Interview: Jimmy LaSalvia on GOProud endorsement of Mitt

posted at 10:01 am on June 27, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

I’ll confess that I was somewhat surprised when I read the news that GOProud was officially endorsing Mitt Romney. It’s not that Mitt isn’t the sort to attract support from a variety of demographic groups. But some of the GOProud supporters (and officers) I hear from seemed to be going for Libertarian candidate Governor Gary Johnson.

Of course, the more stereotypical wings of the gay rights front were quick out of the gate to condemn LaSalvia and his organization, led by Michael Musto at the Village Voice. I won’t paste a bunch of this hogwash in here (though you’re free to follow the link if you can stomach it) but he starts off with “Jewish Nazi” and goes downhill from there.

I decided to dig into it a bit further and asked Jimmy to sit down with Hot Air for a quick interview on this announcement, which follows.

HOT AIR: I assume by now you’ve seen the Michael Musto article out here in the Village Voice which identifies you as being, just for example, a “Jewish Nazi, a Black Klan member, a Mexican Republican or Roaches who moonlight as exterminators.” But unlike many of these articles, Musto actually takes a moment to acknowledge that you might be supporting somebody who is better on the economy and better for the nation – straight and gay – as a whole. Is this common for you?

Jimmy LaSalvia : No it’s not common for our critics to point out that our support for conservatives is, in our view, better for the country. But there is a first for everything!

Gay conservatives are constantly under attack from the bullies on the left – and they are especially nasty when they do it. The Michael Musto comments were part of a string of attacks from the left in the week since GOProud’s endorsement of Mitt Romney. It started with gay lefty activist Dan Savage calling us “house faggots,” then Joy Behar said that we probably only endorsed Romney because we were sexually attracted to his sons. Can you imagine what Joy and the ladies on The View would say if a man accused a woman of basing her support of President Obama on his looks?!?! They would go nuts condemning him.

The attacks on us are always over the top. It seems that it’s OK to use racist, masochistic, anti-Semitic, and homophobic words and phrases when attacking gay conservatives. Nobody in the mainstream media condemns it or comes to our defense. We are fortunate to have a lot of friends in the conservative blogosphere who regularly stand up for us. That means a lot to us, and it gives us the resolve to continue to stand up to the left wing bullies.

HA: Let’s take it as written for a moment that you find a lot of the issues critical to America’s future transcend gay-straight lines and that you feel Mitt is the superior choice. But let us know… how do you think Mitt shapes up on any of the so called “gay stuff” issues? He seems fairly big tent to me in some areas.

JL:As you know we at GOProud believe that every issue is a “gay issue,” and we make the case that conservative policies that benefit everyone also benefit gay people – sometimes in unique ways. On most every issue facing Americans (including the gay ones) Governor Romney is without question the best candidate.

On other issues that specifically affect gay Americans, Romney has a strong record. For instance, he appointed openly gay officials and judges when he was governor, and he’s consistently spoken out against discrimination against gays and lesbians in hiring.

I disagree with him on his support for a federal marriage amendment. As a constitutional conservative, I believe that the 10th Amendment leaves that issue to the states. I have never supported changing the US Constitution just because you happen to disagree with part of it.

HA: There was some hay being made in Left leaning publications over the fact that you didn’t have a unanimous vote supporting Romney. Some folks, like my friend Chris Barron, are personally supporting Gary Johnson. Did you give any thought to considering Johnson, and if not, why?

JL: Sure. I think a lot of Republicans are considering supporting Governor Johnson because he had a strong record as Governor of New Mexico. To be honest, I wish I had known more about him earlier in the primary process and I may have worked to help him win the Republican nomination. I decided in January to support Mitt Romney when it became clear to me that he was in the best candidate for our Party to run against President Obama.

GOProud’s number one priority this year is making sure that the President is defeated in November. That’s why we endorsed Governor Romney. He has the best chance of accomplishing that, and we’ll be working to help him.

HA: On some issues of concern to gay Americans such as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Barack Obama has gotten a lot of praise. Do you give him any credit for at least those things or do you feel he’s come up short?

JL: Yes, President Obama deserves credit for ending the ban on openly gay people serving in the military. I agreed with him on that, but I disagreed with the way that the President and Democrats in Congress politicized the issue. It was the right thing to do and could have been done in a much more bi-partisan and less politicized way.

