KARL: If the Supreme Court establishes that same sex marriage is a constitutional right, does that effectively end this as a political issue in this campaign?

SCOTT WALKER: Well, I personally believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. If the court decides that, the only next approach is for those who are supporters of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman is ultimately to consider pursuing a constitutional amendment.

KARL: So you would favor a constitutional amendment that would say that states are allowed to ban same sex marriage.

SCOTT WALKER: I believe that the decision on defining marriage should be left up to the states, yeah.

Woody wrote:Can't imagine being so firmly entrenched on the wrong side of history

TomatoPie wrote:Government is useful for sanctioning legal unions. And for that, just as any 2 or 3 or 500 can form a partnership, we need a set of government rules for legal-contractual unions between consenting adults.

TomatoPie wrote:The "solution" is so obvious - I dunno why no one other than Libertarians are saying it:

Government is useful for sanctioning legal unions. And for that, just as any 2 or 3 or 500 can form a partnership, we need a set of government rules for legal-contractual unions between consenting adults.

"Marriage" is a personal and/or religious matter, not one for government.

Let religions tell their flocks what to do, and stop telling others what to do.

I can understand why the RR is being blockheaded on this, but where are the libruls? Hollering for government-sanctioned "marriage" is not helpful.

Any intelligent person knows where this is going - but both the left and right are holding it up.

pacino wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:The "solution" is so obvious - I dunno why no one other than Libertarians are saying it:

Government is useful for sanctioning legal unions. And for that, just as any 2 or 3 or 500 can form a partnership, we need a set of government rules for legal-contractual unions between consenting adults.

"Marriage" is a personal and/or religious matter, not one for government.

Let religions tell their flocks what to do, and stop telling others what to do.

I can understand why the RR is being blockheaded on this, but where are the libruls? Hollering for government-sanctioned "marriage" is not helpful.

Any intelligent person knows where this is going - but both the left and right are holding it up.

no, both are not. but whatever.

Soren wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Government is useful for sanctioning legal unions. And for that, just as any 2 or 3 or 500 can form a partnership, we need a set of government rules for legal-contractual unions between consenting adults.

red herring. There is NO fundamental legal difference between gay and heterosexual marriage. We don't need to rewrite any property/divorce/inheritance laws to legalize it they way we would if we legalized polygamy.

TomatoPie wrote:

Soren wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Government is useful for sanctioning legal unions. And for that, just as any 2 or 3 or 500 can form a partnership, we need a set of government rules for legal-contractual unions between consenting adults.

red herring. There is NO fundamental legal difference between gay and heterosexual marriage. We don't need to rewrite any property/divorce/inheritance laws to legalize it they way we would if we legalized polygamy.

Solid point - the most convenient thing to do is to sanction gay marriage. But - the whole idea of our government sanctioning marriage stems from Christian religious rules. It's time to cut that connection.

Other than "it's incovenient" - what is the argument against a union of three people?

Gimpy wrote:Imagine how much crazier the tax code would be if you could marry multiple people. Also, how would benefits work? How would you get a divorce? How would alimony work? Who has custody of what kids? How does the marital share work if one person dies? Can a guy marry a woman and a man and then can his husband and wife marry each other?

"Inconvenient" doesn't really begin to cover the issues that would arise with polygamy in my opinion. Not that I care if a bunch of people want to marry each other, but it would take a complete overhauling of the legal system in regards to marriage in order to implement it.

Doll Is Mine wrote:I'd like to be able to get married one day and have children. Is that too much to ask? Why do you hate me Tomato Pie?

drsmooth wrote:I think the Santorum-reactionary true-believing right (not the squalidly opportunistic Walker-"I smell money so I'll say any damn dumb thing" right) KNOW how twisted they are at their core; that they really are as corroded - as human - as the Duggers or the Hasterts, and they truly fear their awful id-y 'unrestrained' selves.

They're what used to be labeled neurotic; they can't help themselves, can't help but want to contain those awful invisibly and too-often-externally-manifested forces wriggling within their fellow human beings, and, most dismayingly for them, within themselves

Santorum told the Register that the low turnout was not surprising, but that it is all a part of the plan.