Jeb: Same-Sex Marriage Should Be State Decision
[su_right_ad]Jeb Bush says marriage equality should be up to individual states.
“It ought be a local decision. I mean, a state decision,” the former governor said Sunday in a brief interview. “The state decided. The people of the state decided. But it’s been overturned by the courts, I guess.”
His comments were in line with past statements by the Republican. But with Miami-Dade County ready to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as Monday if a judge approves – and the rest of the state following on Tuesday – the change is bound to bring even more attention to Bush’s somewhat guarded take on gay rights…
“So the people should have the right to enact a discriminatory law?” said Howard Simon, director of the Florida American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the same-sex couples in the federal case against Florida’s gay-marriage amendment. “That sounds like what he was saying. That unfortunately is consistent from what I remember about Jeb Bush’s tenure as governor.”
“Like” Liberaland on Facebook.[su_csky_ad]
Jake January 5th, 2015 at 7:47 am
i wonder if he feels the same way about the 2nd Amendment – should an individual state be allowed to ban private gun ownership completely if “the people of the state decided”?
And what if – heaven forbid – a state decided that religious institutions should have to pay taxes for the services they get as a gift from me and my family’s taxes.
His brother fancied himself the deee-cider so i guess Jeb intends to be the dee-elegator.
Stand Your Ground
TAX the CHURCHES!
granpa.usthai January 5th, 2015 at 10:39 am
they should be required to appear in public only when BUTT NAKED as a demonstration of their TRUE FAITH, otherwise many may look upon the MIXED FIBER HYPOCRITES as dishonest little cons with NO moral guidance at all.
granpa.usthai January 5th, 2015 at 10:42 am
love your reasoning on firearms in the hands of the well armed UNREGULATED militia.
tracey marie January 5th, 2015 at 11:15 am
excellent points jake
Obewon January 5th, 2015 at 8:24 am
NRA poster boy Jeb Bush thinks anti-LGBT bigotry violating the 10th amendment is ‘ahh states right.’ Failed social con delusional’s don’t know their own conservative SCOTUS legalized equal marriage in 2013 throughout the USA.
rg9rts January 5th, 2015 at 9:34 am
You think he spoke to Cheney about it??
granpa.usthai January 5th, 2015 at 10:41 am
you think a Bush would dare say anything in public without the primo dickster’s approval?
rg9rts January 5th, 2015 at 9:34 am
Let the pandering to the basest of the base begin
granpa.usthai January 5th, 2015 at 10:35 am
what if a state wants to make ‘walking while black’ a class a Criminal felony warranting immediate execution by white officers/ or chubby Latino males with a state’s white male DL?
(aside from Florida, Missouri, New York, Arizona, California, etc.)
?
tracey marie January 5th, 2015 at 11:14 am
the constitution and equality mean nothing to the rwnj’s
Pistol-Packing January 5th, 2015 at 1:09 pm
Nothing made me prouder then to be able to stand by my Sister and her partner when they were finally able to legally marry last year. I think this is an incredibly stupid and losing argument for the republican party.
At the same token, if it were not for the insistence to use the word marriage, there would be no backlash, Laws could have been established recognizing the union, and this would all be a non-issue. But what do I know, Anomaly always says I am wrong.
Suzanne McFly January 5th, 2015 at 1:31 pm
I don’t believe Anomoly will call you wrong for simply having an opinion, but you argument is to protect a word? What changes by saying the GLBT community can marry? Straight people hardly hold that word with great respect, divorce rate has been over 50% for decades and it certainly is not something we hold in high esteem. To act like all the sudden they are demeaning marriage is hysterical.
Pistol-Packing January 5th, 2015 at 1:55 pm
No, Anomaly will still say I am wrong regardless… =)
In regards to the marriage issue. Personally, I dont even see why this is an issue. But it is for many people for using the word marriage. Now I am not very religious, so it has no connotation to me, and as mentioned, my sister is gay, and was just allowed to legally marry her partner of 15 years this past year.
My point is though, if you take the contention out of the argument, then there is no more argument. The original movement was about equal rights, and a lot of that had to deal with benefits, inheritance, division of properties, etc.. all the same stuff us straight people go through.
In a joking manner, I cant wait for the first high profile gay divorce…
Suzanne McFly January 5th, 2015 at 6:52 pm
I understand your stance about the contention for using the word “marriage”, but do you really think that would quell the people who are against same sex couples getting married? I think some may feel better, but I seriously doubt it would amount to one percentage point. I am glad to see you are supporting your family and you are also lucky to know someone who is gay and feels secure enough to be open about their lifestyle. You have become very familiar with a lifestyle that is far outside your own and you are comfortable with their lifestyle. Because you chose love over hate, your knowledge and heart have expanded and we all benefit when that happens.
cecilia January 5th, 2015 at 7:12 pm
“… if you take the contention out of the argument, then there is no more argument”
1) Congratulations to your sister and her wife. May they have a long and happy marriage.
