Team Rubio

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

My argument against Rand Paul (among other things) is that he is unelectable, just like his father was. Why do you think Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole? Because he had better ideas or because Bill Clinton is cool and plays a saxophone? Why do you think Obama beat John McCain? People are fickle. Being cool is part of getting elected president, just like it was in High School. In that category Rand Paul fails. It doesn't matter how great your ideas are if you can't cut your hair properly.

Again. I am not saying that is the way it should be. But that is the way it is. So if I have an electable person I like and a completely unelectable person I also like, I am going to use my vote for the person who actually has a chance.

I really don't mean to defecate on your hopes and dreams or anything though. If you honestly think he has a chance to win please continue to support him. I just don't see him going anywhere. At leas not until he gets a decent haircut.

I don't think so. Libertarians would seemingly allow for gay marriages, as long as they are private agreements instead of something that is formally recognized by the state. The state is not really allowed to prohibit private action on the grounds of morality. That would be an impingement on personal freedom, which seems to trump almost everything else. I don't think you can have that as a Catholic.

Are you sure about that?

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

He pretty much seems to say that states should get out of the marriage business, but privately both straight and gay couples should be able to contract arrangements that would otherwise be considered marital arrangements. So two men make a marriage contract, one of them violates it, and then the other goes to the courts to have it enforce, the courts would have to enforce the contract.

Now, I would call that supporting gay marriage. If you don't support gay marriage, you would say "gay couples do not have a right to have their marriages recognized by the state, nor do they have a right to privately contract marriages."

Not only is your constant mocking of Rand's hair uncharitable, but your claim that his hair stopping him from being elected is also untrue. What about Trump? Everyone makes fun of his hair and he's still by far the front runner.

I am absolutely certain of it. He says that, firstly, the state doesn't have the right to legislate marriage. Therefore, marriages should be private. That means the government cannot state gay marriage is a right and that it doesn't legislate it. What else do you want the government to do? Make it illegal and prosecute gay people? In our pluralistic society, the best we can do is make the government step out of the process entirely, otherwise we have to establish marriage for all types of couples under the government. Not everyone agrees with us anymore. It is no longer 12th century England where everyone was Catholic, unfortunately.

And again, at least Rand has a plan to address this issue. Has Rubio ever said what he's going to do about the marriage issue?

Edited January 25, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Nihil Obstat]

He is wrong, the the way, that the State has no right to make legislation concerning marriage. At least if Catholic social teaching is our blueprint here.

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

He is wrong, the the way, that the State has no right to make legislation concerning marriage. At least if Catholic social teaching is our blueprint here.

Certainly. But as I said before, he's a strict constitutionalist, and the constitution does not give the government the right to rule on such matters. I disagree with it ultimately, but I still think his tactic of taking the government out of it completely rather than endorsing sacrilege or causing huge social strife is legitimate and we should consider it as a possible means of making the best out of a bad situation. After all, laws don't evangelize. If most of the population supports sacrilege, it's because we haven't been doing our job, and we shouldn't look towards laws to do our job for us.

I'm open to ideas, but I honestly don't know of anything else remotely positive we can do at this point in a legal sense. It's either we keep it as a right (which is bad) or we leave it up to the States and do the rest of the work ourselves (which is less bad.) There's always the possibility I haven't thought of or heard a more preferable course of action, but these are my thoughts for now.

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

He is wrong, the the way, that the State has no right to make legislation concerning marriage. At least if Catholic social teaching is our blueprint here.

 

Edited January 25, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Peace]

12 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Not only is your constant mocking of Rand's hair uncharitable, but your claim that his hair stopping him from being elected is also untrue. What about Trump? Everyone makes fun of his hair and he's still by far the front runner.

Trump has charisma, and his own TV show I might add. It makes up for his hair and lack of good ideas. And a person's appearance and mannerisms do matter. Again - I am not saying that they should matter. But they do. It is very much a popularity contest. It is what it is. But if you think that Paul's style is not holding him back that is cool with me. I disagree, but I don't think it is something that we need to debate further.

Quote

I am absolutely certain of it. He says that, firstly, the state doesn't have the right to legislate marriage. Therefore, marriages should be private. That means the government cannot state gay marriage is a right and that it doesn't legislate it. What else do you want the government to do? Make it illegal and prosecute gay people?

Well. Here is what he wrote: "While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract. The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C. I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington."

Although he is being somewhat evasive in the way that he writes, he says that all Americans (both gay and straight) have a right to enter into marriage contracts. So he supports the right of gay people to enter marriage contracts as long as the marriage license is not administered by the state. That is called supporting gay marriage in my book.

As for as what I would have the government do: I would have them continue to define marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman, and if gay couples decided to enter into private marriage contracts outside of that, I would have all governmental agencies and courts refuse to recognize the validity of those contracts. I don't think you need to throw people in jail.

Quote

In our pluralistic society, the best we can do is make the government step out of the process entirely, otherwise we have to establish marriage for all types of couples under the government. Not everyone agrees with us anymore. It is no longer 12th century England where everyone was Catholic, unfortunately.

