[ufUUZCnc]

Rudy, McCain set an example in defending the institution of marriage.

All not in the family for GOP hopeful Giuliani - CNN.com

Funny how the "Marriage = one man & one woman." people have such a flexible interpretation of their own credo. What they really mean is: "Unless something better comes along."

(Guess that wouldn't fit on the bumper sticker.)

[JTS_tv]

Funny, that's not what I saw in that article. Maybe you posted the wrong link?

[Peterli]

Isn't Giuliani okay with gay marriage?

[fabrizioitwloch]

Isn't Giuliani okay with gay marriage?

I guess the question is how he feels about gay divorce.

[Gymnfacymoota]

Why should any of this even be an issue that the governing bodies handle?

[annouhMus]

So what's wrong with multiple wifes, or marriage, or sam-sex marriage, etc. So they make a mistake, and correct it, or don't think it was a mistake, or--------?

It's not the business of anyone but those personally involved.

[icerrelmCam]

I guess the question is how he feels about gay divorce.

It's like regular divorce, he feels that once the partner starts showing some wear and tear, it's time to trade up to a newer model.
It's a bedrock Republican Principle, that all Republicans and their Trophy Wives subscribe to.
After all, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, that ought to tell you something about how those Liberals have turned the holy sacrament of marriage into some twisted trap, where you're stuck with the same person forever, even if they get fat........

[Gasfghj]

NoMcW
R-Party: Multiple wives OK.

Rudy, McCain set an example in defending the institution of marriage.

All not in the family for GOP hopeful Giuliani - CNN.com

Funny how the "Marriage = one man & one woman." people have such a flexible interpretation of their own credo. What they really mean is: "Unless something better comes along."

(Guess that wouldn't fit on the bumper sticker.) This is the kind of grammatical incoherence that leads liberals to the must stupefyingly absurd interpretations of the the Constitution.

Neither Guiliani or McCain has ever had multiple wives. They have never had more than ONE wife and EX-Wives. Does the United States have four Presidents? No, we have ONE President and three FORMER Presidents.

But I do understand that liberals seldom allow proper grammar and meaning of words to get in the way of what they want politically (as evidenced by their black is white, white is black, up is down and down is up approach to interpreting the Constituition).

And that may not fit on a bumber sticker but how about:

Marriage = (One man + One Woman)x(however many fat interns you can find)

[WeestDype]

Polygamy should be legal. No, I am not mormon.

[Gasfghj]

Beer
Polygamy should be legal. No, I am not mormon. Why? And would you make it that ALL members of the marriage are married equally to one another? What happens if you have two husbands and two wives, and one wants to divorce another, but stay married to the other two, who do not want the fourth to be "divorced".

[Weislenalkata]

Silly me. The thread title had me thinking the topic had something to do with that polygamist group in Utah.

[stunnyravytal]

A person that would break thier vows in one of the most sacred ceremonies held before God and the community should never be trusted in a high position of power. Giuliani, McCain, Gingrich are all tainted by thier lies. "Till death do us part" indeed. Go Duncan Hunter!

[Gymnfacymoota]

Why? And would you make it that ALL members of the marriage are married equally to one another? What happens if you have two husbands and two wives, and one wants to divorce another, but stay married to the other two, who do not want the fourth to be "divorced".

Why should the government even recognize any marriage in the first place? Nobody explained this to me. It is just assumed that the gov't should always be involved in one man one woman straight marriage, but I don't take that for granted.

[Gasfghj]

wrxsti
A person that would break thier vows in one of the most sacred ceremonies held before God and the community should never be trusted in a high position of power. Giuliani, McCain, Gingrich are all tainted by thier lies. "Till death do us part" indeed. Go Duncan Hunter! Actually, I am a bit of a Duncan Hunter fan myself. I would rank Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich as such:

McCain: Unacceptable (at least against other Republican candidates--almost every democrat is even worse), totally unprincipled whore who tried to ride his Washington Press Corp constituency to the White House by gratuitously bashing his own party.

Rudy: Objectionable on Policy Grounds, and while more liberal than McCain at his core, he has never gone out of his way to gratuitously bash the party base or its platform. In the respect he is the quintissential "big tent" republican. I could even see fit to minimize the significance of his social policy views if I were to be convinced that he supports the appointment of originalist judges who leave these matters the Constituiton is silent on to the People, rather than impossing through Judicial Fiat. I would have far less trouble with someone who supports abortion rights as a matter of POLICY, while recognizing that it is not a CONSTITUTIONAL Issue for the courts to impose on us one way or the other.

Gingrich: God, how I wish each and every word that comes out of his mouth were coming out of someone else's, someone less tainted, and who I have more faith in the overall character of. I think Newt is still one of the best idea men in the game. I think like Clinton he has demonstrated in the past (and I am open to being convinced he has changed...but it is an uphill path) some issues with his judgement and character that I find offputting in an elected leader. Maybe if we were to put Newt's ideas into Rudy!

[Gasfghj]

Slon
Why should the government even recognize any marriage in the first place? Nobody explained this to me. It is just assumed that the gov't should always be involved in one man one woman straight marriage, but I don't take that for granted. Actually, I tend to agree...as a matter of policy. I think it is important at all times to distinguish between what we believe policy should be, and who we believe under our constitution any particular matter's resolution resides with.

There is absolutely, positively NOTHING in the constitution the either prohibits or demands that any state recognize or fail to recognize marriage all-together, gay marriage, polygamy, etc. (with the exception of interracial which is clearly covered by the 15th Amendment....if a state DOES choose to recognize marriage, it cannot discriminate in that recognition on the basis of race).

I actually think that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage recognition as a matter of public policy, but at the same time I also understand that it is perfectly constitutional for it to do so, and to set any conditions or restrictions (other than those based on race--which would violate the 15th Amendment) we the people decide to democratically.

[annouhMus]

This is the kind of grammatical incoherence that leads liberals to the must stupefyingly absurd interpretations of the the Constitution.

Neither Guiliani or McCain has ever had multiple wives. They have never had more than ONE wife and EX-Wives. Does the United States have four Presidents? No, we have ONE President and three FORMER Presidents.

But I do understand that liberals seldom allow proper grammar and meaning of words to get in the way of what they want politically (as evidenced by their black is white, white is black, up is down and down is up approach to interpreting the Constituition).

And that may not fit on a bumber sticker but how about:

Marriage = (One man + One Woman)x(however many fat interns you can find)

Well now of course, you just had to spin this to a different meaning than was indicted by the OP. He said simply "multiple wives". he did NOT say multiple wifes at the same time.

[annouhMus]

Polygamy should be legal. No, I am not mormon.

at least not Illegal. It is their business.

[annouhMus]

Why? And would you make it that ALL members of the marriage are married equally to one another? What happens if you have two husbands and two wives, and one wants to divorce another, but stay married to the other two, who do not want the fourth to be "divorced".

Once more. it is none of your damned business.

[Gasfghj]

doniston
Well now of course, you just had to spin this to a different meaning than was indicted by the OP. He said simply "multiple wives". he did NOT say multiple wifes at the same time. Oh, common now doni-boy...surely a good liberal like you who can detect an "implied" general right to privacy in the Consituition can detect the implied meaning meaning of "Multiple" given that it is immediately followed by a re-emphasis of "Marraige = One Man + One Woman". . Otherwise it is kinda a pointless post in that there is NOTHING incongruous with having HAD more than one prior spouse and accepting the defintion of A marriage as being between ONE man and ONE woman.

Now, had he added "till death do us part", it might not be as reasonable reading of what was written.

[TOD4wDTQ]

A person that would break thier vows in one of the most sacred ceremonies held before God and the community should never be trusted in a high position of power. Giuliani, McCain, Gingrich are all tainted by thier lies. "Till death do us part" indeed. Go Duncan Hunter!

So then I take it you're not supporting Hillary as well? I mean they've been lying to themselves for years. Does anyone, I mean anyone, believe the Clintons marriage is anything other than a marriage of convienence?

While we're at it how can you support a presidential contender that doesn't have children? How can they really understand what parents have to go through when their son/daughter goes off to war?

Varus