Another example of Republicans "supreme" hypocrites.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Jun 27, 2013.

  1. PracticalMac, Jun 27, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2013

    macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    #1
    This is NOT ABOUT "DOMA", although this example arose due to DOMA.

    Republicans and Conservatives keep chanting "States Rights, States Rights" like a religious verse in the Bible.

    Now all the Republicans and Conservatives are saying the Federal Government must cram its rules down the throats of states.

    :rolleyes:

    Same with Keystone Pipeline.
    "States have all the rights,.. unless WE (Republicans) say otherwise."
    (State of Nebraska refused to allow pipeline trough its state, and the FG did not force them to have it).
     
  2. .Andy, Jun 27, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2013

    macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #2
    Can we leave hippos out of this?




    edit: haha :):p
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #3
    I think a lot of the contention stems from the fact that, by most accounts, the next big push will be to have 50 state recognition of same sex marriage. So if a couple from Alabama goes to Vermont and gets married it would force Alabama to recognize it.
     
  4. macrumors 68040

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #4
    That is absolutely the next step. I have no idea what it contentious about that though. If we are talking about equal rights, it's a no brainer. Why should any married couple have to worry about losing their rights and protections if they cross a state line?
     
  5. Huntn, Jun 27, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2013

    macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #5
    IMO, this is a good example of why you want Federal Laws, why Republicans are terrible hypocrites, and why they (the current crop of Republican leaders) do a disservice for the country when voted into power. As I've always said, it is idiot voters putting them into power.
     
  6. macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #6
    I'm not making the argument one way or the other....just trying to answer OP's question. It's always going to be a source of contention and states that choose not to adopt gay marriage are always going to fight to the nail to keep it out for as long as they can just like folks that want to see it there are going to keep fighting to make it so.

    I think folks that are against it see yesterday as a "battle" lost and are already starting to gear up for the next battle in this progression.
     
  7. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Location:
    Iowa
    #7
    They shouldn't. It is absurd to me that even with all of the tax benefits and different treatment by the government that marriage carries, it is still seen as a "religious" pact. Either it should be religious and they can not let Gay people marry and the status should have no impact financial or otherwise, or they should let everyone marry regardless of sexual preference and let them recognize the financial benefits of doing so.

    The fact that the government has any say in something like this is wrong in my opinion. The government needs to stop trying to control everything.
     
  8. thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    #8
    Noted, but as Huntn pointed out, its about how Republicans constantly say let the States decide, and then turn a 180 and say the States cant decide (add reason why here).


    In the end, one state does not have to accept what another approves (ie, Cannabis), and Federal benefits are national, not state.

    ----------


    Tell that to the Republicans/Conservatives!
    (certain politicians seem to let well enough alone)
     
  9. macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #9
    I hope its the next step. Sadly though I honestly don't expect to get married in PA in my lifetime (and I'm only 31). There's too much 'Murica here and people won't vote for whats right, they'll vote based on their hatred for gays.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #10
    Good, that's how legal contracts are supposed to work.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #11
    The funny thing is, this sort of thing has gone on a long time. When I was young, memories were still fresh about how young couples not allowed to get married in their home state by state law, would arrange to visit a neighboring state where they were allowed to get married, get married there, and then return after a while. According to the old "states rights" Constitution, states are supposed to recognize what other states do.

    So, what we have here, is social conservatives asserting that they don't have to honor another states action, because they don't like the action. Then, they turn around and inflict Federal law on something that was considered a state function. Strict "States Rights" has been basically logically impossible from the beginning-- there are always cases that defy strict application. What some States Rights people claim they want to do is go back to the Articles of Confederation. The rest of us thought that was resolved in 1865.
     
