Social-Issues A Dialogue

Here are the action-citations from the GOP-Platform regarding Abortion and Gay-Marriage:

Ban all federal funding and subsidies for abortion and healthcare plans that include
abortion coverage. Require parental consent for girls prior to performance of
abortions and prior to their being transported across state lines for abortions. Ban
school-based clinics from providing referrals, counseling, and related services for
abortion.

Marriage, the union of one man and one woman, must be upheld as the national
standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing
marriage.

{I Concur with the former and disagree with the latter, to the degree to which it would
compromise the interests of the LGBTQ-Community; promoting traditional marriage is
congruent with the derivation of the term, but the legitimacy of civil-unions must not
be besmirched in any fashion by legislation (e.g., inheritance, visitation, etc.)
Ultimately, however, via the SCOTUS, this distinction (marriage vs. civil-union is
now perceived as without a difference and, thus, the issue is settled-law.}

{Regarding the below-dialogue, it is agreed that efforts by Sen. Cruz to effectuate a
unique status of marriage as solely under the aegis of the states will fail, not only
because of strong/increasing public-opinion, but also because of the arduous pathway
such an initiative would have to follow. Furthermore, until/unless he can elucidate the
constitutional underpinning for sculpting this sacrosanct position in this one realm,
there does not appear to be a cogent rationale for creating this type of precedent.}

{One problem, however, is the endpoint to which the lib ultimately was forced (The
ends at times do justify the means. ), for I do not believe in a living Constitution.}

Cruz is trying to hide behind the claim of states rights when he proposes a constitutional
amendment to preserve the ridiculous idea of traditional marriage; both in substance and in
the waste of political effort, he should instead be concerned with other issues. Because he is a
TEA-partier, he blurs the line between cultural conservatives and the TEA-party; this is the sort
of stuff that scares us libs.

What he is saying is that, unlike abortion-rights, this is purely a definitional issue to be
determined on the state-level; the Constitutional argument will undoubtedly not
resonate, for most consider the controversy settled.

It certainly wont resonate; but, it does stir the pot so that people like me can continue to consider him
unacceptable, an outlier on social issues. Control your candidate, as they say.

Its tangential to what he represents overall.

To you, perhaps.

Can you reasonably tie his pro-family priority to his economic, domestic and foreign
policies? [I cant.]

Yes. As a simple example, I see unintended pregnancies that would result from a ban (or further
restrictions) on abortion as an economic / domestic issue. Kids are born into circumstances that require
society to pick up the tab and their very existence makes it politically more challenging to alter welfare
provisions. The poor economic conditions in those communities, in turn, tend to foment inner city
violence raising concerns about gun control and the economic burden on localities for policing and
related activities. All of these issues have the potential to exaggerate (not cause) racial tensions which
can throw common sense decision-making out the window.

Ill give you foreign policy, perhaps. Except that the lack of appropriate use of birth control (not sure
where he stands on that issue) is certainly contributing to an international problem of poverty and AIDS.
I do believe that poverty makes people more vulnerable to the influence of the bad guys. They have
nothing to lose and potentially something to gain.

Recall I am concerned about Israel, the Kurds. But, I am also very concerned about whats happening
across the street in West Philly, etc. I am terribly frustrated with and disappointed in Obama. But,
you have not shown me an alternative that I can accept. Cruz will never be my guy.

What does this have to do with Gay Marriage?

You asked about his pro-family views so I gave you a quick example. Family is not just about gay
marriage. I absolutely view abortion as completely tied up in the public view of the family because the
so-called pro-life folks essentially view the fetus as having the same rights as a child. And they further
assert that those children should be born to married heterosexual couples. It is all very circular (and
not just in my mind).

With respect to gay marriage specifically, it is a matter of civil rights not just an academic discussion
about a definition. Enough with the word-play. If Cruz genuinely believes there is too much
government on the domestic front, then he should cease and desist on gay marriage. Absolute garbage
to say it is OK to discuss the matter as a states rights issue. Does that mean he believes civil rights laws
in general should be handled at the state level? Wouldnt that be good for race relations, for women.
Not so much. Any hint of that attitude would be a very bad place indeed for a Southern, white,
Republican politician in a national campaign. Cant have it both ways.

Mostly, it is a ridiculous waste of attention and energy if you genuinely believe it is not his priority to
make social changes. I have to think he is a smart enough politician that he knows exactly what he is
doing when he speaks on these issues. He believes in them. If he was a true leader of the constitutional
variety, he should be able to walk completely away from these issues as you have. Bottom line, he
drinks the conservative values Kool-Aid and I find its taste offensive.

Being against gay marriage is simply being against people who are somehow seen as different. If you
dont believe its all about oil, then isnt that the crux of what the hate in the world is all about? Exerting
power over those who you see as different. Again, its about how he views people. If he doesnt trust
people to choose their spouse, how can I believe that he trusts people to make other decisions without
government intervention? I may believe in big-Daddy government but he says he doesnt. Forget
politics. Total inconsistency in all matters human.

It isnt enough to be pro-Israel. At least, not for me.

You didnt tie this to foreign/domestic/economic policy; thus, the arena herein is
solely social policy.

Within that context, you deny ability of a presumably civil-rights issue to be handled
on the state-level.

Constitutionally, there is a 10
th
Amendment upon which he presumably depends; any
problem with that?

Yes, I have a problem. Civil rights clearly cross state lines along with the very people they protect. As
such, these rights should not be a state matter. Even you seem to concede that the feds can step in
when there are interstate issues.

Your distinction between social and domestic policy is splitting hairs. Genuinely dont get where (and
why) you draw that line.

And Panetta is speaking in ways that support Hillary (as I predicted).

You may recall that I studied the etymology of the word marriage and [from the
French] it is absolutely boy-girl. Thus, he is reflecting that foundational point allowing
for, in my mind, the ability of civil unions to encompass whatever else might be
enacted [both on the state/federal levels].

Thus, as opposed to abortion, it isnt intruding into the bedroom to maintain his faith-
based views; furthermore, aspiring to enact this inability to create a federal policy
[which wont pass] is tangential to domestic policy [limited government] and, indeed, is
consistent with stripping the feds of as much as possible.

Panetta defended Hillary very very very weakly, simply saying he believed shed have
done something if only shed known[which she did, as the Gowdy-Hearings will
reveal].

You know where I stand on what you call social issues like gay marriage. A mental exercise for you. Try
to forget politics, the Constitution and think about this issue purely from a very human, emotional
perspective. It is simply not the way people should treat other people. Attitudes about who and how
one loves should not be dependent on where one resides. If, for a moment, you can think with your
heart and feel with your brain, you will understand why I simply dont care in this context what the
Constitution says about federalism. It is irrelevant when it comes to caring for people with the dignity
they deserve. I suppose that is why I will always be a lib. The ends at times do justify the means.

Absent Cruzs Constitutional Amendment, you state the law-of-the-land, which I
support! I would want to learn more about Cruzs views but, until then, I suspect such a
high hurdle reflects the futility of the task.