I agree with civil unions, or government sanctioned marriage.

[Robin Hood]

But I agree with John Kerry. I don't think that it is a good idea to have the government tell churches what to do. It goes against our grain of not mixing church and state, Isn't Bush doing enough of that already?

We will have to let evolution take care of religious bigotry. Also, taking this issue through this common sense route will show Bush for the whacko fundie idiot that he is, when he tries to make it a stupid constitutional amendment. Man!! These guys just don't get and don't respect the constitution of this country.

My wife and I got married at the court house and that was just fine with us(A Real romantic huh?). This same right is imperative that it be made to all peoples in our society, it's fair and the right thing to do.

[Options Remain]

1. please note

That we are NOT telling the churches to do anything.

The issue is sabout CIVIL MARRIAGE and should the government have the power to descriminate one form of family over another.

The answer is NO by the principles of our constitution.

TearForger

[Robin Hood]

3. I thought the issue was whether to force churches to recognize gay marriag

There are states who have already approved state sanctioned marriage and the trend will eventually spread.

[lcooksey]

11. Which states?

Are you saying that there are states which have strictly civil marriage (that would be all 50 of them), or are you saying there are states which have strictly civil marriage open to same-sex couples? Because there are no states with civil marriage for same-sex couples.
Vermont has civil unions, which are legally distinct from marriage.

My big question to the religious right is, if marriage is a sacrament, why do we let atheists marry? If they can marry, I want to get married, too.

[fleetus]

2. I also agree as long as I understand it correctly.

The way I understand civil unions is that any 2 people would file for a civil union that would give them the same legal rights as married people. Then if those same two people wanted to be married as well, they could take it up with the church. To me, it means the government would be getting out of the marriage business (long overdue in my opinion).

To me it seems like a good idea.

[Jawja]

4. I agree!

By law, ALL couples, regardless of gender mix, should be granted a civil union, with all of the rights and benefits associated with this legal partnership.

MARRIAGE, on the otherhand, would be considered a religious rite as dictated by the religion as baptism, communion, and other ceremonies performed by the institution. Some institutions probably include same sex "marriage" ceremonies; others will obviously not.

Adding an amendment to the Constitution defining "marriage" is an instrusion of religion, an intrusion into the right to privacy, contradictory to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and a restriction of freedom for a specified group of citizens.

The GOP wants to run on this issue this election. The Democrats should not back away from the issue; at the same time, the Democrats should not let the GOP frame the election on this one issue alone.

[Heddi]

16. Why wasn't my marriage considered a "civil union"?

My husband and I (we're heterosexual) were married outside of a church. We were married in a park by a Justice of the Peace. No religion was involved whatsoever.

However, we applied for and received a marriage license. Our marriage license stated NOTHING about marriage being legal only if it occurs under the eye of a religious leader, or only if it takes place inside a church.

The only thing that our license stipulated was that our wedding had to be presided over by a registered employee of the court who was allowed to perform marriage ceremonies, which ours was.

Why must gay couples take a back seat and have a 'civil union" then if they want to be married "take it up with the church?"

98% of the married people I know were married outside the church, and without any religious ties, or without the ceremony being conducted by a religious leader. Why are those people (all heterosexual, mind you), allowed to be "married", even without the blessing of any church, but homosexuals must go through many loops before they're officially "married", and why must their "marriage" involve churches and religion when heterosexual marriages do not?

[JasonDeter]

5. So how is one to respond to this issue without getting banned

or posts removed? Are we to walk lockstep with the homosexual community or can we disagree on every aspect of what they want and not be labeled as homophobic or hateful towards the homosexual community or whatever?! Or should one just let them say what they want, and let those who read this forum think that the whole Democratic Party agrees lockstep with what the homosexual community thinks about Christians and those on the other side of this issue? So what are the ground rules here? I have never insulted an individual here but have and do disagree with everything they stand for as do a majority of Americans! And yet it seems that voice is never heard here. Interesting to say the least.

[Robin Hood]

6. How about marching lock step with the constitution.

How about up holding rights and liberties for every member of our society?

[JasonDeter]

7. This has nothing to do with the constitution.

This is a moral issue. For a majority of Americans this is a moral issue. I don't care to peek into the bedrooms of homosexuals but when they ask me to sanction it by saying its ok I stop.

[Robin Hood]

9. The constituion was designed to protect the minority

from the majority. No matter how moral the argument may seem at the time.

[Jawja]

8. I think you just responded.

So you believe that the religious beliefs of a majority should be allowed to determine by law the rights of a minority?

[JasonDeter]

10. You asked a question.

If I respond someone will hit the alert button! It won't be a personal attack on you but it will show exactly how I and a majority of Americans feel and even more. So I won't respond. I don't want to be the impetus of a Christian bashing thread.

[Robin Hood]

14. It's amazing to me.

how the moral majority plays the victim card when they are in the process of victimizing others. Please stop it, you're insulting my intelligence.

And once again, just because a herd of lemmings thinks that it's a good idea to take a leap off a cliff, it does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. Didn' your mother ever ask you if your friends decided to jump off a bridge would you join them?

So please quit hiding behind the majority. Stand up for your self, this is what YOU believe.

