Rubio: Federal Marriage Amendment "Steps on the Rights of States"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 04:02:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Rubio: Federal Marriage Amendment "Steps on the Rights of States"
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Rubio: Federal Marriage Amendment "Steps on the Rights of States"  (Read 11361 times)
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 06, 2013, 09:08:16 PM »

link

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2013, 09:14:28 PM »

Rubio's position here might become the standard line for most of the 2016 candidates on the GOP side: "Marriage should be between a man and a woman, but it should be decided at the state level, and we shouldn't pass a constitutional amendment that imposes one definition or the other on the whole country."

This is the Fred Thompson position, as I mentioned here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=165178.msg3526149#msg3526149
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2013, 09:17:20 PM »

These states rights' folks grind my gears...

Did Rubio's parents flee Cuba to come to this state or to this nation? Did I and every other veteran wear the uniform of our state or our nation?- excluding our friends in the National Guard...

If we let the states right's folks have their way- blacks would be second class citizens here in my neck of the woods and while that wasn't a radical idea then (like discriminating against gays isn't a radical idea now), we now know how much of hypocrites I and every other American at that time looked like... we preached the values of equality and liberty for all and I lived in a time when these values weren't acted upon

State's rights bothers me when dealing with fundamental issues and I consider freedom and equality to be a fundamental issue- but state's rights especially bugs me when it is used by conservatives like Rubio to hide from an issue they know history will judge them poorly for...

My party better wise up on things like this or it won't be my party (or much any one's) pretty soon...
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2013, 09:38:44 PM »

He's against all amendments? Does he not approve of free speech? Ending slavery? Or giving women the right to vote? They are all in the amendments. Obviously, the man's full of crap, and is making very weak excuses. Wasn't he supposed to be principled even if you disagreed with him? What an insincere blowhard!
Logged
Liberalrocks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,924
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2013, 10:25:08 PM »

These states rights' folks grind my gears...

Did Rubio's parents flee Cuba to come to this state or to this nation? Did I and every other veteran wear the uniform of our state or our nation?- excluding our friends in the National Guard...

If we let the states right's folks have their way- blacks would be second class citizens here in my neck of the woods and while that wasn't a radical idea then (like discriminating against gays isn't a radical idea now), we now know how much of hypocrites I and every other American at that time looked like... we preached the values of equality and liberty for all and I lived in a time when these values weren't acted upon

State's rights bothers me when dealing with fundamental issues and I consider freedom and equality to be a fundamental issue- but state's rights especially bugs me when it is used by conservatives like Rubio to hide from an issue they know history will judge them poorly for...

My party better wise up on things like this or it won't be my party (or much any one's) pretty soon...

Clarence, this was very nicely put, I as a gay man appreciate your words here.
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2013, 10:28:37 PM »

It's incredible how fast the tide is changing on this. A few years ago you couldn't find a serious Democratic contender that wasn't a moderate on the issue, now every candidate in '16 will probably be in full defense of a gay couple's right to marry. On the Republican side, their front-runner is stepping down from complete disavowal and is resorting to states' rights rhetoric.

Obviously you're not going to see Rick Santorum saying the same thing, but the issue is rapidly shifting leftward.

^And wow, that was a great post, Clarence.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2013, 10:55:55 PM »

I agree with Clarence, though in this case the alternative for Rubio would have been even worse (all states being anti-gay).

Given that the FMA failed in 2005, and public opinion has shifted since then, it would be interesting to see what the map/result would be for FMA now (though of course it wouldn't be voted on by the entire Senate/House).
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,559


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2013, 11:03:04 PM »

These states rights' folks grind my gears...

Did Rubio's parents flee Cuba to come to this state or to this nation? Did I and every other veteran wear the uniform of our state or our nation?- excluding our friends in the National Guard...

If we let the states right's folks have their way- blacks would be second class citizens here in my neck of the woods and while that wasn't a radical idea then (like discriminating against gays isn't a radical idea now), we now know how much of hypocrites I and every other American at that time looked like... we preached the values of equality and liberty for all and I lived in a time when these values weren't acted upon

State's rights bothers me when dealing with fundamental issues and I consider freedom and equality to be a fundamental issue- but state's rights especially bugs me when it is used by conservatives like Rubio to hide from an issue they know history will judge them poorly for...

My party better wise up on things like this or it won't be my party (or much any one's) pretty soon...

Well said. Although I think this is really just them testing the waters and slowly backing off on a losing issue.

But then, I expect the issue to be all but over after the SC decision. It'll be legal across the nation and the only alternative will be an amendment that will have no chance to pass.
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2013, 11:14:20 PM »

These states rights' folks grind my gears...

Did Rubio's parents flee Cuba to come to this state or to this nation? Did I and every other veteran wear the uniform of our state or our nation?- excluding our friends in the National Guard...

If we let the states right's folks have their way- blacks would be second class citizens here in my neck of the woods and while that wasn't a radical idea then (like discriminating against gays isn't a radical idea now), we now know how much of hypocrites I and every other American at that time looked like... we preached the values of equality and liberty for all and I lived in a time when these values weren't acted upon

State's rights bothers me when dealing with fundamental issues and I consider freedom and equality to be a fundamental issue- but state's rights especially bugs me when it is used by conservatives like Rubio to hide from an issue they know history will judge them poorly for...

My party better wise up on things like this or it won't be my party (or much any one's) pretty soon...

Well said. Although I think this is really just them testing the waters and slowly backing off on a losing issue.

But then, I expect the issue to be all but over after the SC decision. It'll be legal across the nation and the only alternative will be an amendment that will have no chance to pass.

Gonna be interesting to read Kennedy's opinion on that issue when DOMA's overturned (I'm guessing he'll be given the duty).
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2013, 11:28:58 PM »
« Edited: February 06, 2013, 11:31:00 PM by Snowstalker »

It's sad that this is a step in the right direction.

But yeah, he's posturing for 2016; he sees the writing on the wall that the nation rejects the FMA that Romney backed, but probably will still tolerate someone who avoids the issue by calling "states' rights!".
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2013, 11:30:15 PM »

I'm extremely concerned about this. I think this hurts him in the primaries.

If he were to run, how would he react to activist federal judge imposing SSM on the country? Keep the "states rights" view? FMA would be the only way to save marriage.

It appears Rubio is slowly being co-opted by the left.
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2013, 11:34:32 PM »

It appears Rubio is slowly being co-opted by the left.

No, he just wants to be electable.
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2013, 11:42:54 PM »

It appears Rubio is slowly being co-opted by the left.

Stop.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,026
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2013, 05:00:13 AM »

I'm extremely concerned about this. I think this hurts him in the primaries.

If he were to run, how would he react to activist federal judge imposing SSM on the country? Keep the "states rights" view? FMA would be the only way to save marriage.

It appears Rubio is slowly being co-opted by the left.
This isn't leftism, this is centrism.

The FMA couldn't pass in 2005. How in the world could it ever pass now?
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,166
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2013, 05:37:28 AM »

I'm extremely concerned about this. I think this hurts him in the primaries.

If he were to run, how would he react to activist federal judge imposing SSM on the country? Keep the "states rights" view? FMA would be the only way to save marriage.

It appears Rubio is slowly being co-opted by the left.

Yeah, Rubio's a major RINO. He probably opposes the death penalty for being a Democrat too.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,533
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2013, 05:40:53 AM »

Trying to win the Republican nomination while still staying electable for the general election has become a task that requires so many contortions that I'm surprised that a "Draft Nadia Comaneci" movement has yet to materialize.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2013, 05:47:25 AM »

I'm extremely concerned about this. I think this hurts him in the primaries.

If he were to run, how would he react to activist federal judge imposing SSM on the country? Keep the "states rights" view? FMA would be the only way to save marriage.

It appears Rubio is slowly being co-opted by the left.

Yeah, Rubio's a major RINO. He probably opposes the death penalty for being a Democrat too.

He may be a maverick, but I doubt he's that liberal.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2013, 08:58:01 AM »

The FMA would have had trouble passing in 1994 when DOMA was adopted; it has zero chance of passing now.

An amendment to enable state choice as to whether same-sex marriage would be permitted probably could have passed in 1994, but it too has zero chance of passing now.  (It probably could pass even now if only a simple majority of both houses were needed.)

Gonna be interesting to read Kennedy's opinion on that issue when DOMA's overturned (I'm guessing he'll be given the duty).

I'm not certain it will be overturned.  It could be, but I don't see Kennedy as being a sure vote for overturning.  It's also possible that it'll be a decision that narrowly strips the Federal government of the power of deciding what a marriage is and leaves the larger issue of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage for another day.

Personally I think such a narrow decision would be bad, since the Federal government should not be bound to the definitions of the State governments (or vice versa) and such an attempt at moderate heroism would have repercussions far beyond the field of matrimony.  A simple decision either affirming or rejecting a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would be much preferable, and also what I expect the court to issue.
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2013, 10:31:15 AM »

While normally a wildcard, Kennedy has alway been friendly to LGBT issues. It'll be 5-4 with the left promising the majority opinion to Kennedy, I just don't know how broad.
Logged
Benj
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 979


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2013, 12:34:38 PM »


Gonna be interesting to read Kennedy's opinion on that issue when DOMA's overturned (I'm guessing he'll be given the duty).

I'm not certain it will be overturned.  It could be, but I don't see Kennedy as being a sure vote for overturning.  It's also possible that it'll be a decision that narrowly strips the Federal government of the power of deciding what a marriage is and leaves the larger issue of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage for another day.

What you describe is a wholesale overturning of DOMA (or at least sec. 3, which is all that's at issue), so I'm not sure what your point is.

Also, the court cannot decide Windsor by rejecting a constitutional right to same-sex marriage as that would not answer the question of whether Congress has power to enact DOMA. (The case could be resolved by declaring that the constitution guarantees same-sex marriage, making DOMA clearly unconstitutional, but as that would go beyond the briefs in the case and the holdings of the Circuits, I doubt the court would go there.)
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2013, 02:19:16 PM »

Well, he's right, although an Amendment is at least a better way to do it than federal statute.  Although I've said for a long time that it should remain a states' rights issue, and that ultimately, the government should get out of marriage and just treat it as a contract.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2013, 05:18:22 PM »


Gonna be interesting to read Kennedy's opinion on that issue when DOMA's overturned (I'm guessing he'll be given the duty).

I'm not certain it will be overturned.  It could be, but I don't see Kennedy as being a sure vote for overturning.  It's also possible that it'll be a decision that narrowly strips the Federal government of the power of deciding what a marriage is and leaves the larger issue of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage for another day.

What you describe is a wholesale overturning of DOMA (or at least sec. 3, which is all that's at issue), so I'm not sure what your point is.

Also, the court cannot decide Windsor by rejecting a constitutional right to same-sex marriage as that would not answer the question of whether Congress has power to enact DOMA. (The case could be resolved by declaring that the constitution guarantees same-sex marriage, making DOMA clearly unconstitutional, but as that would go beyond the briefs in the case and the holdings of the Circuits, I doubt the court would go there.)

In the Obamacare case, Roberts pretty much shattered the need for his court to consider just arguments raised by the briefs and arguments.  Still, if the court rules only on the Federal/State issue, then the court should and probably will uphold DOMA for now.  As I said, there are a whole mess of problems outside of marriage law that would be raised if the court ruled that the Federal government has no choice but to use State definitions.  I think that only if they go further and examine the underlying issue of whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional right will there be a chance for DOMA to be overturned.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2013, 09:21:33 PM »

I guarantee you that a Federal Marriage Amendment does not currently have majority support in the GOP, and certainly won't by 2016.
Logged
Sopranos Republican
Matt from VT
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,174
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.03, S: -8.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2013, 09:40:35 PM »

These states rights' folks grind my gears...

Did Rubio's parents flee Cuba to come to this state or to this nation? Did I and every other veteran wear the uniform of our state or our nation?- excluding our friends in the National Guard...

If we let the states right's folks have their way- blacks would be second class citizens here in my neck of the woods and while that wasn't a radical idea then (like discriminating against gays isn't a radical idea now), we now know how much of hypocrites I and every other American at that time looked like... we preached the values of equality and liberty for all and I lived in a time when these values weren't acted upon

State's rights bothers me when dealing with fundamental issues and I consider freedom and equality to be a fundamental issue- but state's rights especially bugs me when it is used by conservatives like Rubio to hide from an issue they know history will judge them poorly for...

My party better wise up on things like this or it won't be my party (or much any one's) pretty soon...
Awesome Clarence, that was great, I'm for states having some rights of their own, but this is something that is about everyone being equal.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2013, 09:55:31 PM »

This one truly should just be left to the states. Can't the gay community accept that some places just will not allow them to marry based on natural law and moral principals ever. It is a contract and the federal government needs to just step off and respect the states for once. Sorry Clarence you're on the wrong side of this issue.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 13 queries.