The other ways he has reached out to gay Americans have largely been symbolic, like hosting White House receptions for gay activists and things like that. Those gestures may feel good, but do little to improve the day to day lives of gays and lesbians. I guess that’s no different from any other issue. Symbolism over substance is what we all have come to expect from this President, isn’t it?

HA: You’ve said yourself in so many words that economic prosperity and opportunity is not a gay or straight issue, but rather something that affects all Americans. What advice would you give a new President Romney as far as helping the nation’s economy and employment situation after he’s sworn in?

JL: Get the government out of the way of entrepreneurship! The way to grow the economy and create jobs is to allow the economy to work without the government’s interference. Unlike President Obama, Governor Romney understands how the economy works and he has the experience to help bring America back. That’s why he’s a candidate that straight and gay Americans alike can support.

Your views, as always, are welcome.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

mittens on June 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Homosexuals are as much part of the democrat party plantation as blacks and Jews. That people think pandering to them will gain the GOP any electoral advantage at all, is idiocy.

Rebar on June 27, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Anyway, I’m not prejudiced . . . . . . . . . . I hate everybody.

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Very inclusionary. ;)

kim roy on June 27, 2012 at 1:41 PM

See Joy Behar and the other idiots referred to in the interview, just for a few symbols.

Schadenfreude on June 27, 2012 at 12:28 PM

I just ate, so I’ll have to wait a bit if I’m going to read or listen to Joy Behar. :)

The log cabin republicans had the same platform, and they have been “outed” as a stealth progressive group quite some time ago.

Rebar on June 27, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Sure – but I’m not convinced GOProud is a stealth progressive group like the log cabin republicans.

gwelf on June 27, 2012 at 12:20 PM

GOProud was formed by Barron and LaSilvia, who left the LCR because they weren’t conservative enough, and compromised their original platforms. There’s a reason I was never supportive of the LCR.

I’m so glad to see gwelf is coming around on groups like GOProud…I realize it’s not always easy to change opinions one has had for so long. I’ve been there a few times myself. But Rebar doesn’t want to know the truth, or gawd forbid try to learn something, he just keeps repeating the same old hard-headed opinions…which is fine for him…he is what he is, and his repetitive opinions reflect that. Again, HA readers aren’t a stupid bunch.

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM

GOProud was formed by Barron and LaSilvia, who left the LCR because they weren’t conservative enough, and compromised their original platforms.

Or… their original organization was exposed, and they needed a new cover for their progressive agenda. No doubt when GOProud is widely exposed they’ll just go ahead and create a new one and continue with the same old agenda.

But Rebar doesn’t want to know the truth, or gawd forbid try to learn something, he just keeps repeating the same old hard-headed opinions…which is fine for him…he is what he is, and his repetitive opinions reflect that.

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM

More Alinsky rule 11.

And what “truth” don’t I want to know, that homosexual marriage which has been a progressive agenda item for decades and championed by the democrat party for that long, is really a conservative issue?

This word “truth”, it dosn’t mean what you think it means.

Rebar on June 27, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Or… their original organization was exposed, and they needed a new cover for their progressive agenda. No doubt when GOProud is widely exposed they’ll just go ahead and create a new one and continue with the same old agenda.

Rebar

You sound like a 9/11 troofer trying to convince someone to buy your vapid conspiracy theory. Whatever…we’re all allowed to have and express our opinions. No matter how nutty.

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 2:05 PM

But alas, the perils of politics. I love it.

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I can’t imagine how frustrating that is — vilified by your ‘friends’ in your personal life, and vilified by (some) of your political friends from the other side — but it appears you have a good attitude towards it. Much respect for gay conservatives.

jjraines on June 27, 2012 at 2:07 PM

You sound like a 9/11 troofer trying to convince someone to buy your vapid conspiracy theory.

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 2:05 PM

More Alinsky rule 11.

You also leave out the fact that the log cabin republicans have already been exposed, and that a good number of those same folks are involved in GOProud.

That’s hardly “vapid”.

Rebar on June 27, 2012 at 2:08 PM

I can’t imagine how frustrating that is — vilified by your ‘friends’ in your personal life, and vilified by (some) of your political friends from the other side — but it appears you have a good attitude towards it. Much respect for gay conservatives.

jjraines on June 27, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Thanks…like I said, there aren’t many dull moments for me :/

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 2:30 PM

especially as incidences like Elaine Huguenin’s come to light.

