Rubio, a Polished Politician...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Marco Rubio when asked if homosexuality is a sin handled the question like a real professional politician. While saying his faith considers it a sin he went on to say there are a whole bunch of other sins as well. I guess an affirmative but without actually saying the words "I consider it a sin", or answering simply "yes." He added that from a policy position while his faith informs him on decisions he doesn't go around pointing fingers.
It would have been refreshing if Rubio had simply said no and let it go at that. But of course preserving the support of the socons is all important in a rEpublican party that seems sometime to be informed more by faith than by reality or reason.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Marco Rubio when asked if homosexuality is a sin handled the question like a real professional politician. While saying his faith considers it a sin he went on to say there are a whole bunch of other sins as well. I guess an affirmative but without actually saying the words "I consider it a sin", or answering simply "yes." He added that from a policy position while his faith informs him on decisions he doesn't go around pointing fingers.
... "I can tell you what faith teaches, and faith teaches that it is. And that's what the Bible teaches ... but it also teaches that there are a bunch of other sins that are no less. It teaches that lying is a sin, it teaches that disrespecting your parents is a sin, it teaches that stealing is a sin, it teaches that coveting your neighbor and what your neighbor has is a sin," Rubio said. "So, there isn't a person in this room that isn't guilty of sin. I don't go around pointing fingers in that regard."
On a personal level, he said, "I'm responsible for my salvation, and I'm responsible for my family's and for inculcating in my family what our faith teaches. And then they'll become adults and decide how they want to apply that in life."
Regarding his choices as a lawmaker or, presumably, candidate for other office, Rubio said, "As a policymaker, I can just tell you that I'm informed by my faith and my faith informs me in who I am as a person. But not as a way to pass judgment on people."
Rubio, who gave a speech at this year's Republican National Convention on the same night Mitt Romney accepted his party's nomination, often is considered a possible contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination — giving his remarks further importance than they might otherwise have.
Rubio has a mixed voting record on LGBT issues in his short time in Congress, having received a 47% ranking from the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT rights group, in this Congress. Beyond his votes, he has opposed same-sex couples' marriage rights and recently recorded a call in support of the National Organization for Marriage's election efforts in 2012.
Of his Wednesday comments, though, HRC Vice President for Communications Fred Sainz said, "It's a shame that Senator Rubio falls outside the mainstream of the majority of people of faith who view supporting equality for LGBT people as an extension of their faith. ... {Read More}
It would have been refreshing if Rubio had simply said no and let it go at that. But of course preserving the support of the socons is all important in a rEpublican party that seems sometime to be informed more by faith than by reality or reason.
Via: Memeorandum
Is there ever going to be a viable party for fiscal conservatives who are also socially tolerant? I sure as hell hope so, Les.
ReplyDeleteSo do I Will. However, given the dynamics of the present rEpublican party nd it'd archaic leadership I figure if ever it will be long after I am dead and gone.
DeleteThere used to be such a party, Will, and it was the GOP during a brief period before the "Southern Strategy."
DeleteJMJ
I remember it well, Jersey; Ike, Rockefeller, Javits, Brooke, etc., etc..
DeleteHe still votes his religious convictions. When he votes to protect people from being denied something personal, that he considers a sin, then I'll be impressed.
ReplyDeleteI understand. But then again, wasn't that the basic point of this post?
Delete"It would have been refreshing if Rubio had simply said no and let it go at that. But of course preserving the support of the socons is all important"
ReplyDeleteIt would not have been refreshing. It would have been a lie. If that answer fails to satisfy you, then you are obviously for Christians shutting up and lying about their faith.
You guys don't get it, do you? The press is prepping the battlefield for 2016, putting another GOP candidate beyond the pale before the campaign even starts. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were in the mainstream of Christianity when they ran twice (I don't know where they stand now).
If this is the standard, then no Christian (or anyone of any other religion that believes that some acts are sinful). If I am not mistaken, Ron Paul believes the same as Rubio. Difference being, he rightly believes this is not a matter for the state to decide.
So continue playing the Democrat mouthpiece press game, and don't be surprised at what you get in 2016.