2) However, if you think taking the word ‘marriage’ out of this discussion will make those bigoted bastards stop complaining, you are seriously mistaken.
They will find any excuse to deny people their civil rights. They suck that way
Carla Akins January 5th, 2015 at 7:21 pm
Already happened. http://www.eonline.com/news/592936/jane-lynch-divorce-finalized-ex-lara-embry-gets-1-2-million-over-two-years
AnthonyLook January 5th, 2015 at 2:08 pm
Jeb Bush aligns himself with the ideology of a State being able to legislate discrimination.
Charlie Seivard January 5th, 2015 at 2:42 pm
What business is it of the state or Jeb Bush who marries whom? Those are personal decisions like what I eat for breakfast and the government should have nothing to do with it.
Robert M. Snyder January 5th, 2015 at 4:50 pm
Be careful. Michelle Obama would probably support legislation to outlaw your breakfast cereal if it contains added sugar. Jelly and jam on your toast? Forget about it. And don’t even THINK about bacon and eggs.
Seriously, do you think the state has any business regulating polygamous marriages? It is my understanding that some people are pushing to get that legalized. Rick Santorum (I’m not a fan) once said that if gay marriage is legalized, polygamous marriage will follow. Was he right? Are you prepared to accept polygamy?
Carla Akins January 5th, 2015 at 7:13 pm
There are no indications that FLOTUS would support outlawing your breakfast, encouraging proper eating habits in children is akin to good hygiene.
And I’m perfectly fine with polygamy, as long as it’s between consenting adults and not groomed children. What works for you, or me, or Rick Santorum may not work for everyone else.
Robert M. Snyder January 6th, 2015 at 12:16 am
It raises all sorts of logistical questions in my mind. For example, let’s say a man and woman have been married for ten years and have two biological children. Your traditional American family. Then the husband falls in love with a second woman and the first wife is okay with polygamy. So when the second marriage takes place, exactly who is named on the marriage certificate?
Does the second wife marry the husband only? Does she separately marry both the first wife and the husband, recorded as two marriages on separate documents? Or do the husband and first wife jointly marry the second wife using a single marriage certificate?
And what happens if one of the parties later wants a divorce? Suppose the husband decides to divorce the first wife, but the two women wish to remain married to one another. This would result in two binary marriages with the second wife being involved in both. Suppose the first wife dies without a will. One would assume that the second wife would inherit all of her estate. But then if the second wife also dies, would the husband get the combined estate?
I think the lawyers would love it. Can you say “billable hours”?
Carla Akins January 6th, 2015 at 4:42 am
It would require some planning, that’s for sure.
Robert M. Snyder January 6th, 2015 at 8:42 am
“And I’m perfectly fine with polygamy, as long as it’s between consenting adults and not groomed children. What works for you, or me, or Rick Santorum may not work for everyone else.”
What would you say about a single man who wanted to marry his widowed grandmother? If she is no longer fertile, then there would be no need for concern about genetic issues with offspring. In your opinion, does the state have any right to prohibit such a marriage? If the state were to allow such a marriage, when the grandmother dies, all of her assets would pass directly to her spouse (grandson) without inheritance taxes!
Young women have been marrying old men for this purpose for a very long time. But it has never been an option for younger family members. In fact, the younger family members typically object because the young women ends up getting all of grandpa’s money. But if polygamy is legalized, then grandpa or grandma could legally marry all of his or her grandchildren.
The possibilities are mind-boggling.
Carla Akins January 6th, 2015 at 9:01 am
First, procreation has no standing in marriage and polygamy doesn’t qualify you to marry your grandparent – that’s a completely different set of laws.
Robert M. Snyder January 6th, 2015 at 9:18 am
But the underlying principle, for many people, is that the government has no business telling people who they can marry. Many people say that if two (or more) people love each other, then their relationship should not have second-class status and they should be able to get the same recognition and legal status, namely marriage.
I am a software developer, so inconsistencies drive me nuts. When somebody puts forth a principle, I always ask “What would happen if we applied that principle consistently, in every conceivable situation?”. In the software field, we refer to things like “marrying your grandmother” as “edge cases” – things that are very rare, but are bound to come up eventually. In order to design a robust set of rules (for a computer or for a society), we need to think about the edge cases. Because sure as shootin’, somebody is eventually going to try to marry their grandmother, citing the principle that if two (or more) people love each other, and they’re not hurting anyone, the state should not discriminate.
