TexasCHLforum.com

Whats up with this? I was supporting Medina even after the 911 truther thing but this may be too much unless i hear of some resonable explanation such as a miss print. I just emailed her to get her stance on this issue.

I see a notation that she made comments about that. Go to http://www.freevotersguide.com for additional info

fixed the link: http://www.freevotersguide.org/docs/Gov ... mments.pdf

SO—Debra supports the Texas Marriage Amendment Act of 2005, which clearly defines marriage as “a union between a man and a woman”. However, as there is no provision in the US Constitution for the federal government to be involved in marriage, it is and should properly remain a state sovereignty issue to be resolved by the states.

O6nop wrote:fixed the link: http://www.freevotersguide.org/docs/Gov ... mments.pdf

SO—Debra supports the Texas Marriage Amendment Act of 2005, which clearly defines marriage as “a union between a man and a woman”. However, as there is no provision in the US Constitution for the federal government to be involved in marriage, it is and should properly remain a state sovereignty issue to be resolved by the states.

Thank you!

joe817 wrote:I see a notation that she made comments about that. Go to freevotersguide.com for additional info

Whew! (wiping sweat from brow) Thanks joe817, that was close and it didnt make sense to me but now it is very clear.

Here is Medina's comments on this issue listed in the voters guide -

12. SO—Debra supports the Texas Marriage Amendment Act of 2005, which clearly defines marriage as “a union between a man and a woman”. However, as there is no provision in the US Constitution for the federal government to be involved in marriage, it is and should properly remain a state sovereignty issue to be resolved by the states.

Man! You guys are fast. Everybody got the statement in before I did.

SoOoOo *Treads Lightly*
She thinks that Marriage should be between and Chick and a Dude, and completely ignores the Gay Community and their Freedoms, but she says the Government shouldn't be involved in Marriage in the first place.
Then she shouldn't support more Laws on Marriage. I think this is kinda a cop out.
Basically she doesn't want to take a position that wouldnt be popular with those who are...queasy about Gays in General and Gays marrying, so instead she says she supports it, but as not to turn of the more open minded she quickly back peddles and says "Well the Feds shouldn't be involved anyway"

Thats like me saying, I support the Assault Weapon Ban, but believe that the 2nd should not be infringed.

marksiwel wrote:SoOoOo *Treads Lightly*
She thinks that Marriage should be between and Chick and a Dude, and completely ignores the Gay Community and their Freedoms, but she says the Government shouldn't be involved in Marriage in the first place.
Then she shouldn't support more Laws on Marriage. I think this is kinda a cop out.
Basically she doesn't want to take a position that wouldnt be popular with those who are...queasy about Gays in General and Gays marrying, so instead she says she supports it, but as not to turn of the more open minded she quickly back peddles and says "Well the Feds shouldn't be involved anyway"

Thats like me saying, I support the Assault Weapon Ban, but believe that the 2nd should not be infringed.

I believe you are grossly misinterpreting her position. It's not about whether she does/does not support what's contained in the Federal Marriage Amendment.

It's ALL about her firm stand on State Sovereignty and States Rights. That's been the major impetus of her platform from day 1.

She strongly opposes an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as between one man and one woman?

Well, so do I!

Opponents of gay marriage might have a good religious or moral intent, but they are taking the wrong approach. Instead of trying to get government further entangled in a moral/religious issue, they should be trying to get government out of marriage.

Please take a moment before firing off a response, and honestly think about this:

Which office at the courthouse keeps a record of your certificate of salvation?

Where do I go to apply for a baptism permit?

Do I need a license to proselytize, or is that only if I'm a professional preacher?

Sarcasm aside, I hope you get my point: if we are concerned with the sanctity of marriage, we should get the secular government out of it. If it's not the secular government's business who declares themselves married (and it shouldn't be), then churches should issue their own marriage certificates, and any non-church people can create their own declaration.

As a historical note, "marriage licenses" are a modern invention of the Jim Crow era. They're designed to keep the "wrong people" from marrying, but the original intent was to stop whites and blacks from marrying. If we extended the moral/religious mores behind the ban on gay marriage, we might as well recognize the moral/religious ban on interfaith marriages.

There have been same-sex marriages and/or civil unions in several states for quite a few years now. Not once has my marriage been threatened by a same-sex couple exchanging vows. My marriage is before God and our families and friends, and nothing any other two people do can undo that vow.

It is a basic principle of conservatism that government should be small, unobtrusive, and stay out of people's lives. Let's stick to that principle.

Pretty much. We only want to allow the freedoms we like.

Real promoters of liberty promote freedoms they may not like, as long as those liberties do not hurt anyone else.

Forum Rule 11 wrote:11. Off-topic posts/threads: Since they tend to cause the most problems for other boards, our "off-topic" sub-forum is not an "anything goes" area. Absolutely no discussions of religion, immigration/border security, abortion, race matters, or any other hot-button political issues. (Gun-related political issues can be discussed in other areas.)

Gay marriage clearly come within the scope of this rule.

Chas.