Rebar on June 27, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Basically why I don’t support gay marriage or the gay rights agenda, as it stands directly hostile to true fundamental rights of all Americans: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience.

mittens on June 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Doubly why I don’t support gay marriage. In fact, it’s quite shocking considering how intolerant and militant the activists show themselves to be — that they manage to win the public relations war. Oh, and find new friends — no one deserves to go thru that.

jjraines on June 27, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Basically why I don’t support gay marriage or the gay rights agenda, as it stands directly hostile to true fundamental rights of all Americans: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience.

That is some mighty thick irony.

I mean, I’m speechless at that.

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Bearing children as a purpose for marriage is a bad argument. There are so many heterosexual couples that cannot have children. Why would you want to lose their support?

Gelsomina on June 27, 2012 at 12:38 PM

It’s a perfect argument because marriage exists with civil benefits to promote men and women settling down together in permanent relationships – ostensibly to create the next generation of children and raise them so as not to be wards of the state. That’s the base of it – additional benefits include recognizing the single most stable model of raising well-adjusted citizens, regardless of the particular individual’s ability to create that next generation or not.

Infertility is a disease – heterosexual men and women shouldn’t be punished in marriage relationships because of it. You actually have the argument flipped on its head – not allowing the infertile to marry is discrimination.

The difference between these relationships and homosexual ones come down to basic biology. Homosexual relationships are not infertile – they are NON-fertile. They do not represent the normal course for well-adjusted members of society, as evidenced by the fact what small number exist naturally, a sizable portion of them attempt to inflitrate and change school curriculum to sexualize children at earlier and earlier ages, and it is well documented that a person claiming a homosexual orientation is far more likely to have reported abuse or neglect. Does this mean every person with a homosexual orientation is like that? Of course not. But the idea the behavior is worthy of normalization instead of nuetrality is ridiculous. Offensive question of the year: Gerry Sandusky sexually abused boys of varying ages. Does that make him gay or just a pedophile? Because none dare link the two – even though there is an active homosexual movement to encourage barely pubescent teens to “explore their sexuality.”

Folks like Liberty don’t get it. The only thing they’ll tell us to “wake the **** up to” is how Ron Paul is a Messiah – they wouldn’t know threats to liberty if they invaded their schools and taught own their children to hate them. – Because they already do and they still don’t get it.

It sucks to have to bust on the hug-a-thon, but really – marriage policy is not a side issue any more than religious freedom is – and GOPProud tends to be on the wrong side of both.

BKennedy on June 27, 2012 at 2:53 PM

That is some mighty thick irony.

I mean, I’m speechless at that.

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Did you read the article? Like many other fine-sounding, well-intentioned policies, the unintended (or intented) consequences come at the expense of those most fundamental rights.

I don’t think it’s ironic that I value freedom of speech, religion, and conscience (for me and you) over the claimed right to same-sex marriage.

But you bring up another reason why I don’t support the gay agenda: Falsely equating “gay rights” — special victim class rights — as somehow on equal footing to basic constitutional rights. Those three things I listed above? You have that, just like I do. You also enjoy the freedom of expressing your sexuality in this country, which isn’t the case in some regions of the world. And I support gay couples enjoying the same rights/privileges in the few areas they sometimes do not, e.g. hospital visitation. And like basically everyone, I don’t think it’s okay to bully or mock someone over being gay/whatever. However, the same goes for those who have a different worldview, and do not endorse that lifestyle.

And yet those who do “come out” with their politically incorrect opinion are roundly demonized and bashed, all in the name of tolerance and equality. THAT, to me, is irony.

jjraines on June 27, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I forgot to add: Many on your side are quick to equate opposition to gay marriage as being anti-gay. Yet another great reason why I don’t support it. That smear is nothing short of an attack of freedom of conscience, and a baseless ad hominem.

As I have stated, the lifestyle or homosexuality itself has nothing to do with my opposition. And yet, even in your response, you hinted that my position is one of intolerance. People should have a right to disagree with the current sacred cows of political correctness and anything else for that matter — many gay activists prove they have no regard for such principle.

jjraines on June 27, 2012 at 2:59 PM

This word “truth”, it dosn’t mean what you think it means.

Rebar on June 27, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Aww, but we all know that ‘truth’ means what you think it means :)…got a monopoly over truth there, buddy? Must be nice to be you :)…

jimver on June 27, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Being anti-homosexual marriage doesn’t make someone anti-gay.

