Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57

Thread: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

  1. #51
    Senior Member RobotChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Williamsburg VA
    Posts
    1,379
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    :lock1 I like that moon-view..quiet, nice place to retire....hmmmm, no joe in the morning, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!:music

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Opt out
    Posts
    2,285
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by AJBIGJ View Post
    I've been floating the idea for some time now, but I'm happy to see it might be growing some legs.

    In principle, instead of changing the government's definition of marriage, why not change the government's role in "defining" marriage? (So it doesn't have to)

    Looks like it may be a viable approach for the future, but I imagine the Rick Santorum variety of Republicans will be the hardest sell.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/03/4175...ts-a-good-one/
    I"m not sure how this gets the conservatives what they want. Under this scenario, gay marriages are equal to straight marriages...neither recognized by the government, and both having Church marriages, as some churches do perform gay marriages.

    At the heart of the Christian Conservative argument is a belief that societal recognition of marriage is an abomination to God that will bring fire and brimstone upon America, some believe that literally, some metaphorically.

    It certainly appeals to the Libertarians, though. However, I'm not sure how practical it is. Are we saying that NO couples will be given, say, family PCS entitlements? So, when you go overseas, your wife is not included? If she is included, then the govt. must make a judgement on whether the marriage is valid or not.

    What about getting a spouse/fiancee visa? Will US citizens who marry foreigners no longer be able to petition for their permanent residency and/or citizenship? If you marry a Mexican national, will she have to wait in the 20 year waiting line to join you legally the same as any other? Or will marriage still be a ticket to the head of the line? If so, they'll have to make a judgement on which marriages are valid.

  3. #53
    Senior Member USN - Retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ewa Beach, Hawaii
    Posts
    702
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    Are we saying that NO couples will be given, say, family PCS entitlements? So, when you go overseas, your wife is not included?
    Absolutely.

    All overseas assignments should be unaccompanied assignments. Sending a military family overseas on PCS orders is silly.

    We should do away with family PCS moves and establish a military homesteading program instead. The government should establish a geo-bachelor airlift using both military airlift and commercial airliners to send married military service members home with their families as much as possible (and no, I don't work for the airlines). A viable homesteading program with a geo-bachelor airlift would probably be considerably less expensive than the current PCS system. Moving a military family and all their possessions every few years just doesn't make financial sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    What about getting a spouse/fiancee visa? Will US citizens who marry foreigners no longer be able to petition for their permanent residency and/or citizenship? If you marry a Mexican national, will she have to wait in the 20 year waiting line to join you legally the same as any other? Or will marriage still be a ticket to the head of the line? If so, they'll have to make a judgement on which marriages are valid.
    The government should do away with the fiancee visa. Most of those marriages end as soon as the foreign spouse gets her (or his) permanent green card. Spouse visas should be limited to those couples who have been married AND living together for a year or longer. I saw many sailors marry bar girls (aka prostitutes) in the Philippines or Thailand and those marriages were usually a disaster. You can take the girl out of the bar, but you can't take the bar out of the girl.

  4. #54
    Senior Member AJBIGJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    988
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    I"m not sure how this gets the conservatives what they want. Under this scenario, gay marriages are equal to straight marriages...neither recognized by the government, and both having Church marriages, as some churches do perform gay marriages.

    At the heart of the Christian Conservative argument is a belief that societal recognition of marriage is an abomination to God that will bring fire and brimstone upon America, some believe that literally, some metaphorically.

    It certainly appeals to the Libertarians, though. However, I'm not sure how practical it is. Are we saying that NO couples will be given, say, family PCS entitlements? So, when you go overseas, your wife is not included? If she is included, then the govt. must make a judgement on whether the marriage is valid or not.

    What about getting a spouse/fiancee visa? Will US citizens who marry foreigners no longer be able to petition for their permanent residency and/or citizenship? If you marry a Mexican national, will she have to wait in the 20 year waiting line to join you legally the same as any other? Or will marriage still be a ticket to the head of the line? If so, they'll have to make a judgement on which marriages are valid.
    I tend to disagree with conservatives not getting what they want. The reason being for precisely what you stated to be the "Christian Conservative" argument. They don't want societal endorsement of homosexuality as far as I can tell, this would prevent that. By taking on a neutral position the government would also be taking the null position. Any person who truly seeks to preserve a marriage's spirituality and sanctity would recognize that government involvement is a major player in the degradation of it if they are being intellectually honest. The only ones who would not be satisfied are those who are effectively big government Christian conservatives, who actually prefer government enforcing standards on churches about what should and should not be recognized, and that it enforces only their definition.

    As far as the latter, those are fairly trivial obstactles you mention in the grand scheme of things from my perspective. I tend to agree with USN-Retired in the belief that any overseas assignments should be unaccompanied tours, I also believe there should be less of them and that they be entirely voluntary. If we traded the cost of PCS ing a spouse with simple massive incentives for servicemembers to go on these unaccompanied tours, I still would foresee massive savings overall from a holistic cost-to-government perspective.

    The visa thing, in my mind, should only require a qualified endorsement from a US Citizen, which states why a person should be granted a VISA rather than submitting to the more standardized path towards US Citizenshep. The endorsement would be presented in front of the state court system and conditional visas granted based on the quality of the cases presented. A qualifying factor for an immigrant spouse would be shared guardianship of a naturalized minor, for instance, but that could now also apply to a mother-in-law of a widow who volunteers to assist with child-rearing responsibilities or any other adult who accepts this role in the home. Quite frankly I see no reason to grant a visa to someone just for marrying a US Citizen, unless there is a significant reason why they must be granted legal protections quickly vice the more involved process of becoming a citizen such as a shared conservatorship of minors quite frankly I consider it a standard geo-bachelor situation in the modern age. Marriages that are meant to last can survive a few prolonged absences. I speak from direct experience.
    "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
    James Madison

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,716
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by AJ
    I tend to disagree with conservatives not getting what they want. The reason being for precisely what you stated to be the "Christian Conservative" argument. They don't want societal endorsement of homosexuality as far as I can tell, this would prevent that. By taking on a neutral position the government would also be taking the null position.
    Which is why I make the argument that Christian Conservatives are taking this position because they are sore losers. They realize they can't win this battle - they will no longer get special treatment from the government... so rather than to have to share a privilege with their fellow man, they would prefer that privilege be taken away altogether.

    Equivalent of a child breaking his toy, or throwing away his jelly beans, when he's told he has to share them.

  6. #56
    Senior Member RobotChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Williamsburg VA
    Posts
    1,379
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    I nominate 'JOE'..Chaplain of the year'.......of course my friend CMDR BAEZ, Chaplain ret. might disagree....

  7. #57
    Senior Member AJBIGJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    988
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bonham View Post
    Which is why I make the argument that Christian Conservatives are taking this position because they are sore losers. They realize they can't win this battle - they will no longer get special treatment from the government... so rather than to have to share a privilege with their fellow man, they would prefer that privilege be taken away altogether.

    Equivalent of a child breaking his toy, or throwing away his jelly beans, when he's told he has to share them.
    Yes and no would be my response to that. There is certainly a place at the table for those who believe marriage is a sacred, spiritual bond between individuals and that it should continue to be given such consideration. Just clinging to the one-man one-woman concept as the only thing preserving that sanctity is entirely another thing, and quite frankly intellectually dishonest.
    "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
    James Madison

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •