Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Rand Paul's Stance On Gay Marriage Is Now 'Both'" video.

Bitter Disillusionment This has nothing to do with "separate but equal". If you actually listened to the video he supports the religious side of marriage and the legal side. On the legal side he supports it all being equal, thus by law all marriages are called a marriage and are treated equal. And if a gay person wants to get married in their religion then so be it. But this is the farthest thing from separate but equal.
1
Inazuma65 That is a problem we have in politics, they take a black and white approach in these issue. It is more complicated then that.
1
jesushatesyoutoo That is a dumb question because it is designed to bait. I can ask you this. Do you support the government spying in on your home? You may say no. But then I can turn around and say you hate peace, you don't want to reduce violence. The government spying in on people's homes would have prevented that that movie theater shooting. You see how quickly one can turn these black and white questions around when they don't give you a chance to explain?
1
jesushatesyoutoo Because the issue is more complex then that. It has to deal with freedom and rights. You are trying to paint it as someone being a bigot or not. If you were to ask me if I ran a business would I serve gays and those of other races I would say yes. If you were to ask me if I support allowing businesses to discriminate I would say yes as well. The reason is because I support freedom and rights. You support fascism.
1
Legendary176 While you could be correct, people with those labels don't act like that. Liberals do control social issues, libertarians do like some form of governments. Conservatives do support some form of regulations on capitalism.
1
***** The idea is the keep government as local as possible so you can see if it actually works and you can control it easier. There is nothing inherently wrong with government. Government is just another means for society to help each other out, but we need to be able to control it.
1
***** The Founding Fathers wanted government but wanted government to be controlled. That is what the constitution does. If you look at the bill of rights and the constitution as a whole you will see it doesn't give the federal government the potential to gain power over the pepole but instead give the people the poewr over the government. The constitution actually placed strict limitations on the federal government. for example issues such as education and marriage are not listed once in the constitution thus they ar left up to the states.
1
Persuasive Barrier The idea of the constitution was to make it so every man is created equal. Slaves were not considered men but that was changed later. I support the gay marriage decision and have stood for it for a while. The 14th amendment was to place restrictions on all governments to where everyone was treated equal. Marriage is a state issue. But is a state recognizes marriage then it can't discriminate and must recognize gay marriage. That is the checks and balance system. You look at state rights as being wrong but when you actually break down the constitution you see that it is about checks and balances. No state can mistreat a US citizen in an unequal way. Property, by the way, is protected by the constitution as well. The most oppressive government known in US history has been the federal government. You need to study the constitution and the concept of state rights more.
1
Persuasive Barrier I agree with checks and balances. I have told you how the federal government is there to deal with foreign affairs, deal with commerce between states, and deal with enforcing the constitution on the states. There is a checks and balance system in place according to the constitution, we just don't follow it as in we weaken state rights to almost nothing. My point isn't moot. The idea of the constitution was to see to it that man, and that includes women, were given certain rights. They were not supposed to be treated as property. They were but changes were made. The federal government used the constitution to enforce slavery. These days they bypass it to be oppressive. You need to realize that the constitution was about equality, how people were supposed to be treated as equals. You need to study the constitution more.
1
Great way not to understand what he said. He wants to keep the religious side of marriage intact, so that people can get married within their religion no matter what. On the legal side, the contract side, that is up to the states which involves the 10th amendment. It is up to the states if they recognize marriage or not. If a state recognizes marriage they must do so equally via the 14th amendment. That means gay marriage will be viewed as marriage along with straight marriage. He never said he as opposed to gay marriage.
1
Bitter Disillusionment Protection from the government. If a state doesn't recognize marriage legally people should still be able to get married in the eyes of their religion. And different religions shouldn't be forced to recognize other forms of marriage. In the of the law all marriage should be treated as equal. Basically a church won't recognize a gay marriage as a marriage but the law will.
1
Gerard Gauthier This isn't a cop out stance but how the country was designed.
1
***** But the constitution doesn't allow slavery.
1
***** And we change that with the constitution.
1
Gerard Gauthier It is a state issue. All a federal politician can do is see to it that no state discriminates with their law. The state has to enforce the law equally. But beyond that a federal politician can't create domestic law.
1
loki2240 I agree.
1
loki2240 Nothing is solely a state issue, state laws have to follow the constitution. Marriage is a "fundamental right" in that people have a right to pursue happiness. I can marry my cat without fear of being persecuted. The issue with the 14th amendment is how the law recognizes marriage. States decide if they want recognize marriage or not. If they do via the 14th amendment they can't discriminate. If a state decides not too then it doesn't matter. People can still get married in their way either by religion or just in their mind, it just has no legal ties to it.
1
loki2240 A fundamental right is different then a right you are guaranteed. I am guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, I am guaranteed free speech rights and right to bear arms and property rights. I am not guaranteed the right to be married. With that said I can marry a cat or another guy without threat of persecution. That is the point. When I say gays are not denied any rights that is true to a point. A gay couple can get married in their eyes and not be persecuted. The issue is how does the law view it. We are guaranteed the right to be treated equal under law. That is where the ruling of Loving vs. Virginia comes in. If a state is going to recognize marriage they can't discriminate because it violates a protected right of being treated equal under law. The fundamental right is the right to pursue happiness. I can marry my beer bottle tonight and not be persecuted. That is my fundamental right and I won't get arrested for it. That is the difference. Discrimination in marriage for state interest has to be consistent. Marriage between siblings means all siblings between all races and types is illegal and thus doesn't discriminate on anything in particular. Gay marriage being illegal discriminates against gays, same with interracial marriage discriminates against race. The point is how is the law enforced as is it equal.
1