same sex issues


Same Sex Issues

Our Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 that outlaws same-sex marriages for the federal government, even when those marriages are legal in one or more states. The decision received widespread approval among American citizens at the time, with many citing morality and religion as the primary consideration behind their decision. Fast forward almost 15 years later, and a completely different picture emerges.

Most Americans have favored same-sex marriage since mid-2010. The latest Gallup poll on 29 May 2011 showed 53% of Americans saying same-sex marriage should be legalized with all the same rights as other marriages, vs. 45% saying it should not. . Over the last 12 years, 21 states covering 130 million Americans chose some form of marriage equality: 10 have same-sex marriage (CA, CT, DC, IA, MA, MD, NH, NY, VT, WA), 5 have civil union (DE, HI, IL, NJ, RI), and 6 have domestic partnership (CO, ME, NV, NM, OR, WI). In 2012, legislators, courts, and/or citizens will vote whether to add – or ban – same-sex marriage in 18 states (CA, CO, HI, IA, IL, MA, ME, MD, MN, MT, NC, NJ, NH, NM, OH, RI, WA, WV).

With some high profile celebrity unions and marriages in the last couple of years, the issue is bound to be raised again in the run up, and it would be interesting to hear the position of our candidates on the matter.

 

Declared 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate
Political Consultant & Gay Rights Activist

<!–

–>
Fred Karger

Presidential Candidate 
Fred Karger
Karger Position on Same Sex Issues
An issue that is close to heart for Karger, who is the first ever openly gay candidate running for a presidential nomination. His decade-long advocacy of gay rights began soon after he came out of the closet back in 2000.

Since then, Karger has been in the forefront of a number of skirmishes, with the most famous being his confrontation with the Utah-based Church of The Latter-day Saints. The conflict started when Karger discovered that the Church was supporting and funding efforts aimed at influencing the statewide ballot over the amendment of Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights in the California Marriage Protection Act, which states, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

His entry into the race has ruffled many feathers, even from within his own party, as evidenced by a stinging email he received from fellow Republican and Iowan National Committee member, Steve Scheffler, which among others, contains,

“… you and the radical homosexual community want to harass supporters of REAL marriage. I am the Republican National Committeeman for Iowa. As a private citizen and knowing literally thousands of caucus goers, I will work overtime to help ensure that your political aspirations are aborted right here in Iowa. Have you studied our past caucuses – you have NO chance here in Iowa!”

More on Karger


Declared 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate
Career Flight Attendant

<!–

–>
Tom Miller

Presidential Candidate 
Tom Miller
Miller Position on Same Sex Issues
• Miller believes that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

More on Miller


Declared 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate
U.S. Representative from the State of Texas

<!–

–>
Ron Paul

Presidential Candidate Ron
 Paul
Paul Position on Same Sex Issues
Paul believes that voluntary association between individuals is a given in a free society, and feels that no one should impose their values on one another. He is opposed to any Constitutional amendment to either deny or enhance the rights of the LGBT community.

Paul On LGBT

“All rights are individuals. We do not get our rights because we belong to a group, whether it’s homosexual, women, minorities – it leads us astray. So it’s much more important to understand that all individuals have the right to their life, if they do no harm you don’t try to do a whole lot about it. If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values. But you can’t do it through legislation because force doesn’t work… A group can’t force themselves on anybody else. So there should be no affirmative action for any group, so if a homosexual group wanted to enforce their way on us, there’s no right to do that either.”

Sep 17, 2007: Values Voter Presidential Debate in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Paul on Marriage and Civil Unions

Paul has indicated before that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman, but stressed that the matter should be left to the states.

Question: How would your faith shape the way you approach social issues, such as same-sex marriage?
Paul: Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don’t know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it’s a sacrament. I think it should be biblical, and politically I don’t like to fight with people who disagree with me, as long as they don’t force their views on me. So for that reason, I think the real solution to some of this argument is to have less government, rather than government dictating and forcing understanding on different people. I don’t think much can be achieved. As I mentioned in my talk, Christ doesn’t come and beg and plead for more laws. He pleads for more morality, and I think that’s very important.

October 10, 2011: Interview by Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Christianity Today, Washington, D.C.

Carl Cameron: Congressman Paul to you, on the subject of the core debates in the party over social issues, gay marriage. You’ve been quoted as saying any association that’s voluntary should be permissible in a free society and you’ve expressed your opposition to a Constitutional ban on the gay marriage. Many of your rivals on stage disagree. Why are they wrong?
Paul: I’m afraid I haven’t been able to get most of your question. I know you brought the subject of gay marriage, but I didn’t get the point of what you’re saying. I can’t hear it that well.
Carl Cameron: Why are those on the stage who support a constitutional amendment (muffled) gay marriage wrong?
Paul: Oh okay. Well, if you believe in Federalism, it’s better that we allow these things to be left in the state. My personal belief is that, that marriage is a religious ceremony and it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn’t be involved. The state, both federal and state wise, got involved (illegible) for health reasons a hundred years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations whether economic or social should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary. To define something that’s already in the dictionary, we do know what marriage is all about. We don’t need a new definition or argue over definition and have an amendment to the Constitution. To me it seems so unnecessary to do that. It’s very simply that the states should be out of that business and the state, I mean, the states should be able to handle this. The federal government should be out of it. There’s no need for the federal government to be involved in this. You can accomplish this without waiting five, or ten, or fifteen years, you can, go, the authority can be put in the states by mere voting in the Congress.
Advertisements

Posted on May 10, 2012, in Categorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: