Michelle Bachman derails her own Presidential campaign

[Guest GunTroll]

^^^THIS^^^

I will however still vote...not yet sure FOR who.... but definitely sure against who

Same here!

[Urse]

You and your wife may like that stuff, but there is nothing good about porn.

oh yeah!?

check this out!...lol

eSarcasm: 5 Reasons Why Internet Porn Is Good for America

[Oh Shoot]

As I said, the federal government should stay out of the marriage business altogether. One should be able have the same rights and/or benefits in a contract between two people (gay or not). I don't think the religious institution of marriage should have anything to do with it.

Well, well and good, but it would take federal legislation to accomplish that. As it is now, the federal government only recognizes marriage for consideration of the federal matters I listed.

- OS

[Guest nicemac]

As I said, the federal government should stay out of the marriage business altogether. One should be able have the same rights and/or benefits in a contract between two people (gay or not). I don't think the religious institution of marriage should have anything to do with it.

Uh, "religious" marriage existed thousands of years before the government recognized (and started charging for) it. GOVERNMENT should stay out of marriage, it BELONGS to the church.

[Oh Shoot]

Uh, "religious" marriage existed thousands of years before the government recognized (and started charging for) it. GOVERNMENT should stay out of marriage, it BELONGS to the church.

Be realistic. The church is going to handle alimony, child support, division of property, etc when marriages fail?

Anyway, wishing it so changes nothing. In the meantime, since marriage figures prominently in both state and federal code, the primary rights question remains: who is allowed to be married, and who is not?

Matter of fact, and I don't know the answer, does the federal government recognize the same sex marriage that is now legal in 5 or 6 states for the purposes such as I mentioned in my earlier post? (Social Security survivor benefits, military spousal benefits, Medicare, being able to file taxes jointly, etc.)

- OS

Edited July 11, 2011 by OhShoot
added federal question

[Mr. Brooks]

Matter of fact, and I don't know the answer, does the federal government recognize the same sex marriage that is now legal in 5 or 6 states for the purposes such as I mentioned in my earlier post? (Social Security survivor benefits, military spousal benefits, Medicare, being able to file taxes jointly, etc.)

- OS

I know that the federal government does not recognize military spousal benefits for same sex marriage. They cite the defense of marriage act as the reasoning behind it.

[Oh Shoot]

I know that the federal government does not recognize military spousal benefits for same sex marriage. They cite the defense of marriage act as the reasoning behind it.

Thanks for chiming in. What marriage act is that? Something in military regs?

- OS

[kieefer]

Uh, "religious" marriage existed thousands of years before the government recognized (and started charging for) it. GOVERNMENT should stay out of marriage, it BELONGS to the church.

Now there's a novel idea.

[kieefer]

Sure are, and they'll ban porn to prove it

Ban porn?

Com'on, porn will be banned the same way Clinton banned guns. All she's saying is that she doesn't approve of it, much like millions of other people don't approve of it. Same goes for SSM.

Find someone who will leave petty decisions up to the States and adheres to the Constitution on what our Founding Fathers intended Gov. to do. Vows mean nothing except votes.

[Links2k]

Oligarchy is what we are

Now you are preaching! I wish others would see it.

[mav]

Matter of fact, and I don't know the answer, does the federal government recognize the same sex marriage that is now legal in 5 or 6 states for the purposes such as I mentioned in my earlier post? (Social Security survivor benefits, military spousal benefits, Medicare, being able to file taxes jointly, etc.)

As of right now, if I am not mistaken, the federal government does not recognize same sex marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act still stands. Several months ago, Holder and Obama stated their belief that part of DOMA was unconstitutional. However, I believe the DOJ said they would enforce DOMA, but not defend it. Whatever that means (I'm not a lawyer).

[eapking]

We don't need a Constitutional amendment on banning gay marriage. As soon as you open the hood on the Constitution there will be all sorts of "antis" going after a repeal of the 2A.

'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's'...or something to that effect. Translation: the government needs to stay the heck out of church matters, and vice-versa.

[Oh Shoot]

...The Defense of Marriage Act still stands. Several months ago, Holder and Obama stated their belief that part of DOMA was unconstitutional. However, I believe the DOJ said they would enforce DOMA, but not defend it. Whatever that means (I'm not a lawyer).

Ah thanks. Somehow this whole part of federal law wasn't really in my database. Now it is:

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- OS

[Guest ThePunisher]

I'll vote for whoever is running against Obama.

Ditto

[Guest nicemac]

Be realistic. The church is going to handle alimony, child support, division of property, etc when marriages fail?

If people were were truly biblically marrying, there would not be alimony, child support, division of property, etc…

[Oh Shoot]

If people were were truly biblically marrying, there would not be alimony, child support, division of property, etc…

So only Christians could marry under your guidelines? Maybe let Jews in, too?

- OS

[Guest nicemac]

So only Christians could marry under your guidelines? Maybe let Jews in, too?

- OS

Sorry, I don't have guidelines. Marriage was instituted by God, several millenium before our government was ever thought of. There were only followers, not Christians or Jews at that point–they came later.

Government came along and got involved (why?) and marriage has now been cheapened nearly to the point of irrelevancy.

Q: Why do non-believers want a piece of something that was ordained by God thousands of years ago anyway?

A: My guess is just to cheapen/ ruin it.

[mikegideon]

I know I shouldn't be getting married again. Has nothing to do with God.

[bajabuc]

Sorry, I don't have guidelines. Marriage was instituted by God, several millenium before our government was ever thought of. There were only followers, not Christians or Jews at that point–they came later.

Government came along and got involved (why?) and marriage has now been cheapened nearly to the point of irrelevancy.

Q: Why do non-believers want a piece of something that was ordained by God thousands of years ago anyway?

A: My guess is just to cheapen/ ruin it.

That means you're married to the first person you ever had intercorse with. If you didn't marry that person did you pay her dad the brideprice?. Government? Religion is there to support and enforce government.

[Guest nicemac]

That means you're married to the first person you ever had intercorse with.

The way marriage was intended, it would be the ONLY person you had relations with.

Think of the problems we would not have today if people lived that way.

Government? Religion is there to support and enforce government.

Very funny.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The way marriage was intended, it would be the ONLY person you had relations with.

Think of the problems we would not have today if people lived that way.

Very funny.

I thought so, too.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikegideon]

The way marriage was intended, it would be the ONLY person you had relations with.

Boy, I screwed that one up, way before I met my first exwife.

[kieefer]

The Slate 7/9;

Meanwhile, Ms. Bachmann and Mr. Santorum announced support for the pledge Friday, a number of additional Republican presidential candidates said they are considering whether to sign the pledge. Texas Rep. Ron Paul said he is considering signing the pledge, while former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty were noncommittal. Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman’s spokesman Tim Miller told Politico the campaign has a policy of not signing any pledges. “He has been a clear supporter of traditonal marriage and will let his record speak for itself.â€

Oh no, not Ron Paul too.

[mav]

Oh no, not Ron Paul too.

Considering signing isn't the same thing as signing it. I don't think he will sign it, but we will see. I have been surprised before.

[Warbird]

Several of the republican candidates have been advised by a number of consultants that their base is most concerned with the economy, the economy and the economy and not social evangelical right issues. They need to focus on new ways to grow the economy and encourage entrepreneurship, jobs growth.

Plenty of polling and survey work went into that strategy and it isn't based on a hunch. But these candidates will do what they will do. This isn't 2004 and the base is simply not focused on gay marriage and the like. The only social type issue which may get attention in this next election, is the 2nd amendment if Obama indeed does try something in that arena. If you consider the 2nd amendment a social issue, which I do in a sense, though a non-moral religious type social issue. If the ATF scandal heats up a bit more it could also move that forward some.

Some of these groups like the one above for this pledge have far less weight than some might them credit for, even in Iowa. I am not against signing of all surveys, but wide spread one like this are a trap to avoid. Way too unfocused and too many bases to peel off to bother with that one.