Rebar on June 27, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I agree, but you’re saying that 40% of voters will be driven away by the inclusion of a gay conservative group that promotes conservative positions like low taxes, deregulation, and a strong foreign policy above the “gay issues” like same-sex marriage that you disagree with, as demonstrated by their endorsement of Romney and the interview above.

The only way that would possibly happen is if that 40% of conservatives who you claim are social conservatives are not just anti-homosexual marriage, but downright anti-gay. And as your response suggests, you know that’s not the case.

As far as numbers, I’ll let the vote totals from every ballot on the issue speak for themselves. I’ll also point out that the GOP platform is pretty clear on the issue.

Rebar on June 27, 2012 at 12:26 PM

So you don’t have any actual evidence to back up your baseless assertions. Like I said, typical liberal argumentative tactics.

Caiwyn on June 27, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I will only quickly say there are issues, including his lifestyle, on which Jimmy and I will never agree.

But what I also say, much more importantly, there are issues on which we completely agree and it is those on which I would much rather focus.

Imagine that. Finding common ground upon which you can build a relationship with people who largely agree with your political worldview.

Look how different his perspective is from someone like the detestable, angry, invective hurling Musto who adds nothing useful, constructive or intellectual to our countries dialogue.

I am not a big believer in all this demographic factionalization- whether it’s built on sexual preference, race, creed or anything else. All that does is split this nation apart, create separate interest groups and different classes of people. That is destructive, divisive and frankly where this nation made a big mistake. People center around ideas such as conservative principles, all people.

I believe in the individual as our Founders did. They did then, as I know today, that a strong nation is built by individuals coming together as a nation to promote the interests of all people. That is one reason why I despise separate interest groups. They split us along various lines, divide us and in the process make us weaker.

Marcus Traianus on June 27, 2012 at 10:42 AM

I agree with Marcus… couldn’t have said it any better…

RockyJ. on June 27, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Infertility is a disease – heterosexual men and women shouldn’t be punished in marriage relationships because of it. You actually have the argument flipped on its head – not allowing the infertile to marry is discrimination.

BKennedy on June 27, 2012 at 2:53 pm

What about heterosexual couples who get married and choose not to have children (no disease or infertility issue there, just deliberative action) …purely anecdotally, personally I know 4 couples (some are friends) that are in that situation…of course they are young and they may yet change their minds about it, but they enetered the marriage with the idea that they don’t want to and they wouldn’t have kids…..by your logic, they shouldn’t be allowed to married…to what purpose, right :)….

jimver on June 27, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Marcus Traianus on June 27, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Excellent, thoughtful post, as usually…it rhymes’ with your handle too :), don’t know your rationale or ‘story’ behind chosing it, but Marcus Nerva Traianus is one of my favourite Roman emperors…one of the most level-headed, rational, wise and fair/just just emperors Rome had…no wonder he was so successfull..oh, and a great military mind and/+ a prolific builder too..

jimver on June 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Offensive question of the year: Gerry Sandusky sexually abused boys of varying ages. Does that make him gay or just a pedophile? Because none dare link the two – even though there is an active homosexual movement to encourage barely pubescent teens to “explore their sexuality.”

As much as the AFA, FRC, and AFTAH would love to have you think, there have been, at this moment in time, exactly 0 studies which have proven a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia and that have been peer-reviewed.

Then again I am trying to use logic on someone who believes that there is a massive gay conspiracy to “recruit” children, so I’m probably wasting my time.

theoddmanout on June 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Choosing that is…

jimver on June 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Then again I am trying to use logic on someone who believes that there is a massive gay conspiracy to “recruit” children, so I’m probably wasting my time.

theoddmanout on June 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM

The fact you’re such a sheepish coward as to not even look into the claims to determine their own veracity proves I shouldn’t even bother responding to you. I could provide you links, but your mind is closed on the matter.

Why exactly do you think they keep putting Gay-Straight Alliances in Middle Schools? Why do you think Planned Parenthood constantly peddles pro-sex advertising to middle schoolers?

The point isn’t “recruitment” (which is a word I never said, you put it in my mouth) so much as it is attempting to normalize abuse.

Don’t talk to me about logic when your prefered debate tactic is burning straw men.

BKennedy on June 27, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Did you read the article? Like many other fine-sounding, well-intentioned policies, the unintended (or intented) consequences come at the expense of those most fundamental rights.

I don’t think it’s ironic that I value freedom of speech, religion, and conscience (for me and you) over the claimed right to same-sex marriage.

But you bring up another reason why I don’t support the gay agenda: Falsely equating “gay rights” — special victim class rights — as somehow on equal footing to basic constitutional rights. Those three things I listed above? You have that, just like I do. You also enjoy the freedom of expressing your sexuality in this country, which isn’t the case in some regions of the world. And I support gay couples enjoying the same rights/privileges in the few areas they sometimes do not, e.g. hospital visitation. And like basically everyone, I don’t think it’s okay to bully or mock someone over being gay/whatever. However, the same goes for those who have a different worldview, and do not endorse that lifestyle.

And yet those who do “come out” with their politically incorrect opinion are roundly demonized and bashed, all in the name of tolerance and equality. THAT, to me, is irony.

jjraines on June 27, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I did read the article, yes.

I’m short on time, goofed off enough already and I want to leave here not much later than 5:00 so I’ll ask this…

Exactly what freedom or right do you lose or have put in jeopardy if gay marriage nationwide comes to fruition?

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Exactly what freedom or right do you lose or have put in jeopardy if gay marriage nationwide comes to fruition?

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Merely the right to practice religious freedom institutionally without the threat of litigation, ala Catholic Adoption Services, faith-based outreach, and basically anywhere religious people go to minister the government dare not tread upon until we build an infrastructure for them to take over.

But we’ve been over this JetBoy and like GOProud, we know that special recognition and protection for homosexuality that it does not deserve always trumps such trivial things as religious liberty to many “gay conservatives” whose “gay” takes primacy in every dispute.

BKennedy on June 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Then again I am trying to use logic on someone who believes that there is a massive gay conspiracy to “recruit” children, so I’m probably wasting my time.

theoddmanout on June 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM

The reason folks will ‘go there’ is because it happens very often.
Granted, it’s not the overwhelming, homosexual’s single focus, but it’s quite common.

pambi on June 27, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Why woulsn’t he endorse Romney? Romney was over the top in MA for being gay friendly!! Gay marriages, public schools full of gay agenda etc. Romney is no friend to us traditional one man one woman folks. See MassResistance for Romney real true record on gay issues, And BTW-I dont want Republican party to be a “[big tent” party. Gays do not hold Republican values-jsut because they are suppose to be fiscal conservatives does not mean a thing to me or others

Bullhead on June 27, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Gays do not hold Republican values…
Bullhead on June 27, 2012 at 4:45 PM

River in Egypt time, my friend.

pambi on June 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Merely the right to practice religious freedom institutionally without the threat of litigation, ala Catholic Adoption Services, faith-based outreach, and basically anywhere religious people go to minister the government dare not tread upon until we build an infrastructure for them to take over.

But we’ve been over this JetBoy and like GOProud, we know that special recognition and protection for homosexuality that it does not deserve always trumps such trivial things as religious liberty to many “gay conservatives” whose “gay” takes primacy in every dispute.

BKennedy on June 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM

You didn’t answer my question with any of that. Remember, I’m Catholic as well. Catholic charities, adoption services, etc are works of the Church, not the Church itself. And I’m all for Catholic adoption services to refuse same-sex couples the opportunity to adopt…which I find ridiculous, as there are many gay couples who do raise children, and they turn out just fine.

Litigation, of any kind, is a part of life. Everyone is suing everyone else these days. That does not make you lose any part of your freedoms or rights tho. What “special recognition and protection”? I am against hate-crime laws of any kind. I just want to see gay marriage be legalized. Don’t go out gathering strawmen to respond with.

John and Steve get married, and Jennifer and Amy do the same. Do you lose anything from that? Does your marriage suffer from it? And don’t start with this utopian definition of marriage getting changed…”Marriage” has been defined and redefined numerous time through history. So that’s a moot point.

Wish I could stay longer here, I can catch up this evening when I’m home.

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

John and Steve get married, and Jennifer and Amy do the same. Do you lose anything from that?

