"I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative"

[RandBlade]

Could you imagine a GOP candidate saying those words?

From David Cameron's annual Conference speech today:

"But we’re also doing something else. I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage.

And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative"

It got "thunderous applause" ...

[Aimless]

Very well said to be honest I don't know if I can imagine a even a Democratic presidential candidate say the same. But maybe this will be a good way for other progressive conservatives to "come out".

[Lebanese Dragon]

That's good news.. I hope the whole republican party supports Ron Paul and this gentleman's stance on the issue.

[Ominous Gamer]

What stance is that Leb?

Far as I can tell, he hasn't taken a stance for or against gay marriage. Only that the federal government shouldn't be involved in telling the states what to do on the matter. He has spoken in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, not because its anti-gay, but because it makes it so that one state isn't forced to recongize the gay marriages of another state.
As far as I can tell, he doesn't like the concept of the government (state or federal) being involved in any marriages, straight or gay.

[Ziggy Stardust]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...011/happy-gays

2:00 in.

[LittleFuzzy]

Could you imagine a GOP candidate saying those words?

Yes, easily. But I haven't seen any indications that a major candidate is running that kind of campaign this cycle. And they're probably right, tactically, to not try and run that type of campaign when whoever wins is going to be against a Dem incumbent.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Ron Paul said he personally supports the legal recognition of gay marriage just will leave it up to a state by state decision. Basically his rationale is it violates personal freedoms that the constitution is meant to uphold.

I'd prefer just to bypass the states and make it legal.

[Lebanese Dragon]

to not try and run that type of campaign when whoever wins is going to be against a Dem incumbent.

That doesn't make sense to me. If you're a republican facing a republican you can try to be "more mainstream" republican by being against gay marriage, and thus when their votes. However, if it comes down to a Republican verse a Democrat for the presidency then it makes sense to steal some of the Dem's stances in order to steal some supporters because you're automatically garunteed the main stream republican vote.

[CitizenCain]

Well conservative for Europe is not the same thing as conservative for America. Plus, it's still government sanctioned and imposed sexual morality, so... so what? Meh.

[LittleFuzzy]

That doesn't make sense to me. If you're a republican facing a republican you can try to be "more mainstream" republican by being against gay marriage, and thus when their votes. However, if it comes down to a Republican verse a Democrat for the presidency then it makes sense to steal some of the Dem's stances in order to steal some supporters because you're automatically garunteed the main stream republican vote.

You are rarely, if ever, going to beat the breadth of support for an incumbent unless they are massively unpopular. You will never be able to spread a bigger umbrella,. Successful challenges rely on having deep support, like the GOTV machine which the Republicans used to drub the Democrats in Congress for 10-12 years. That generally means pandering to the base. That means you also are unlikely to hear it from a major GOP candidate until after the nomination is secured, no matter what the conditions are. There are other factors too, like the preeminent necessity in the US electoral culture to run against DC, *since Congress did finally repeal DADT we can expect an uptick in anti-gay rights rhetoric* and the inherent difficulty in "stealing" voters from their more natural home by appealing to issues where they have no particular reason to believe you, particularly when an incumbent can just ape the stance and get most voters who might be wavering back.

[RandBlade]

Well conservative for Europe is not the same thing as conservative for America. Plus, it's still government sanctioned and imposed sexual morality, so... so what? Meh.

How is government allowing its citizens to enter into marriage contracts with the partner of their choice regardless of gender a "government sanctioned and imposed sexual morality"? Are people being forced into gay marriage if its legalised? Not given any choice, not even asked to say "I do"?

[earthJoker]

Maybe Cain wants to be able to marry his dog, several women at the same time

[Ominous Gamer]

How is government allowing its citizens to enter into marriage contracts with the partner of their choice regardless of gender a "government sanctioned and imposed sexual morality"? Are people being forced into gay marriage if its legalised? Not given any choice, not even asked to say "I do"?

anytime the federal government steps in you're going to see some sort of morality spin. If shit like this was always left up to the states just imagine the kind of crap that would still be legal to do against minorities.

[Dreadnaught]

Getting there...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duFak4TnImg

[Aimless]

How is government allowing its citizens to enter into marriage contracts with the partner of their choice regardless of gender a "government sanctioned and imposed sexual morality"? Are people being forced into gay marriage if its legalised? Not given any choice, not even asked to say "I do"?

I dunno, perhaps he means that Cameron's statement could be interpreted as, "As a conservative, I especially support marriage," or something?

[CitizenCain]

How is government allowing its citizens to enter into marriage contracts with the partner of their choice regardless of gender a "government sanctioned and imposed sexual morality"?

The limited nature of it (1:1, legal adult citizen:legal adult citizen), the restrictions imposed on it (timeframe -> forever, complete asset joining, required sexual component), and the fact that it is the only "contract" you can enter into if you want to confer certain legal privileges to another person, or extend certain legal protections to your dealings with another person.

It's the same monogamous, until-death, foundation-of-a-traditional family unit bullshit that our governments have been forcing on their citizens for centuries, it's just now we grant the homos the right to get it forced on them too. Huzazh, or something.

anytime the federal government steps in you're going to see some sort of morality spin. If shit like this was always left up to the states just imagine the kind of crap that would still be legal to do against minorities.

Amen. Thank God for the government to protect us from the government, or else imagine how badly government would abuse us... without the government to protect us from government, that is.

[Ominous Gamer]

Amen. Thank God for the government to protect us from the government, or else imagine how badly government would abuse us... without the government to protect us from government, that is.

so very well put and thought out, perfect reasoning to get rid of the various state governments.

[LittleFuzzy]

I dunno, perhaps he means that Cameron's statement could be interpreted as, "As a conservative, I especially support marriage," or something?

Well, if a party has worked to position itself as a "morality" party, which the GOP has more of less done, and then a member claims gay marriage as the natural position for a member of that party/follower of that ideology than I think a link has been asserted that it is a morality position.

[CitizenCain]

Well, if a party has worked to position itself as a "morality" party, which the GOP has more of less done, and then a member claims gay marriage as the natural position for a member of that party/follower of that ideology than I think a link has been asserted that it is a morality position.

Well, indeedy, but I'm not sure if the UK conservatives have done that lately, and the GOP certainly hasn't said that... well, ever.

My objection was (and still is) that even including homosexuals in state-sanctioned "marriage" contracts doesn't change the fact that the way governments currently sanction marriage means taking a position on sexual morality and then imposing that position on everyone, to a large extent. (The degree being a function of how involved in the day-to-day life of its citizens the given government is, I'd wager.) Ultimately, it's still that age-old crap about one person for you, for life, ostensibly so you can spawn (or raise) little people to be good citizens and accept their lot in life as state property when they grow up, and repeat the cycle with their spawn, and so on, until the end of time.

[GGT]

Well, if a party has worked to position itself as a "morality" party, which the GOP has more of less done, and then a member claims gay marriage as the natural position for a member of that party/follower of that ideology than I think a link has been asserted that it is a morality position.

That's why the GOP has its current troubles. For many positioning within the Republican party, the natural position is one of Christian-based morality. Old ties to the Moral Majority, new ties to Christian Conservatives trying to be the Pro-Life Party. Internal struggles between Civil Rights and pretty much anything remotely related to sexuality and sex, and control over our own bodies.

[CitizenCain]

control over our own bodies.

Meaning: ~the right to have an abortion, but not the right to put raw milk or pleasure-inducing chemicals in it, apparently. Where's that fall on your sliding scale of "crazy morality schemes," by the way?

[GGT]

Meaning: ~the right to have an abortion, but not the right to put raw milk or pleasure-inducing chemicals in it, apparently. Where's that fall on your sliding scale of "crazy morality schemes," by the way?

Sorry, as part of your deal denial, I won't reply to any post of yours that uses terms like "crazy".

[Lebanese Dragon]

It's the same monogamous, until-death, foundation-of-a-traditional family unit bullshit that our governments have been forcing on their citizens for centuries, it's just now we grant the homos the right to get it forced on them too. Huzazh, or something.

What? We're giving people more options (it can't hurt them, and it's definitely not foreced, just more choices), this would be a step toward opening up what's acceptable in our country.

@Fuzzy once you gain nomination from the republican party then you can become more moderate, even support the repeal of DADT publically in order to steal the middle people, because you are garaunteed the hardcore they are a waste of time to pander to once you're facing barack obama.

[CitizenCain]

What? We're giving people more options (it can't hurt them, and it's definitely not foreced, just more choices), this would be a step toward opening up what's acceptable in our country.

Not really. It's a step towards broadening the support of a specific type of sexual morality on behalf of the government. A step in the right direction would be to further restrict the type of marriages the government will sanction, towards the goal of getting government out of the business of passing judgement on people's consensual relationships, sexual or otherwise.

@Fuzzy once you gain nomination from the republican party then you can become more moderate, even support the repeal of DADT publically in order to steal the middle people, because you are garaunteed the hardcore they are a waste of time to pander to once you're facing barack obama.

Not even remotely true, as evidenced by the election of GWB. Alienate your base, and they just won't vote.

[Hazir]

Just so that you people know; you don't have to be married to have sex, nor the other way around.

Marriage is a contract that has got nothing to do with what you do in your bed, it's a contract on joint ownership of your goods and joint parenting of your children. It mostly has ramifications on how you split the above in case of a divorce or how your estate is treated.

[GGT]

Not in the US, Hazir. Not when partners (even legally recognized civil partners) can be denied visitation or care decisions on a partner's death bed. Or denied federal spousal benefits because their union (even a civil union) wasn't recognized legally.

Case in point:

Young men and women in the US military know they can name anyone as beneficiary of their military Life Insurance policy. But their partner can't qualify for spousal death benefits unless they can prove, in a court of law, that they are legally married. Civil unions don't qualify for many federal funds, gay or straight. Children from these unions are left in no-man's land.

[Hazir]

Not in the US, Hazir. Not when partners (even legally recognized civil partners) can be denied visitation or care decisions on a partner's death bed. Or denied federal spousal benefits because their union (even a civil union) wasn't recognized legally.

i see nothing that negates my statement.

[GGT]

Legal contracts. Joint ownership. Estate distribution.

Also Power of Attorney. These things matter, Hazir. Military partners aside, there are millions of civill partners and gay partners that aren't recognized in US courts of law. Or even in hospitals or on death beds, let alone in probate court.

[CitizenCain]

i see nothing that negates my statement.

I think we're both equally shocked that GeeGee isn't discussing the the same thing you are, but is rather having a conversation in your general direction, however, your point is at least partially invalid, because [a legal] marriage very much does necessarily involve the sekzing, both on this continent and yours.

"Consummation" in the first place, and lack of the sekzing being grounds for marriage dissolution in the second (either at the request of one of the parties, or even by the government in some cases), as well as the myriad of laws on the books about the extra-marital or pre-marital sekzing being a criminal offense which clearly indicate the origins and original "intent" of state-sanctioned marriages. And even today, that legacy remains and is perpetuated by the only acceptable marriage [to the state] being one that involves two people sekzing each other, and only each other, until death.

[GGT]

I was trying to explain to Hazir, that in the US, there's more to legal marriage than his European experience when he said:

Marriage is a contract that has got nothing to do with what you do in your bed, it's a contract on joint ownership of your goods and joint parenting of your children. It mostly has ramifications on how you split the above in case of a divorce or how your estate is treated.