"... then you are obviously for Christians shutting up and lying about their faith."
DeleteDo not put words in my mouth Silver. You know not of which you speak.
"You guys don't get it..."
Really, perhaps it is You who does not "get it."
"... Ron Paul believes the same as Rubio. Difference being, he rightly believes this is not a matter for the state to decide."
BINGO! So keep the God Damned Sate and Religion out of policy concerning all matters of this nature. In other words politicians and religious leaders (do as Ron Paul has consistently done) grow tbne proverbial BALLS and begin doing the right thing.
"So continue playing the Democrat mouthpiece press game... "
On that one Silver you can go stuff it, as you apparently haven't a clue about the principles I stand for.Or are too busy towing the "party line."
Make that toeing... the party line.
DeleteNote Silver: governments, both state and federal, carry the responsibility of insuring non discriminatory practices.
DeleteThis is of course a lose-lose for Rubio. No matter how he answered this question, the leftists and agenda-driven atheists would find something to bitch about.
ReplyDeleteTedious.
So Rubio says he's a Christian, and we are all sinful in some aspect. Alert the media, he is trying to force his evil religion down our throats!
Tedious.
What is tedious is that the discussion continues. Tedious, oh so tedious. But as long as it is being discussed I'll toss in my two cents worth.
DeleteHere's a simple way to deal with it: All those who are religious can keep the faith by not accepting the fact that there have been homosexuals in our human family since we fell out of the trees and by believing a natural human minority are "sinners" because their religion says so. I have no problem with those sorts of people believing this.
ReplyDeleteThe problem arises when those people try to legislate their religion that says homosexuality is a sin, and therefore try to deny gay people their constitutionally guaranteed rights. That has no place in our secular government. If they have homosexual friends and relatives, they are free to believe those friends and relatives a lost sinners. That's not my business. They can believe what they want, but religious people cannot bend our secular laws to their will.
I shall simply respond by saying thank you Shaw for saying it perhaps by far better than I might have.
Delete1. Is marriage a civil right, or is it a tradition?
ReplyDelete2. Is marriage a legally-binding contract between consenting adults, or is it a covenant that has God as the witness?
3. Is there a difference between a 'civil union' and a 'marriage'?
4. If marriage is determined to be between a man and woman only, but homosexuals can have 'civil unions' which would provide the same secular benefits, would that be equal and fair?
Some open questions for your readers, and you Les. Let's have this discussion. ;) I would simply request that whomever would answer to kindly stick to the questions I posed, and provide thoughtful answers we can all enjoy. I am not looking for religious or non-religious tirades here.
Come and sit with me at this table,and let us reason together.
Don, your list of questions is excellent, especially in that they are thoughtful reasonable prompts around which a thoughtful discussion of the issue can occur. Unfortunately I am pressed for time today and will need to return later for a more detailed comment. However, hopefully to get some dialog started here are the quick responses.
Delete1)Religious Tradition (of man), turned into civil right by the state.
2)The latter, yet thanks to the state it is a legally binding contract.
3) Yes
4) Yes and no. It depends on ones perspective.
There is much that can be discussed in a reasonable fashion. I hope your questions (and my brief response)results in a lengthy discussion. Because it is still sorely needed.
Les,
DeleteLooking forward to a lengthy and rational discussion here. I have strong views on this issue, but I wanted to ask legitimate questions that did not lean one way or the other.
I'll be checking back periodically. ;)
The government should have nothing to do with marriage, period.
ReplyDeleteIt is a religious ceremony. People get married in the eyes of their God, not their government.
There should be no legal. or financial benefits, from the government, depending on marital status.
One should not have to pay, or get approval from the government, just to get married.
Churches should be able to marry anyone they want, or refuse to marry anyone based on their religious beliefs.
Anon: Well, there is a tax advantage to being married and filing jointly. I would support getting rid of this and reducing the taxes on single people down to this level. Americans are overtaxed as it is.