I don’t think it’s silly to talk about polygamy and marriage between relatives. I think it is important to think about these “edge cases” in order to make certain that we are operating under a consistent set of principles instead of making up laws on a case-by-case basis.
fahvel January 6th, 2015 at 12:17 pm
STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Robert M. Snyder January 6th, 2015 at 12:32 pm
This is called Liberaland. I attended a liberal arts college in the 1980’s where I took a couple of Philosophy classes, including an Ethics class. The point of that class was not to learn the “right answers”, but to learn how to reason about ethical issues. Conventional wisdom is that conservatives are stuck in fixed, dogmatic viewpoints, and that liberals are more open to considering different points of view in order to reason about ethical issues. Do you consider yourself a liberal? If so, why? What is your definition of liberalism?
fahvel January 6th, 2015 at 12:17 pm
some minds are easily boggled there bob.
fahvel January 6th, 2015 at 12:16 pm
are you digging a pit in quick sand? You try to sound intelligent by the way you express yourself but it still comes out as gobbledeegook.
tracey marie January 5th, 2015 at 7:38 pm
so what, consenting adults is the key word in any marriage
Larry Schmitt January 6th, 2015 at 12:45 am
And some fearmongers who don’t want gays to be able to marry each other fretted that people would be able to marry their dogs if gays were allowed to marry. That’s no more likely to happen than polygamy. If Santorum said it, it’s wrong. You could look it up. Why does it matter who someone marries? How does it affect anyone else? It doesn’t change your “traditional” marriage if gays are allowed to marry each other. If you want to beat your wife, you will still beat your wife. Your ridiculous suppositions don’t help.
Robert M. Snyder January 6th, 2015 at 12:59 am
In 2003, 7% of Americans supported polygamy. In 2013, 14% did. And 24% of Mormons do. There is now a TV show about polygamous families. It would appear that polygamy is much more likely to be supported and legalized than marrying your dog. Two other people responded that they are okay with polygamy. So it would appear that my assumptions are not ridiculous at all.
whatthe46 January 6th, 2015 at 3:31 am
that’s the most assinine thing ever! and you know it.
Robert M. Snyder January 6th, 2015 at 8:47 am
In 1978, only four percent of Americans approved of interracial marriage, and many states had laws prohibiting it. Today the topic is not even discussed because pretty much everybody has accepted it.
Today, over 80% of Americans oppose polygamy. But in 20 years, who knows?
You have called my comments asinine and ridiculous. Back it up. What makes you so certain that polygamy will NOT become widely accepted?
fahvel January 6th, 2015 at 12:15 pm
don’t need to – they back up their own assininity just by being uttered.
fahvel January 6th, 2015 at 12:14 pm
what whatthe 46 said- pure and simple assinine.
Obewon January 6th, 2015 at 1:54 am
What does your diversion have to do with Jeb Bush’s 10th amendment and SCOTUS constitutional illiteracy?
You & Jeb don’t seem to recall SCOTUS ruled 2,000+ federal SS, hospital visitation and other ‘inheritance tax’ benefits are only available by equal marriage. That’s why it’s the law of the land in 31+ states, soon to be 38 states. Social cons long ago proved themselves to be hypocrites, throughout the 20th century and beyond.
Nest-up: how many repub social con operatives, and 2016 candidates are under felony indictment or conviction?
Disarmed guber Perry and FEC violator Bachmann lead GOP’s felony pack! Grimes gets honorable mention with straw donor campaign felon Dinesh D’Souza bringing up his caboose.
whatthe46 January 6th, 2015 at 3:27 am
so, as it always goes, if you have nothing to argue about in the negative regarding the president, then you attack his wife. how ignorant. she never once stated you can’t eat what you want you J.A. and the rights for the LGBT community to marry has been around prior to Obama. but, that doesn’t matter to you does it?
Robert M. Snyder January 6th, 2015 at 8:56 am
“then you attack his wife”
I “attacked” her public role as self-appointed nutrition expert.
I said nothing about LGBT rights. My question was about whether acceptance of polygamy is a natural outcome of greater acceptance of LGBT.
fahvel January 6th, 2015 at 12:13 pm
oh shut up – you are what you write and can’t change even the subtle intonations.
majii January 6th, 2015 at 3:29 am
FWIW, if I had to choose, I’d rather be told what to eat than have an entire political party invade my vagina and uterus in the name of their religion.
Robert M. Snyder January 6th, 2015 at 8:32 am
I’m not a gynecologist, but I’ll take a look.
fahvel January 6th, 2015 at 12:12 pm
not nice!
fahvel January 6th, 2015 at 12:11 pm
why not? It’s all social bullsht. Anyone who wants multiple husbands or wives should have the chance to spend the rest of their liife with the melee.
Booya Bible January 5th, 2015 at 3:12 pm
Who knew Jeb Bush was a statist. Local government shouldn’t have power? Wow!