P’raps not, but I’m on the ‘state’s rights’, will of the people side.
Not federal, centralized (all states must do as we say) place.
Just to be clear.

pambi on June 27, 2012 at 4:59 PM

John and Steve get married, and Jennifer and Amy do the same. Do you lose anything from that? Does your marriage suffer from it? And don’t start with this utopian definition of marriage getting changed…”Marriage” has been defined and redefined numerous time through history. So that’s a moot point.
JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

As long as you support John and Steve and Jennifer and Amy (you love those 70′s/80′s names, don’cha?) all marrying together, I’ll support their right to marry seperately.

thebrokenrattle on June 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM

P’raps not, but I’m on the ‘state’s rights’, will of the people side.
Not federal, centralized (all states must do as we say) place.
Just to be clear.

pambi on June 27, 2012 at 4:59 PM

I’m a states rights dude myself for a lot of issues…but legal same-sex marriage (secular, no religious faith should ever be forced to perform one) is something that does need to be national law…states can and do regulate things like minimum age, blood tests, etc. and they vary from state to state. But marriage of any kind should be recognized from one state to the rest

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Exactly what freedom or right do you lose or have put in jeopardy if gay marriage nationwide comes to fruition?

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 4:03 PM

I lean more libertarian on social issues, but unlike most ‘libertarians’ who support gay marriage, I think the truer position is to support state’s rights, and ideally — get government out of the marriage business altogether. That would solve the potential problem of endless lawsuits over “discrimination” against those exercising their religious freedom and conscience.

From the article: “There’s a crusade to drive out people with traditional views of marriage and intimidate them in to silence. That is not pluralistic, not diversity-oriented…and is not consistent with the First Amendment.”

That is where the potential (inevitable?) assault on freedom for those who do not see things the way activists do, and how the government would. This is my concern, not the socon caricature the pro-gay marriage people trot out, and they frankly do nothing to quell those concerns, as they’ve shown nothing if not intolerance and disgust for differing views.

jjraines on June 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I hear ya… I have no probs with one state recognizing another state’s legitimacy.
I only differ with the (judicial ?) federales telling my state that it must comply with legalizing gay marriages within its borders, if against the people’s wishes, via ballot box.
Does that make sense ?

pambi on June 27, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I hear ya… I have no probs with one state recognizing another state’s legitimacy.
I only differ with the (judicial ?) federales telling my state that it must comply with legalizing gay marriages within its borders, if against the people’s wishes, via ballot box.
Does that make sense ?

pambi on June 27, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I understand what you’re saying…An important part of this tho is when states let people vote on gay marriage. The whole issue of legalizing gay marriage is a constitutional one…and a persons civil rights shouldn’t go for a vote. I realize marriage isn’t a “right”, but it is something denied to some Americans based solely on the sex of the partners.

That’s the main reason this has to be a federal law. Again, I am all for states rights on tons of issues, nor do I feel right when these things happen by judicial fiat.

Gay marriage will become legal…it’s just going to take a little more time is all.

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 7:23 PM

An important part of this tho is when states let people vote on gay marriage.

Isn’t THAT a consitutional right of the states ??

This always confuses me, tho, JB…. help me out.
What ‘civil rights’ are being denied, that aren’t covered in civil unions / contracts between partners ??
Isn’t it just the NAME/TITLE ??
*scratching head*

pambi on June 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Isn’t THAT a consitutional right of the states ??

This always confuses me, tho, JB…. help me out.
What ‘civil rights’ are being denied, that aren’t covered in civil unions / contracts between partners ??
Isn’t it just the NAME/TITLE ??
*scratching head*

pambi on June 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM

This gay marriage issue falls under the equal protection clause of the constitution. No, it’s not about the word “marriage”…and civil unions fall short of a bunch of benefits and recognition from what a marriage encompasses…things like joint tax filing, hospital visitation…it’s a pretty full and important list.

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM

it’s a pretty full and important list.

JetBoy on June 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Yeah, I know… really.
Jus sayin’ … IF any federal law would say that all LEGAL gay marriages (conducted in any other state) ARE to be recognized USA-wide (which I would whole-heartedly support), doesn’t that comprise the equal protection clause, as per many of those problems, regardless of whether the state’s constitution allows gay marriage within its boundries ?
So,(under the EPClause)if you’d need hospitalization in a non-gay-marriage state, it would recognize your partner’s right for visitation, ‘medical power of attorney’ signatures, etc. no ??
That wouldn’t necessarily mean a FEDERAL law recognizing gay marriage, nationwide, would it? Wouldn’t that blanket ‘recognize them from other states’ part suffice in this case, at least ?

Sorry, I know there’s alot of squishy stuff within this subject (gov’t involvement, etc.) but this one particular part is a really curious corner, to me.

pambi on June 27, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2