ReplyDeleteHe should have just said 'no' and 'next question' but as you say, he has to be the consummate politician and parse his words. Doesn't he have a law degree? If so, there you go.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou brought up an interesting points. You said there should be no legal or financial benefits, from the govt, based on marital status, and that people should not have to pay or get approval from the govt to marry.
I hadn't considered the financial benefits my House receives due to my being married. Interesting. I suppose, if someone were inclined to jump on this, that a case could be made in saying if heterosexuals would relinquish/refuse these benefits for being married as heteros, that homosexual-marriage proponents might stop and reconsider their push for marriage equality.
Just thinking out loud here.
"The government should have nothing to do with marriage, period."--Anon
ReplyDeleteThe government allows special tax considerations for married people. The government would have to eliminate all those special considerations [joint filing, for one example].
"It is a religious ceremony."
No it is not. People who have no religion marry all the time. Marriage is essentially a civil union, but can be incorporated with religious ceremony. You don't have to have religion to be married.
"People get married in the eyes of their God, not their government." --Anon
Wrong, again. Nonbelievers get married all the time.
"There should be no legal. or financial benefits, from the government, depending on marital status."--Anon
If that is the will of the people. But I doubt it will be.
"Churches should be able to marry anyone they want, or refuse to marry anyone based on their religious beliefs. "
A moot point. Religious organizations already have that ability.
You cannot impose your religious prohibitions on civil law and civil law cannot impose its laws--marriage equality, for example--on religion.
Religions can, within their doctrines, make marriage for minorities unattainable. Fine. But people who disagree can leave those religions and enjoy a civil marriage within secular law.
Civil law cannot imposes gay marriage on religions who believe homosexuality is a sin; and religions cannot impose their belief that homosexuality is a sin on civil law.
Seems to me that works well.
1. Is marriage a civil right, or is it a tradition?
ReplyDeleteIt's both. But only one is a legally binding contract: the civil right to be married to the person one chooses.
2. Is marriage a legally-binding contract between consenting adults, or is it a covenant that has God as the witness?
It can be both. Under civil law, it is a legally-binding contract and, for those who are religious, it is a covenant with their gods. As a legally-binding contract, religion has no say in the matter. Millions of people who do not believe in gods are legally married.
3. Is there a difference between a 'civil union' and a 'marriage'?
No.
4. If marriage is determined to be between a man and woman only, but homosexuals can have 'civil unions' which would provide the same secular benefits, would that be equal and fair?
No. Equally "married" under the law would be the only way that guarantees equal protection under the law. Religions can withhold marriage from their gay brothers and sister; but the government may not.
Gay marriage must be and is recognized as legal under the law. Religious institutions can make their own determinations and disallow their gay congregants from being married in their churches, synagogs, mosques, temples, etc. But the government may not do so. The Constitution guarantees equal protection. Religions do not. We are a nation of secular laws, not religious prohibitions.
It's that simple.
@Shaw,
ReplyDeleteYou say that here is no difference between a civil union and a marriage, see #3. No difference.
However, in #4 I asked if a civil union for homosexuals and a marriage for heteros had the same secular benefits, seeing that they are the same thing, if that made it equal and fair. Here you responded 'no'.
I'm not following your train of thought here. If marriage and civil unions are the same thing, and both of them receive the same amount of secular (governmental) benefits and recognition, than how is it unfair? Is it merely a matter of semantics? Is it that homosexuals and their supporters need to have it called 'marriage' or it is not the same as what heteros have?
What say you, Shaw?
I should have written that in terms of a union--that is a couple uniting--there is no difference. But there IS a legal difference:
ReplyDeleteHere are the differences between "civil unions" and "marriage" under the existing laws, as I understand them:
There are three main differences between civil unions and marriage as it's traditionally viewed:
The right to federal benefits.
States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
Portability.
Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
Terminology.
"Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.
Here are some other differences between civil unions and marriages:
The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 federal laws that pertain to married couples. Many in that long list may be minor or only relevant to small groups of citizens. However, a number of provisions are key to what constitutes a marriage legally in the United States:
Taxes. Couples in a civil union may file a joint state tax return, but they must file federal tax returns as single persons. This may be advantageous to some couples, not so for others. One advantage for married couples is the ability to transfer assets and wealth without incurring tax penalties. Partners in a civil union aren't permitted to do that, and thus may be liable for estate and gift taxes on such transfers.
