
Of course, not all states have the same common law as Texas.

Speaking of States, wouldn't marriage be something that is not enumerated in the Constitution and therefore would be left to the states?

Speaking of States, wouldn't marriage be something that is not enumerated in the Constitution and therefore would be left to the states? Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Yes, this is true. And the states are still the ones who regulate it.

The issue is that the courts, in the past, have held up marriage as a fundamental right. The 14th amendment says that the laws have to apply to everyone equally and that, without good reason, the states cannot deny equal protection. The states failed to make any convincing argument that they had a vested interest in denying equal protection of the law to their gay citizens, and thus, under the 14th amendment, laws that banned interracial marriage were, absolutely correctly, deemed unconstitutional.

So there we have it. A non-issue much like abortion should be.
I do not care how many babies somebody kills as long as they do not use my tax dollars to do so.
Can you tell me where it is in the Constitution that the federal government is obligated to pay for abortions? I do not want my tax money to go to eugenics via abortion.

My position on marriage is that it should not be the government's business.
If a man and a woman can live together and declare they are married and it is common law then why should you pay a tax to the government for a piece of paper that never expires.
May as well let to guys or two women claim common law as well and then the government is not involved at all.
Of course, not all states have the same common law as Texas.

Speaking of States, wouldn't marriage be something that is not enumerated in the Constitution and therefore would be left to the states? Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Or to the people themselves. The State has no business in this either.

Yes, this is true. And the states are still the ones who regulate it.

The issue is that the courts, in the past, have held up marriage as a fundamental right. The 14th amendment says that the laws have to apply to everyone equally and that, without good reason, the states cannot deny equal protection. The states failed to make any convincing argument that they had a vested interest in denying equal protection of the law to their gay citizens, and thus, under the 14th amendment, laws that banned interracial marriage were, absolutely correctly, deemed unconstitutional. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Well, if true, I would submit that polygamous marriage deserves equal protection.

I would otherwise love to have equal protection of the laws but I guess there is an exception for laws that are anti white male, such as affirmative action/diversity.

If the parties involved are of legal age and consenting, so what if you have multiple wives/husbands? It's not the government's business.

If the parties involved are of legal age and consenting, so what if you have multiple wives/husbands? It's not the government's business. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Makes sense to me, but liberals love to control things like that.

Makes sense to me, but liberals love to control things like that. Originally Posted by DSK

Link?

This is definitely one of those things that bothers me about Clinton. I wish she were just up front about her past positions of being against marriage equality. She tried to pretend now that she was always a supporter of the LGBT community, but as we can clearly see here (and in other statements she has made) that this is clearly not the case.

However, that being said, she is still decades ahead of all the republicans who are absolutely on the wrong side of history and will be viewed in the future in the same way we view the people who opposed interracial marriage: backwards.

So, if one weighs LGBT rights in the decision for electing president, it would be Sanders > Clinton >>>>>>>> any republican. Originally Posted by eatfibo

It is only your opinion that the GOP (really, all of them?) are on the wrong side of history. The progressives who were pushing for sterilization of the infirm were on the wrong side of history but they didn't think so at the time. So there is no absolute about it except in your mind. Don't bring race into a discussion about gay marriage. It has no place there. People of different races have been marrying and having children for thousands of years. What? You thought it was a recent issue? Men and women of different races only look different, everything else remains the same. Gay marriage...well, show me a gay marriage that has produced a child outside of divine intervention. As for your last wild shot in the dark, you might go back to the second or first debate and remember what John Kasich said about gay marriage and his gay friend getting married. He is so much more supportive of gay marriage than Hillary Clinton ever thought of and he didn't try to ride it like a pony. There are republicans who have supported gay marriage before Hillary thought it was a way to get votes.