Obama and Biden Flip-flop on Homosexual marriage
During the vice presidential debate Biden was quite clear:
On the Ellen DeGeneres Show this week Biden said:
FILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
On the Ellen DeGeneres Show this week Biden said:
Biden congratulated DeGeneres on her recent wedding to actress Portia de Rossi, and said that he opposes the amendment.
“If I lived in California, I would clearly vote against Prop 8,” he said. . . .
posted by John Lott at 9:50 PM
2 Comments:
More pandering to another group in our society.
The only way to resolve this issue is by the government getting out of the business of marriage altogether.
Eliminate tax credits and all fiscal benefits through government for marriage.
Legal contracts between people will become the norm.
Churches need not redefine marriage for anyone and can marry whomever they choose.
There will, undoubtedly as there are now, be churches that welcome gays and are willing to conduct such ceremonies; no ceremony, gay or straight would be considered legally binding, you do that through a contractual agreement.
Secular ceremonies can be conducted by a person of choice since both ceremonies are merely symbolic.
It would be better if Social Security were privatized to the extent that a beneficiary would be delegated, however since that won’t happen, then the legal contract can attend to that detail; government would no longer discriminate against who the beneficiary chosen.
For insurance purposes, private companies can each decide how to compete for employees by what they offer; government will offer a stipend, of sorts, whereby the government employee can purchase insurance.
This eliminates discrimination
It resolves not having to redefine anyone’s subjective view of what “marriage” is and to whom
All contracts are legally binding in all states, as they are now
No amendment to any Constitution, state or federal, need include anything that would inherently infringe on the civil liberty of an individual.
If people derive their values & morals from a god, there is no infringement on this belief.
If a people do not derive their values & morals from a god, but another source, there is no infringement on their civil liberty to NOT believe in a god.
Since values & morals are subjective, it allows personal individual freedom to make such decisions and place such value upon aspects of one’s life
If our tenents of this nation are personal freedom & choice, then that has to be given to every individual regardless of dislike or distaste for another's behavior as long as it doesn't infringe on one another's civil liberty
I remember in Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End he depicts marriage contracts that have set expiration points. Partners can renew the contract if that want. Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home