[Jawja]

18. So if you won't

respond to a simple straightforward question, why did you jump in here and post and accuse us of not tolerating your viewpoint before we know what that viewpoint is?

Do you believe in the religious tyranny of a majority over the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" of a minority?

[havocmom]

12. Doesn't Mexico require a civil ceremony for the state to acknowledge

the marriage? Then, if the couple is so inclined and wants chruch acknowledgement, they have a chruch service? Seems to work there.

I would like the civil/state approved union to be an option for gay couples also. Chruch acknowledgement, like all other church matters, should be left to membership. Some churches are inclusive and behave in a more Christ-like manner than others.

Just don't see how being gay makes one less committed to the viability of their union. All people who are committed to one another should have that committment acknowledged and respected by the state or none should. We should just be a bit more honest, either marriage is an option for all or for none.

Jeeze, look at the divorce rate. Seems about 50% of the hetro couples are not sincere about the sanctity of marriage. Maybe they should be denied the option since they have proven to be unable to stay in a committed relationship.

edit: typos

[Az]

13. Perhaps the real solution is

To get the government out of the marriage business and only allow them to sanction civil unions. Marriage would be returned to the social/religious institutions that typically are associated with it.

Tax cuts and other benefits would be based on the civil union. Marriage would be returned to a purely personal issue tailored to one's own religion or social grouping.

This would return the fight to these social/religious organizations instead of be battled over in the governmental arena. Then the question becomes one of why are you associating with a religion that does not recognise your love for your mate instead of attempting to legislate morallity (a dicey prospect in any circumstance).

[Heddi]

15. Not all marriages are performed in Churches,

or by religious leaders.

Mine surely wasn't. I had a Justice of the Peace, who was also a part-time minster, but our wedding was held outside without any mention of Religion, God, Holy, etc.

Gay Marriage ISN'T about churches recognizing the marriage. Many Catholic churches don't allow the marriage of anyone who hasn't converted to Catholocism to take place in their church, no would they condone a preist conducting a marriage between two non-catholics. Equally, many Rabbis won't conduct a marriage between two Non-Jews.

But I would never say that any religious institution must be FORCED to perform marriages that rile the grain of their religious beliefs--that's just stupid.

No one is talkign about forcing churches to perform Gay Marriages any more than people are talking about forcing Presbyterian churches to perform a Muslim wedding.

Marriage takes place outside of churches, outside of religious institutions just as they take place inside churches and religious institutions.

But I don't think anyone would say "Well, two Athiests can't get married in a Church, so therefore, their marriage shouldn't be recognized at all..."

[republicansareevil]

17. some interesting and relevant articles...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127/
http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos071003.asp

Note the first is by Michael Kinsley, and the second is a response in a right-wing publication.

I don't like a lot of the implications in the second piece (by John O'Sullivan), but one part caught my eye: Civil unions "might nonetheless be expanded into a very useful social institution by one simple legislative reform: Remove all reference to sex from civil partnerships and allow any household, however constituted, to establish a civil partnership that would allow its members to share pension rights, inherit tenancies, enjoy certain tax benefits, and so on.

Thus, a household might consist of a "cohabiting" couple either gay or straight, but also of two crusty old bachelors living under the same roof for convenience, or of a widowed mother and single son... Not all households would wish to form such a partnership, but there would be no requirement on those that did to claim they were sleeping together... And since the government would not be concerned with any household's sleeping arrangements, none of the usual fears relating to sex and social approval would arise. Such legislation as was required might therefore go through without passionate opposition."

And some quotes from the more left-leaning Kinsley: "Let churches and other religious institutions continue to offer marriage ceremonies. Let department stores and casinos get into the act if they want. Let each organization decide for itself what kinds of couples it wants to offer marriage to. Let couples celebrate their union in any way they choose and consider themselves married whenever they want. Let others be free to consider them not married, under rules these others may prefer. And, yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself, and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care?...

Yes, yes, marriage is about more than sleeping arrangements. There are children, there are finances, there are spousal job benefits like health insurance and pensions. In all these areas, marriage is used as a substitute for other factors that are harder to measure, such as financial dependence or devotion to offspring. It would be possible to write rules that measure the real factors at stake and leave marriage out of the matter. Regarding children and finances, people can set their own rules, as many already do. None of this would be easy. Marriage functions as what lawyers call a "bright line," which saves the trouble of trying to measure a lot of amorphous factors."

I think in these two pieces is a very practical idea. I see no reason to make a distinction between "household partnerships" and "civil marriages" as O'Sullivan does. Let churches and other institutions handle marriages. Do away with civil marriages and replace it with a legal "bright line" structure that unifies two people in certain ways. Call it a "next-of kin partnership," a "civil partnership," a "household partnership" or whatever. Let any two people devoted enough to each other to want to enter into this arrangement do so. The devotion could stem from romantic love, blood ties, even a deep friendship. Two people in such an arrangement would be able to share benefits such as health insurance and pensions that are usually limited to spouses. They would share inheritance rights. Other rights and responsibilities could be worked out. In fact, some of these could be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. One thing this will accomplish is to take some of the financial burden off single people to finance other people's spouses.

[Moderator]

19. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

...

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator