Why has no candidate suggested abolishing heterosexual marriage?

[DuctapeFatwa]

I have seen a lot of people who make some very eloquent arguments against gay marriage.

Civil unions are all they need, say these folks.

If civil unions are good enough for gay people, then why not straight people?

Not one has been able to present a credible case that same-sex couples love each other any less, or are less committed to each other than their heterosexual brothers and sisters.

Some mention religion. Well, if the US is a secular state, what business does religion have slogging around in laws about property and inheritance rights?

If marriage, as opposed to civil unions, is a religious institution, then let it be one.

Let couples, gay or straight, who wish to have a religious marriage ceremony have one, with or without, and independent of, their state-sanctioned civil union.

Why should the candidates put themselves in the difficult position of defending a two-tiered system of equality under the law?

Why would any Democratic candidate wish to argue that homosexuals are second-class citizens?

Disclaimer: I do not support any of the candidates.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. Is it? I thought equality under the law was the cornerstone.

[Cuban_Liberal]

8. "Equal justice under law"

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. And?

Why would allowing gay couples to marry jeopardize that?

[DuctapeFatwa]

15. Fine. equal justice.civil union for you, civil union for your gay neighbor

[Interrobang]

7. Could you explain what you mean, please?

Personally, I think the parent poster's idea has validity and merit, and using practically meaningless words like "values" (which can be construed in so many ways there's hardly a set meaning) doesn't really advance the argument any more.

Most people who make arguments like yours are basically committing a type of logical fallacy called Petitio Ad Principii (or Begging the Question) that states that since X proposition is the status quo, we can't change X because X is the status quo. I'd like to see a little more defined opinion from the opposing point of view, since I've already seen point-by-point elaborations of several people's arguments in favour of a separated civil union/marriage institution, and I agree with it

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cuban_Liberal]

24. So am I.

And a Catholic, to boot. I don't believe the Bible should be taken literally.

[DuctapeFatwa]

25. There may be religions that don't believe in your stuff. Should the state

grant those religions special favors? Or should you have equal justice under the law?

[Terwilliger]

16. what values emanate from that "cornerstone"?

What is it that makes American values dependent on heterosexual marriage? What does it say about your contention when half of marriages end in divorce?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DuctapeFatwa]

55. If you don't have a good argument for a two-tiered system, I'd say

you've made a wise decision.

Happy King Day :)

[Terwilliger]

68. Convert you to what? An American?

A person who leaves others ALONE?!?! instead of deciding who can do what according to your dictates?

If you like the institution of marriage, great...make sure you extend that to anyone who wishes to get married.

[flamingyouth]

2. Like my husband always says...

Before they decide to outlaw gay marriages, they should try to outlaw divorce.

And we all know how well THAT would go over. :eyes:

[bloom]

3. ummm

"I do not support any of the candidates."

Do you mean you don't support any particular candidate or that you don't like any of them???

[w4rma]

77. I think that means that DuctapeFatwa is voting 3rd party or for Bush (n/t)

[AntiCoup2K4]

4. Only Kucinich would have credibility on this issue

The rest of them are married heterosexuals and would be seen as hypocrites for opposing straight marriage.

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. I am not suggesting they oppose it as a religious ceremony

But as the original post says, if civil unions are considered adequate for state recognition of gay peoples' choice of life partner, on what grounds can a secular state, with equality under the law hardwired into the constitution, justify setting up a two-tiered system based on sexual orientation?

[Cuban_Liberal]

6. It irks me to no end.

I'm a law-abiding citizen, productive and a taxpayer; I have also defended my country in armed combat. Why has the state decided that MY love is not worthy of official recognition on a par with a heterosexual couple's love?

:grr:

[funky_bug]

26. We agree

Cuban_Liberal, we are in agreement. Biblically speaking (bear with me, as I was raised up in a Baptist church) the case against homosexuality is based on the fact that is a perceived "sin." As is divorce, yet I see no republican platforming for the removal of divorce... nor the attorneys and judges that preside over them.

Every citizen, regardless of gender and race is supposedly awarded equal rights under the constitution. Yet biological and environmental influences seem to be a factor in determining which citizens are afforded which rights. It's hogwash, hatemongering, and in my opinion, hypocritically sinful.

This ruffles my feather perhaps like no other issue.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. It would certainly give credability to the arguement

that liberals are out to destroy the institution of marriage.

[BobbyJay]

10. Because candidates usually having winning as their goal

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. Why should their 'winning' make me a 2nd-class citizen?

:shrug:

[BobbyJay]

21. Having civil unions wouldn't make you 2nd class IMO

You'd have the same rights as everyone else under the law.

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. IMO it does.

Just like the old Plessy v. Ferguson rule of 'separate but equal' was equal, but it sure was separate.

[BobbyJay]

30. Sorry. I fail to see the comparison.

And you drive away loads of moderates with this sort of thing.

[Cuban_Liberal]

36. How could I make it more clear?

Marriage is or is not sanctioned by the state; if it is, then not allowing gay people to get married is discrimination against them.

[BobbyJay]

40. Not if the state constitution says otherwise

If the state constitution says that marriage is between a man and a woman, "gay marriage" doesn't exist.

[Cuban_Liberal]

43. Oh, I see.

"Because I told you so" is a legitimate reason to dsicriminate against me? what about the 14th Amendment, and equal protection of the laws?

[BobbyJay]

46. Gay marriage is sanctioned at the federal level?

The 14th amendment is meaningless in this case.

[Cuban_Liberal]

48. Not when my tax money goes toward supporting marriage.

And it most certainly does go toward maintaining this two-tiered system. I'll see your State Constitution, and raise you a 14th Amendment.

[BobbyJay]

52. Sorry, I don't feel bad for you.

The United States lives under a common law based system.