Health insurance. The state-federal divide is even more complicated in this arena. In the wake of the Massachusetts high court ruling, the group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders put together a guide to spousal health care benefits. GLAD’s document is Massachusetts-specific but provides insight into how health insurance laws would apply to those in a civil union in other states. In general, GLAD says, it comes down to what’s governed by state law and what’s subject to federal oversight. If a private employer’s health plans are subject to Massachusetts state insurance laws, benefits must be extended to a same-sex spouse. If the health plan is governed by federal law, the employer can choose whether or not to extend such benefits.
Social Security survivor benefits. If a spouse or divorced spouse dies, the survivor may have a right to Social Security payments based on the earnings of the married couple, rather than only the survivor’s earnings. Same-sex couples are not eligible for such benefits.
Other federal areas in which couples in civil unions don't have the same rights as married couples include immigration (a partner who's a foreign national can't become an American by entering into a civil union with someone) and veterans' and military benefits (only opposite-sex spouses have a right to pensions, compensation for service-related deaths, medical care, housing and the right to burial in veterans’ cemeteries).
@Shaw,
DeleteSo is it a matter of demanding that homosexual civil unions be referred to as 'marriage', or is it a matter of seeing to it that civil unions have the same secular/legal ramifications as marriage between heterosexuals?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. I can think of no person within my age bracket who was raised being taught that marriage can be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Marriage does not need to have religious implications or rules, no. I know a person who wishes it can have a legal marriage done sans any reference to God. But even so, that legal marriage is between a man and a woman.
If homosexuals wish to have civil unions, I'm all for it. But nothing in me, religious or otherwise, can fathom how a marriage can be between same sex couples. Marriage is man and woman. Simple. This becomes a tool to be used as a hate-filled weapon when folks decry traditional marriage between a man and woman as somehow being discriminatory, bigoted, or hatefully prejudiced.
I do not myself view marriage as a right. I simply view it as a covenant. I wonder if it wouldn't remove controversy if marriages in America had no secular or financial benefits attached to them? Would homosexuals then press in so hard to have marriages instead of civil unions?
Don asked:
Delete1. Is marriage a civil right, or is it a tradition?
2. Is marriage a legally-binding contract between consenting adults, or is it a covenant that has God as the witness?
3. Is there a difference between a 'civil union' and a 'marriage'?
4. If marriage is determined to be between a man and woman only, but homosexuals can have 'civil unions' which would provide the same secular benefits, would that be equal and fair?
The more detailed response:
1)Marriage, prior to the states involvement was a religous rite and had no relationship to secular issues. At the moment marriage became a concern of the state, which was of course driven by statists, it was inevitable that sooner or later it would become a civil right in a civil society that was governed by secular law. We have arrived at that moment in time.
2)It is both. Marraige, in the traditional framework is a covenent between a man and a women that blessed by God becomes a conenant between God and the two individuals uniting as one. With the states incursion into a religous rite the act of mariagethen became a contract, legally binding and one in which the state had a vested interest in, as well as the plethora of attorneys that trhrive on divorce actions. Not to mention the tax considerations with respect to marriage.
3) In my view there should not be. However, in as much as there are homosexuals that are devoutly Christian, and given the issues already accurately enunciated by Shaw with respect to tax considerations, portability, etc. there in reality is. As long as the state has a stake in the rites of marriage this remains an issue.
In my view, given the Christian belief in tolerance and the belief that God (if he/she exists) created every living being, both heterosexual as well as homosexual, it seems only logical and rational that God, sense he/she created all rights, would want all of his/her creatures to enjoy all the rights he/she created for humanity.
4)If in fact all rights that acrue to heterosexual couples accrue equally to homosexual couples then yes, civil unions would be in fact equal, in the secular sense. So, in the trealm of faith and religion, it is up to the church(es)to grapple with what Crist, and in fact what God (if he/she exists) would have the church do in their treatment of one of the flock.