Republican attended gay son's wedding days after voting against same-sex marriage

A little honesty is needed here. This was not a vote to "deny the ability of other parents to unconditionally support their children in the way he supported his son". This was a vote to not have congress step in on the matter that is currently resolved law and possibly a belief that states should choose.

People are acting like this vote basically overturned the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.

Save me all the what if's and buts. The fact is, THIS vote was not THAT

 

You seem to be saying politics is more important than the love of your family?

 

This. His political position need not match, his personal position. I can think of a number of things that I am against on a moral level, but that I would not want to prohibit on a federal level.

Not liking vs. liking his vote is one thing; not liking vs. liking his attendance at his son's wedding is something else entirely.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

As an artist and illustrator myself, Escher's works are a well of complicated brilliance. I've tried to do my own such work but find it just imitation at best.

This piece ("Waterfall") sums up this whole conversation.

 

L

Life is frequently paradoxical.

 

I tell my kids sometimes you have to be wrong to be right. They definitely get it. Lol.

 

Actually what it demonstrates is that a father's love for his son on a personal level is inconsistent with a decision that he made based on political expediency.

 

Ok?

 

No, I’m saying I wouldn’t vote to deny someone else’s right to love and/or support their family in the same way I enjoyed loving mine simply in the name of politics.

 

Currently resolved? You mean like abortion was?

And while your comment is likely intellectually correct regarding leaving gay marriage to states, I think we both know leaving gay marriage to the states is tantamount to having it made unlawful in about 40% or more of them.

 

This is a valid thread. When he ran for Congress, he opened up his votes to scrutiny. And when he lives contrary to his votes, it is comment worthy.

 

Well then you’re saying once again you don’t understand how politics work. Try to see it from this politicians pov. Pretty simple stuff.

 

No. He should afford others the rights his son has.

 

Well we agree on that but thats not what is in question here. The story is about a father attending his sons wedding even if he doesn't agree with it personally. Thats just being a good father or at least making a good choice as a father to be there for your son. Again, maybe his son begged him to attend.. thats what the article and coops intentions don't take into account. What did the son want?

 

I have great problems with these deeply held supposedly principled objections to state sanctioned same-sex marriage. I'm sure you're going to reflexively go into your "intolerance of faith" shtick, which I think you have on macro.

But I don't think religious objections to state sanctioned marriage are remotely applicable. That is because marriage is perhaps the most paradigmatic parallel institution in our society.

There is state sanctioned legal marriage and marriage as recognized by religious institution, and never the twain shall meet, except in the minds of those with such "deeply held principled", who believe that the latter predominates over the former. State sanctioned legal marriage traditionally only requires minimum age, not being related through some level of consanguinity that varies slightly by state, and, traditionally, opposite sexes. Nothing else is required, no qualifications. No commitment to having children or some form of relationship. Famously, every marriage is a foreign country.

But significant legal rights flow from state sanctioned marriage, primarily property rights. Those property rights, mainly tenancy by the entireties, do not exist in any other form. Most of the legal doctrines incidental to marriage are premised on some state interest in trying to preserve the marriage. Some of the principles may seem outdated, but they nonetheless provide strong legal rights. Many a couple who thought that marriage was something that was unnecessary for them suddenly decide they want to enter into the institution in late age when they recognize the value of insurance, medical rights, intestate succession both in estates and other property forms, etc.

Religious marriage has none of this. My marriage was officially recognized by the Catholic Church. Were I to get a legal divorce after 33 years (God forbid), that would impact state created property rights, but it would be of no moment to my Church, an issue which typically arises if I seek to remarry in the Church, again God forbid, or sometimes at Communion. To have my marriage recognized by the Church, I had to get married in the Church, I had to undergo training, I had to have my marriage signed off by a religious authority as appropriate, I had to make certain promises about how I would behave during my marriage. And so on.

And just to be clear, had I only got married in my Church and never had my marriage legally recognized by the State of Florida, neither I nor my wife would enjoy the legal rights incidental to marriage, regardless of how vociferously one of us waived the Certificate from the Church granted so long ago. State marriage and religious marriage are completely parallel and separate institutions. One confers no rights or liabilities in the other.

Where I view the appropriateness of deeply held principles about religious marriage is in steadfastly defying the state's ability to mandate what the Church must recognize as a marriage in that Church. Though I profoundly hope that my Church comes around to recognizing same-sex marriages, and I feel even more strongly that the Churchy should create a better pastoral regimen around Church marriages that fail (Pope Francis is making progress), I would steadfastly oppose any attempt to compel or even persuade (from the outside) my Church to recognize a marriage that it does not want to.

What I have great difficulty with is the so-called deeply held principled beliefs, arising almost primarily out of faith, that the state should not recognize a marriage and grant property rights to individuals if that marriage would not meet religious beliefs that the couple may not adhere to. And even if they did, and elected to seek a state recognized marriage for certain reasons, largely property rights, without having their marriage recognized in their church, that should be a matter between the couple and their respective confessors.

Enough of this Dominion.

 

Not really, the father attending the wedding. This wasn't a mending fences thing after he eloped without his knowledge.

Pretty sure that voting against it in congress is about as "on the record" as a person can get. What does it matter what he did previously?

 

It just makes whoever thinks this is that noteworthy look really petty.

Where is the gotcha in here? Oh boy we pegged him down now... what a POS he is going to his gay sons wedding.

If the story was about him skipping it, coop would have posted that throwing flames at him for doubling down on his homophobia.

You just can't win...

 

Good for him. The federal government doesn't need to have power over things that are reserved for the states and municipalities.

 

Voting against the feds having authority over something =/= being against that thing.