[Cuban_Liberal]

57. And?

What was the point? Of course we do, but we also live under a Constitution. Not all law is based on precedent and res judicata.

[BobbyJay]

59. Gay marriage doesnt fall under the DPC

[Cuban_Liberal]

61. DPC?

:shrug:

[DuctapeFatwa]

28. Would dumping state sanctioned marriage make YOU a 2nd class citizen?

Assuming you are straight, for the purposes of argument.

[BobbyJay]

33. Gay marriage has been dumped at the state level?

I don't follow the analogy.

If states want to sanction gay marriage that's fine with me. I just don't think any of our candidates should be running on dumping hetero marriage.

[DuctapeFatwa]

35. Should they be running on a two-tiered system based on sexual preference?

[corporatewhore]

72. doyou think that a brown and a white person should

only beable to have civil unions and not marriage?

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. Because we live in a society where the will of the majority rules

You need to convince the majority the change its mind.

[DuctapeFatwa]

65. Then why don't all the candidates support bush? the majority does

[Freddie Stubbs]

70. The majority didn't support Bush less than four years ago

When was the last time that the majority supported same-sex marriage?

[Terwilliger]

12. If 50% of heterosexual marriages end-up in divorce

shouldn't that suggest a different attitude toward heterosexual marriage by the church?

Hell, Britney Spears made a joke out of marriage last week...I don't hear the Bible-thumpers screaming for her head.

[Paragon]

19. Thread Most Likely To Be Read On Rush Limbaugh Tomorrow

Thanks. :eyes:

[DuctapeFatwa]

22. Good. Let him answer me.

[Paragon]

32. Call him yourself.

You represent for a wider community of people at DU - start acting like it. If you don't want to support any of the candidates and feel like spouting off devil-may-care nonsense, start your own website.

[DuctapeFatwa]

37. I am supporting the Constitution of the United States

I represent myself. I do not claim to represent you, and you have my permission to tell Rush that I do not.

[Paragon]

41. Yeah, he's on my speed dial.

Jesus, get a clue.

[DuctapeFatwa]

49. Were you going to present an argument in favor of a two-tiered system?

I welcome it.

[Terwilliger]

50. Ooo...maybe you could tell Skinner to shut him up

or do so yourself?

[BobbyJay]

23. No kidding. Whats the point

Lets pick the most left-wing out of touch subject and have a massive thread about it!!!!

[DuctapeFatwa]

29. Is equal protection under the law left wing and out of touch?

[Cuban_Liberal]

31. No.

Excellent point. :)

[BobbyJay]

34. Civil unions is equal

You get the same rights as me.

[Cuban_Liberal]

38. If true, why not simply allow us to marry?

If nothing's different, why not just make everyone have a civil union, including heterosexuals?

[BobbyJay]

45. Where? In a gay church?

I must admit, I'm not up to date on the gay marriage thing.

[Terwilliger]

53. Anywhere they feel like it

anytime they want...

If god doesn't like the union, who cares? God doesn't live here...we do.

[BobbyJay]

56. And who is stopping them?

Not me. Or the federal government.

It doesn't mean any of it needs to be officially recognized by the gov't.

[Terwilliger]

66. OK...why officially recognize heterosexual marriages?

Also, you don't think DOMA is "stopping them".....I think you should try to get educated about the issues.

[Cuban_Liberal]

54. How about before a judge?

With a marriage license issued by the County Clerk, just like heterosexual couples?

[BobbyJay]

58. Nope.

Why destroy the sanctity of marriage by doing that?

[Cuban_Liberal]

60. Whose 'sanctity'?

We're a secular nation, so 'sanctity' is an irrelevant concept.

[BobbyJay]

62. "We're a secular nation"? WOW

I'm done here.

[Cuban_Liberal]

63. Yes, we are.

So, once again, 'sanctity' is an irrelevant concept.

[DuctapeFatwa]

39. Cool, so give the gay guy marriage, and you a civil union. Sound good?

[BobbyJay]

42. I don't really understand your point

"gay marriage" is an oxymoron to me. I'm not going to keep this ridiculous thread kicked.

[DuctapeFatwa]

51. Please see post 49

[corporatewhore]

73. who cares

[corporatewhore]

20. i really dont get civil unions

i mean people wouldnt say well i believe that a brown and a white person can have civil unions but not marriage! Well not just yet any way.Why wont any canidates (except for kucinich) say they are for gay marriage?
I think what you are saying makes total sense though i think that when dealing with things like immigration adoption and property rights that should be left to the state and what ever else e left to the church

[ScholarSeeker]

64. Good Argument

[markus]

67. Abolish the linkage between Civil Union and Marriage

Hell, let churches marry whoever they want, however they way (as long as they aren't marrying off children to adults, as one possible exception).

Said sacreamental ceremony, however, should not entitle you to file your taxes differently, change your name without a court order, etc.

If you want those things, go down to the courthouse for civil union papers. Require the civil union to be performence by a non-sectarian official. No more priests, rabbis, ship's captains (well, maybe ship's captains) "marrying" people in the legal sense.

Just seperate the two.

[kiahzero]

69. Because lynch mobs are out of fashion? (n/t)

[DuctapeFatwa]

71. kick for west coast wakeup, east coast lunch

and because I'm still waiting for that credible argument for a two-tiered system ;)

[anti-bush]

74. It would be political suicide

Whether it may be right or wrong, anybody that pushed that agenda would never get elected to another office again.

[DuctapeFatwa]

75. Didn't somebody say Rush would read this thread today?

If he did, I haven't heard anything about it.

Maybe Rush is slipping, and should think of stepping aside for someone more on their toes.

[rucky]

76. That's been my take on the issue

and the taxes/benefits/visitation rights, etc can be done contractually