  12. macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #12
    Seems to be an inherent conflict. There are State's rights, but then there are elected officials to represent the State on a Federal level. I believe certain categories of laws should be uniform across the country- such as anti-discrimination, education standards, immigration, etc. On the Federal level, the States get a say. As a country we stand for something. Civil rights in the early 1960s is the perfect example of why we need uniform Federal laws. If it is immigration policy, States get to vote on the federal level. They (States like Arizona) should not have the right to make up their own rules or ignore rules they don't like.
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #13
    The other side of this coin are the laws legalizing medical and recreational use of marijuana. The federal government still maintains that it's an illegal drug. Granted, enforcement is in a bit of a gray area at the moment.
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #14
    Some people vote based on how slick or pretty one looks.

    Others are satisfied with the veneer marketed to them, not wanting to be bothered with details.

    The world is made up of all types.

    And I don't think Republicans have a monopoly on this...
     
  15. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #15
    The deal with Republicans and CONservatives is the fact that they use and ignore laws when it is most convenient for them, plain and simple. There is never any consistency with these people.
     
  16. AustinIllini, Jun 28, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2013

    macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #16
    Yeah because Democrats are a lot different. :rolleyes:

    Also, you use the term "conservative" too loosely. A fiscal conservative and Social liberal (neo-libertarian) could easily vote Democrat after Bush, but probably will not now because of the excessive spending.

    Social conservatives are losing and have to adjust their game. Soon and very soon, we need the fiscal conservatives to move back into power before we spend ourselves into trouble.

    So yeah, go ahead and keep calling Republicans conservative, but honestly they're not (military spending!). A true conservative wouldn't support or not support gay marriage. I would argue a true conservative would want the government not to waste money licensing people to get married. To get married is a right, I shouldn't have to go get a license for it.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #17
    Would you also agree that you shouldn't receive any tax benefits for marriage? Or no legal visitation rights if your spouse ends up in the hospital? Would you be okay paying estate taxes on any money your spouse left you after death? How about giving up your rights to make wellness and monetary decisions for your spouse if she were unable to do so? I also take it you would be okay giving up any social security or medicare benefits for your spouse?
     
  18. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #18
    Think of it as filing a "Change of property and dependent status" form for tax and property ownership purposes. If you wish to forgo the benefits that ensue, you are certainly free to do so.
     
  19. macrumors 603

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #19
    If it was a solely religious matter, it would be up to whatever church was to perform the services. As far as I know churches can refuse to perform such services, but that doesn't have any real impact on ability to obtain a marriage license or be married elsewhere.
     
  20. macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #20
    In a perfect America:

    Two people tell the government "hey, we're getting married." The government records it. All benefits follow.

    The governments only job is to provide legal evidence of a marriage and provide the benefits of said marriage. Anything else above that is a waste. No applications, no licenses.

    I consider myself a libertarian. The only further intervention I support is common law marriage with children. For example, if mom and dad have two kids, cohabit a residence, and mom and dad are unmarried, and one of the two has health insurance, their children should not be allowed on the government dole. If one parent (regardless of marital status) has insurance, he must provide for his children. The US taxpayers shouldn't be paying for insurable children.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    I'm almost with you on that one. It's sooo close.

    I registered with the county government and received a license which needed to be signed upon completion of a legal marriage ceremony.

    I would cut one step ...

    I registered with the county government and received a license which needed to be signed upon completion of a legal marriage ceremony.

    IMO, anything after receiving the marriage license from the local government should be entirely optional.
     
  22. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #22

    The hypocrisy with Democrats is the fact that they speak like progressives but govern like Republicans. On top of that, the modern Democratic party is just as beholden to corporate interests as Republicans. President Spineless (Obama) and Senator Spineless (Reed) are good examples of this. Do Democrats get a pass? Nope.

    To me, there is a difference between conservatives and CONservatives. Conservatives are the real Republicans who were pushed out of the party by the religious right, Libertarians, and Tea Party. Many real Republicans have found themselves either mostly as independents or Democrats and consider themselves RINOs. CONservatives (religious right, Libertarians, and Tea Party) are the useful idiots left in the modern Republican party and are often used to do the bidding of the corporate interests who are running the show.

    I'll agree that there was a time when real Republicans would not be in favor for the bloated military spending but we know where those people have gone to. The party that calls for more military spending is the neo-CON Republicans.
     

Share This Page