RNC Chair on gay marriage

[soontobeka]

“People in this country, no matter straight or gay, deserve dignity and respect. However, that doesn't mean it carries on to marriage,” Priebus said. “I think that most Americans agree that in this country, the legal and historic and the religious union marriage has to have the definition of one man and one woman.”

www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rand-pauls-gay-marriage-remarks-rebuked-during-sunday-shows-20120513,0,7176810.story

[emmybean]

Well at least he's not pussyfooting around about his absolute disrespect and failure of logic.

[rugbywife]

My husband saw this on FB this morning...it sums up how I feel about things that are referred to as 'historically relevant'...societies evolve - or at least we should.

[emisi]

May 13, 2012 13:27:20 GMT -5 soontobeka said:

“People in this country, no matter straight or gay, deserve dignity and respect. However, that doesn't mean it carries on to marriage,” Priebus said. “I think that most Americans agree that in this country, the legal and historic and the religious union marriage has to have the definition of one man and one woman.”

www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rand-pauls-gay-marriage-remarks-rebuked-during-sunday-shows-20120513,0,7176810.story

Well, naturally! What else would you expect from a theocracy, right?

[IIOY]

Arguing precedent when discussing resistance to civil rights is positively maddening. The very concept of civil rights is grounded in no small part in the idea that they require protection because someone somewhere in a position of power is inclined to curb them. Of course precedent argues against them. That's the point.

[marie427]

They are digging their own graves on this issue.

[MrsAxilla]

May 13, 2012 14:10:43 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Arguing precedent when discussing resistance to civil rights is positively maddening. The very concept of civil rights is grounded in no small part in the idea that they require protection because someone somewhere in a position of power is inclined to curb them. Of course precedent argues against them. That's the point.

Exactly. Protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

[Deleted]

I saw him this morning. I find it interesting that they've switched their argument from "the bible says so" to "historical"... History means things change. History is probably a worse argument than the Bible says so. IMHO.

They truly have no logical reason for this.

[Deleted]

May 13, 2012 14:10:43 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Arguing precedent when discussing resistance to civil rights is positively maddening. The very concept of civil rights is grounded in no small part in the idea that they require protection because someone somewhere in a position of power is inclined to curb them. Of course precedent argues against them. That's the point.

This, exactly.

[earlgreyhot]

You know, if, IF he'd pulled the civil union argument then I'd hold a shred of respect. Because at least it addresses the civil rights issue. Now, of course, then I would argue that states should no longer sanction "marriage" at all and from henceforth all couples enter into a social civil contract. "Marriages" would the only be left to the clergy to ordain.

[dylanite]

Unity by hate and ignorance is the best argument against democracy. I'm glad, as an American, to have my 2nd amendment right sometimes.

[mrsjuleshs]

May 13, 2012 20:30:16 GMT -5 earlgreyhot said:

You know, if, IF he'd pulled the civil union argument then I'd hold a shred of respect. Because at least it addresses the civil rights issue. Now, of course, then I would argue that states should no longer sanction "marriage" at all and from henceforth all couples enter into a social civil contract. "Marriages" would the only be left to the clergy to ordain.

This is exactly how I feel about it.

[thejackpot]

May 13, 2012 14:18:02 GMT -5 marie427 said:

They are digging their own graves on this issue.

Agree wholeheartedly. Ridiculous stance.

[heyjude]

History doesn't look kind on those who choose to be on the wrong side.

[wawa]

May 13, 2012 14:10:43 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Arguing precedent when discussing resistance to civil rights is positively maddening. The very concept of civil rights is grounded in no small part in the idea that they require protection because someone somewhere in a position of power is inclined to curb them. Of course precedent argues against them. That's the point.

Exactly!