Walker's "anti-gay transition"

[dudeabides]

Republicans should continue to defend the pro-life position because human life is precious and deserves to be protected.

However, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the party has to learn to be inclusive and that these are God's children just as much as heterosexual individuals. Therefore, the government should be out of the issue of marriage and if we insist government should be involved, it should only be at the state level.

[dudeabides]

Republicans should continue to defend the pro-life position because human life is precious and deserves to be protected.

However, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the party has to learn to be inclusive and that these are God's children just as much as heterosexual individuals. Therefore, the government should be out of the issue of marriage and if we insist government should be involved, it should only be at the state level.

How do you handle all of the legal issues around marriage then?  How do you know whether people are married for say, purposes of employment benefits without marriage?  And, isn't that the opposite of the Republican social ideology of being in favor of marriage?  I thought Republicans thought marriage had beneficial social and economic effects.  I guess not?

And, Democrats don't want the Federal government involved in marriage.  The only time that has happened was DOMA and Democrats pushed to have that repealed. 

I do believe that children who are raised in a home with one man and one woman are more likely to succeed, but there are plenty of great single parents AND same-sex couples. We should not discriminate against anyone.

If we are going to have marriage be state recognized contract, I want it to be at the state and not federal level. But, I would prefer if we left those decisions up to the religious institutions - I don't think our tax code or laws should distinguish between those who are married and those who are single. However, obviously states are going to have to continue to have laws pertaining to children and custody etc. 

[dudeabides]

Republicans should continue to defend the pro-life position because human life is precious and deserves to be protected.

However, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the party has to learn to be inclusive and that these are God's children just as much as heterosexual individuals. Therefore, the government should be out of the issue of marriage and if we insist government should be involved, it should only be at the state level.

How do you handle all of the legal issues around marriage then?  How do you know whether people are married for say, purposes of employment benefits without marriage?  And, isn't that the opposite of the Republican social ideology of being in favor of marriage?  I thought Republicans thought marriage had beneficial social and economic effects.  I guess not?

And, Democrats don't want the Federal government involved in marriage.  The only time that has happened was DOMA and Democrats pushed to have that repealed. 

I do believe that children who are raised in a home with one man and one woman are more likely to succeed, but there are plenty of great single parents AND same-sex couples. We should not discriminate against anyone.

If we are going to have marriage be state recognized contract, I want it to be at the state and not federal level. But, I would prefer if we left those decisions up to the religious institutions - I don't think our tax code or laws should distinguish between those who are married and those who are single. However, obviously states are going to have to continue to have laws pertaining to children and custody etc. 

Marriage has never been at the Federal level so that's solved.

Aside from that, you're not making sense.  You're proposing that we legally invalidate all marriages, and do so at the state level, correct? 

So, the government could never differentiate between married and single people, everyone would be legally single.  That takes away the tax question.  And, for example, you wouldn't get any immigration status because you're married to someone.  That might break up families, but I see your point, breaking families is necessary to stand up for family values.

But, what about my employee benefits point?  Do you ban companies from offering health insurance or other benefits to their employees' partners?  How do you handle family issues and immigration issues? 

And, what is the point of all that legal hassle, which as I pointed out, goes against Republican's core social convictions of being pro-marriage?

The government would not be able to differentiate between single and married, that is correct. As far as employers are concerned, there is no law now that says employers can have to provide benefits to spouses. They do, and they differentiate when that employee specifies who they are married to.

As far as the immigration question, it's the same thing.

Religious institutions can confirm if a couple is married, my argument is simply to get the government out of the marriage question all together.

As a society, we allow people to be free so long as they don't harm others. I don't think letting religious institutions as opposed to governments make decisions about marriage harm anyone and thus, it's okay under our constitution and in our society.