Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Website of Russ Diamond, PA Republican candidate for Lt. Governor:


I support traditional marriage and would not be a member of a church that marries same-sex couples.

However, the republican form of government is designed expressly to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority and to provide equal protection for all.

As such, it is quite possible that a Pennsylvania court will one day rule that marriage, and its government-provided benefits, must be made available to everyone.

For this reason, I support extracting government authority from the institution of marriage completely, and giving full authority over marriage back to institutions that are competent to the task of preserving traditions.

Government is simply not capable of preserving the sanctity of anything."

In other words, he wishes for Pennsylvanians to be able to continue to tyrannize the minority, so Pennsylvania can continue to force his personal beliefs onto the rest of society.

Since I didn't manage to change my political affiliation, my lack of a vote will be my vote today. There is no one in the Republican party I can get behind.


( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
May. 18th, 2010 02:40 pm (UTC)
The Dems dont do anything either, but they sure are eager for votes and plentiful with the promises. So you have to select based on tax and budget issues, or vote libertarian. This guy is a Looie, and not the same as a voting rep or AG. But I agree, the govt shouldn't be involved in marriage, region, or sex or other personal/relationship decisions. The govt needs to stick to its mandate of what it needs to do, not what some Pol wants, or what the govt thinks it should be doing.

it's exactly the crap you mention in your post is why the govt needs to get out of peoples personal lives. The nanny or clergy or sexual-moral dictator state is not what I want for a govt.
May. 18th, 2010 05:10 pm (UTC)
If the government had not gotten involved in marriage, perhaps there would still be discrimination of interracial marriage, too.

The government has to get involved sometimes "to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority."
May. 18th, 2010 05:40 pm (UTC)
And the reverse sometimes...

You dont want, example Sharia law, imposed on the majority to satisfy a religious minority. I don't want a minority tyrannizing the country that way. Perhaps the Looie candidate is seen as protecting the rights of the religious minority of that state. It works both ways. But I dont think religion should be part of that equation.

The military had no issue with interracial marriage and often circumvented idiot local laws to marry service people. But marriage isn't a govt managed mandate by the constitution. But laws not allowing it violate the bill of rights. My feeling is govt needs to be blind to marriage. Hence no marriage penalty, no rules. The govt can view marriage or partnerships as business arrangements in the eye of the law.

There have been a lot of local laws being brought to light that are not valid by the constitution, and also even in violation of current law. (e.g. Sanctuary cities are in violation of federal law) This is why I don't understand how discriminatory laws can be on the books and shown as a violation of other higher laws. Now I know immigration isn't a direct comparison, but you cant have a local law that tells people they have to violate federal law. That principle can apply to discriminatory local laws.

I think I have too much common sense for understanding politics.
May. 19th, 2010 02:08 am (UTC)
Well, since the government has already involved itself in the marriage debate, it must undo what it has done, in order that SS couples don't have a very unfair tax burden.
May. 18th, 2010 09:36 pm (UTC)
Yikes, that's awful. He's basically saying that minority groups don't deserve any protection and that government is evil for even trying to give equal rights to everyone.
May. 19th, 2010 02:10 am (UTC)
Yes, he is saying that minority groups that he thinks are immoral don't deserve any protection.
May. 18th, 2010 10:24 pm (UTC)
Heh. He says what he means.

His approach seems different...

Along with authority, does he advocate doing away with all state/fed benefits to marriage?
May. 19th, 2010 02:14 am (UTC)
Good question. But since the whole idea is ridiculous to begin with, I'm not going down that road, hehe.

I think the guy is a loony tune. ;P

I've been thinking of you. We must talk this weekend. It's been too long.
May. 19th, 2010 03:23 am (UTC)
Hheh. I didn't think you would go down that road.

I've been thinking of you, too, and missing you. Let's make a phone date this weekend. It has indeed been too long.
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )


Galadriel sketch

Latest Month

March 2015


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars