Posted on 10/17/2011 5:35:15 AM PDT by Def Conservative
Unfortunately, there is the “full faith and credit” clause,
and anyone who says this is a state issue is ignoring that aspect.
The feds either have to have a law that says a “marriage” in state X isn’t valid in state Y, or state X can “marry” 6 mixed gender freaks and several circus animals and state Y has to treat them the same as Bob and Marge next door who were married 35 years ago.
>>> It would of been so sweet to watch Romney taken down a peg and have to compete with Huntsman for the 20% of Republicans that are pro abortion.>>>
While that would be good, I have a slightly different take. I think Mitt is stuck with 25-30% period. Huntsman is a non starter. And I think abortion is almost irrelevant this year as a key issue. Hard to claim Mitt is both pro abort and a flip flopper on the issue simultaneously. Just sayin....
As the others are weeded out, I think Cain or Perry will end up being the choice of the entire other 70 plus % ultimately. I think that’s good and it will end up being a social conservative one way or the other. That is also good.
Santorum is looking like a stalking horse for Romney. He goes after every conservative but leaves Mitt alone in criticism pretty much without exception. I am hoping some of the also-rans get out soon so we can get about 5 people on the stage vs. 9.
Well, if what Santorum says is true, we got Alito to replace O’Connor and Roberts to replace Rehnqiust as Chief Justice, and that we wouldn’t have without Specter handling it as the the Judiciary committee chairman. Remember all the crap Specter said about Judges who thought a woman’s right to “choose” wasn’t absolute? If I recall, he was talking filibuster and he was a supposed ‘pub. He’s the guy that Borked Bork if I recall, although he wasn’t the jc chairmen then.
Like I said, Santorum says a deal went down, Specter denies it. The’re both politicians but I know who I would generally believe between the two of them, but the guy is running for pres and might say anything. Where is Bush? What does he say?
Of course it isn’t like Santorum is really going anywhere in any case, I reckon. Maybe someone’s VP.
Freegards
I don't see how such a law written in that way could survive the legal challenges of
1)"Full faith and credit"
2)The 200+ years of marriages in one state being valid in another.
or state X can “marry” 6 mixed gender freaks and several circus animals and state Y has to treat them the same as Bob and Marge next door who were married 35 years ago.
I am still trying to figure out how polygamy is taboo but gay marriage is a "protected constitutional right" as its advocates claim.
Santorum isn't going to gain support from the Romney base. He would only gain it from Cain at this point. So Cain is Santorum's logical target.
Santorum’s a whiner. I’m not motivated by someone who perpetually looks like he’s trying to carve a loaf. Nor does good hair do anything for me. Ditto those blessed by the establishment.
Cain/Gingrich is my preferred combo.
Since Santorum picked Specter because it was the party choice of who could win, we can assume that the “who will win/party line” is his “standard”. So it sounds about right that he is trying to help Romney. Another phoney elitist who thinks he knows what is best. He should drop out.
He’s right, and should stay focused on the issue rather than “hitting” another candidate as the headline suggested.
Principled conservative position is needed. Someone’s got to lay it out properly.
States rights doesn’t always apply. It didn’t apply with slavery and it shouldn’t apply in this case either, but we need to make the case — now.
I’ve used that line of reasoning with gay marriage proponents, and they really don’t handle it well.
If “one man, one woman” is not the definition of a marriage, what is YOUR definition of marriage?
“Two people”
Why two? Are you some sort of bigot?
And why must they be people? Again, are you a bigot?
Usual response: “don’t be ridiculous”, meaning “I really can’t argue this any further”.
I wont try to guess what judges will do after the Sandra Day Oconner disaster, but try using a gun permit from VA in NYC and you will see how far ‘Full Faith and Credit” gets you.
My father had a NY State pistol permit that was not recognized in NYC, when we moved there. NYC had their own much stricter requirements.
I like Cain also.
but i admit i don’t understand why Santorum doesn’t poll better.
He’s stronger against abortion and more conservative on social issues than even Bachmann, MUCH stronger against illegal aliens than Perry, and more elected experience than Cain.
but even Newt polls better? why?
= = =
Intelligent design
Main article: Santorum Amendment
In 2001, Santorum tried unsuccessfully to insert language which came to be known as the “Santorum Amendment” into the No Child Left Behind bill that sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools.[31]
= = =
Workplace Religious Freedom Act
= = =
Statements regarding homosexuality
Statements regarding homosexuality
Main articles: Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality
= = =
Illegal immigration
In 2006, Santorum opposed the Senate immigration reform proposal.[29] Instead, Santorum stated that the U.S. should act to enforce currently existing laws. He has openly stated his strong opposition to amnesty for undocumented immigrants. He supports the construction of a barrier along the U.S.–Mexican border, an increase in the number of border patrol agents on the border, and the stationing of National Guard troops along the border. He also believes that undocumented immigrants should be deported immediately when they commit crimes, and that undocumented immigrants should not receive benefits from the government. Finally, the former senator believes that English should be established as the national language in the United States.[30]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum
“The forces of socialism only march in one direction, comrade”
Don’t expect the left to be consistent on the rules. They only care about achieving the end goal, and the reason they use today for this issue will be refuted tomorrow for another issue.
We need an outsider this time around, and Santorum is anything but.
I believe there is precedent for states ignoring marriages that were legally done in another state. Several states do not recognize cousin marriages even when they were done in a state that allows it.
Of course is anybody took any of those states to court some of the states’ laws would probably be knocked down.
The only problem is, eventually, liberal federal judges may force homosexual marriage on those states which don’t allow it.
For now, you are right about how these licenses are recognizd in the states, and for now, states are going to decide how to define marriage. But the long term goal of the gay activists is to force this through the courts on all 50 states.
You can’t talk about homosexual marriage and states rights and those issues, without being realistic that the stated goal of the activists is to force it through the federal courts.
Whether they will ultimately succeed in getting the U.S. Supreme Court to impose homosexual marriage nationwide is unknown at this time. But that is the ultimate goal of those activists.
Especially on the subject of Gay rights. Their side is attacking in all directions in full force, and our side is mostly hiding. Look at FNC coverage of DADT repeal. There was none.
One of those precedents was mixed “race” marriages.
No one would want one state to not recognize a mixed race marriage of another state.
The commies were indeed clever when they equated homosexuality with race. “Gay is the new Black”. No it isn’t.
No, you are wrong. Full faith and credit is all the excuse federal courts need to nationalize homosexual encroachment on the institution of marriage. anybody with two eyes and a perfunctory knowledge of federal courts should be able to see that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.