Rubio: No constitutional right to 'gay' marriage

I've always found that there's a disparity between what people say they care about, and what they actually care about. Nobody ever puts "faithfulness to spouse" on their reasons for liking a candidate, but whenever a scandal gets uncovered, all of a sudden it's a big issue.

It seems like the issues they are making decisions off of are the ones filled with rhetoric. SSM will probably be a bigger issue in 2016 than most realize.

 

The simple solution for the Supreme Court is uphold State bans on SSM but require existing marriages stand, and if a marriage is leally performed in any State for a SSM couple it must be recognized across state lines. Then States will be happy and same-sex couples who could get married and go to any State they wish.

 

It is hardly a tidal wave. It is more like apathy. This will not hurt him one bit because when it comes to gay marriage the people's attitude is "whatever just shut up already".

 

How to explain a conservative that his own beliefs are not the only ones? Useless...

 

Rubio will not go over well with young people at all. He's an old man in a younger guy's body.

 

He might be playing to the Koch brothers, though. Does anyone know their position on SSM?

 

Any possible candidate will support form the Koch grinches, but aside from that...

 

I really doubt that. The SCOTUS is suppose to rule come June on it. Those really hot on the issue, for or against has already made up their mind whom they will vote for or at least party. For quite a lot of independents what I have found is they really don't care one way or the other. All they want is for the issue to go away, they are tired of hearing about on the news.

 

1. Do polygamists, singles, and all other classes of non-married individuals pay taxes? If so, why should their taxes have to subsidize gay couples, when the taxes of gay couples do not subsidize any of them?
2. You would be better served to ask yourself that question, since I have already explained it to you in understandable language; understandable that is, to those not entrapped by the folly of gay activism.

A question for you. How is that I am able to answer and refute all of your questions, yet, you make no real attempt to answer any of mine?

 

Better comparison would be defining all vets as males and then denying female vets benefits because they did not fit the definition that required vets to be males.

 

You do of course realize that heterosexuals do sodomy too. Or have you been missing out. Heterosexual do oral sex too. You probably didn't know that!

 

I am always surprised at the fact that Conservatives who want to limit the role of government are even tolerant of any government either state or federal having a role in " marriage". Guess just another example of Conservative hypocracy.

 

So if someone supports a definition of marriage which defines it as between a man and a man or as between a woman and a woman you wouldn't consider that anti- heterosexual.

 

1) Yes they do pay taxes; and the public should not subsidize anyone's relationship, including heterosexuals. You know your argument could also be used for gay people against straight people as gay people currently subsidize straight marriages while not being granted the same benefits.

2) It is unequal for the government to allow benefits to couple A while denying them to couple B. What will an infertile heterosexual couple provide to society that a homosexual couple cannot provide?

Your questions have been responded to and summarily refuted. Your turn

 

No, that is in no way a better comparison, it is a worst one.

No. Is a definition of marriage that is monogamous anti-(traditional) Mormon? No. "anti" carries animus, it does not simply mean a definition which someone doesn't like. The 21 drinking age isn't "anti-teen".

 

As well as heterosexuals; http://jurist.org/forum/2014/10/richard-kelsey-samesex-marriage.php Now what do we do?
2.

Where is your scientific proof?
3.

And, what does being older have to do with the price of Tea in China?

 

You only imagine that you have done that.

And we aren't making policy or passing judgments here. I'm not required to answer your questions.

I'm just here to state what I think is good/right.

You're free to take it or leave it.

 

So do you think such sexual behaviors must be subsidized by the government?

 

1. Sounds more like you are agreeing with me, than you are refuting me. I've already stated that it is better to argue against subsidizing marriage altogether, than it is to argue for expanding marriage benefits to those to whom they were never intended.

2. Couple B is not formed in an equivalent manner to Couple A, and therefore cannot expect equivalent consideration. Can a student of dentistry expect an architect's license, or vice versa?

 

Well, we'll see, we'll see...

 

That we will. There are a lot of things that those of us who are political active or interested think are very important. They are to us, but to the vast majority, there are times they could care less. There are tons of people out there when it comes to SSM that will say it would be nice or that's crazy. Then they go about their business and daily lives without giving SSM another thought.

 

If only all voters cared...

 

There are a lot of things dear to Republicans and Democrats, the far right and far left. Then you have those in the middle that usually vote their pocket book issues or on an issue or two they really care about. That is life. When it comes to the economy, jobs, healthcare, perhaps immigration, wars and foreign policy and on and on, SSM does not make the list. Perhaps it is because gays make up such a little portion of the electorate or society as a whole. How many people know a gay person outside of seeing one on TV?

If you live in a rural area or even a small town, the chances are slim to none or you might know a Martian before a gay person. It is in the cities, urban areas where the chances are better or on college campuses. But even in the cities, those in the suburbs probably do not know any either.

I can't give you an reason why, only that it is.

 

I agree the government should exit the marriage business - they have done nothing but make a mockery out of it, like everything they do - unfortunately, neither one of us see that happening and the government has no right to discriminate.

I would argue that a homosexual couple is similarly situated to an infertile heterosexual couple.

 

Sorry, I don't comprehend how expanding the legal definition of marriage is subsiding any type of sexual behavior. I do believe sex is between two people and the government has no role in discriminating between types of sex.