I would not concede defeat so easily. Have you not seen Rocky 3 my friend? As for public opinion we obviously need to make a comeback, but with God all things are possible.

Quote

And again, at least Rand has a plan to address this issue. Has Rubio ever said what he's going to do about the marriage issue?

I am not sure what his plan is, but I do not think he supports legalization or throwing the whole thing out the window.

9 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Certainly. But as I said before, he's a strict constitutionalist, and the constitution does not give the government the right to rule on such matters.

Hmm. I think the proper question is not whether the constitution gives State governments a right to regulate marriage, but rather, does the constitution prohibit states from placing regulations on marriage? Generally speaking if the constitution does not prohibit it, then the states are free to do it. And I don't think that anybody would really argue that the constitution prohibits the states from issuing marriage licenses, notwithstanding how goofy our Supreme Court decisions have been lately.

Quote

I disagree with it ultimately, but I still think his tactic of taking the government out of it completely rather than endorsing sacrilege or causing huge social strife is legitimate and we should consider it as a possible means of making the best out of a bad situation. After all, laws don't evangelize. If most of the population supports sacrilege, it's because we haven't been doing our job, and we shouldn't look towards laws to do our job for us.

I agree that we should at least consider the merits of the argument. I think I may have argued for it on this board before. But I would not allow gay couples to then privately enter into marriage contracts that the courts would then be required to recognize as any other form of contract, as Rand would.

Quote

I'm open to ideas, but I honestly don't know of anything else remotely positive we can do at this point in a legal sense. It's either we keep it as a right (which is bad) or we leave it up to the States and do the rest of the work ourselves (which is less bad.) There's always the possibility I haven't thought of or heard a more preferable course of action, but these are my thoughts for now.

I am not so sure if the situation is so bleak. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

Let me offer you the Peace 2 point plan:

1) Win the public debate on the issue.

2) Get different judges on the court who will reverse the recent decision on gay marriage.

Similar things have been done before (e.g. Brown v. Board overturning Plessy v. Ferguson).

Edited January 25, 2016 by Peace

[dominicansoul]

I'd vote for him.  He's cute.  

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

I'd vote for him.  He's cute.  

It worked for Obama!

[Amppax]

23 hours ago, BG45 said:

Not  a big fan, he changes religions like some people renew their driver's licenses.  When he was a child in Miami, he and his family were Catholic (and he was baptised as a baby).  When he moved to Las Vegas, he became Mormon (and was baptised again).  When he moved back to Florida he became Catholic again.  Then in 2000 he began attending Christ Fellowship (which he has donated over $50,000 to), a Southern Baptist megachurch in Miami that denies the Eucharist is truly Christ's body and blood.  He attended it for four years exclusively, before returning to Catholicism to partake in the Eucharist, and now attends both a Catholic Church and Christ Fellowship.

I don't necessarily fault him for the Mormonism (considering he was 8). The whole Christ Fellowship bit is puzzling to me, but even then, I'm not too bothered by it. It's not like any of the other realistic options are better in that regard. 

[dominicansoul]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

It worked for Obama!

I just threw up a little in my mouth....

[Peace]

1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

I just threw up a little in my mouth....

A little Pepto-Bismol might help with that.

[dominicansoul]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

A little Pepto-Bismol might help with that.

my medicine of choice is alcohol.  I'm gonna be a certified drunk if Hilary wins this next round...

[Peace]

Just now, dominicansoul said:

my medicine of choice is alcohol.  I'm gonna be a certified drunk if Hilary wins this next round...

I might be joining you if that happens.

[Makarioi]

On January 24, 2016 at 5:53:33 PM, Peace said:

Personally I am all for being PC if that means not making fun of disabled people . . .

 

I looking at this, I don't believe he knew the reporter was disabled.  I'm not defending it, I just don't think he'd be that cruel.  Maybe I don't work in a subdued environment or career, but we flail up often.  I would hope that he wasn't aware.  I'm still leaning his way though

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

my medicine of choice is alcohol.  I'm gonna be a certified drunk if Hilary wins this next round...

If Hitlery wins, I'll become a lush myself.

Trump, Trump, Trump.

I'm digging the sound of my trump-et! 

[DominicanHeart]

I like him and Cruz and Carly Fiorina. She was amazing at the March for Life. And Rand Paul is good. Let's just pray someone reasonable gets the nomination. I'm really dreading this election 

[StMichael]

Really depends on what you are seeking.

Rubio, aside from his confused faith history has a few issues:

- Gang of 8, whereby he worked with the hard leftists of the Senate to produce a full blown amnesty for illegal aliens.

- He is part of the establishment

- He is for subsidies, in his case he is bought and paid for by the sugar industry.

Rand Paul has his own issues, primarily he is his father, an isolationist and is liberal socially.

The clearest candidate, that adheres to the Constitution is Ted Cruz. Everyone else on the right is not going to anything to upset the tyrannical hold on power, including Mr. Art of the deal.