It was very very clear; the nation said “No” to Democrat big government style liberalism.
Republicans were voted in more to send a message of what type of government we DIDN’T want than to say which big government version of government we DID want.
And already we have Republicans acting like Democrats.
This week in Iowa, the Republican dominated House passed a resolution that would create a new State Constitution amendment stating that marriage is defined as 1 man and 1 woman. This would apply to marriage, civil unions and domestic partners:
A constitutional ban on gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships passed the Iowa House Tuesday afternoon 62-37. Democratic Reps. Dan Muhlbauer, Brian Quirk and Kurt Swaim joined 59 Republicans in support of the measure. Thirty-seven Democrats voted “no,” and one Republican was absent.
See, the thing is, as I mentioned before, we didn’t elect Republicans to institute THEIR version of big government nanny statism. We want our government officials to govern within the role of government. And, quite frankly, the decision between two people to fall in love, be in love, form a union or not form a union is non of the state’s business.
As far as the state is concerned; it’s a contract between two [ or more honestly ] people building certain legal rights concerning property and medical issues. That’s it. Nothing more.
And because that’s all it is, the fact that the state should discriminate between types of marriages is simply unthinkable.
I am beginning to see the underbelly of the Republican party. And why people don’t like the Republican party. And why we are doomed to big state government lovers.
Alas, it seems we have finally reached a disagreement.
I do not believe that the people have the capability to uphold morality or the values common to our Folk.
They must be made to do so.
That is where the State comes in, my good man.
Get back in line.
I have concerns with the gay marriage issue. Maybe I am just not a true romantic, but I suspect that the same sex partners wishing to marry are doing it for reasons other than just love. Money comes to mind. Is it at all possible that one partner wants a piece of the others health insurance and pension? I also look at the future costs to tax payers. If the state sanctions gay marriage, then it must also provide the resources for gay divorce. How much is that going to cost?
Money comes to mind. Is it at all possible that one partner wants a piece of the others health insurance and pension?
Perhaps. But I suspect that it wouldn’t happen any more than currently happens with hetero marriage. We all know people who marry for financial security. How many elementary school teachers do I know who teach just until they get married.
If the state sanctions gay marriage, then it must also provide the resources for gay divorce. How much is that going to cost?
Perhaps it would be best for the state to get out of the whole marriage thing altogether.