The PROPER way for the Dem's to respond to the "Gay Marriage Issue"...

[Rosco T.]

It's NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS (either State or Federal).

MARRIAGE is a concept of the RELIGIOUS WORLD.
Let the CHURCHES DECIDE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

PERIOD.

(try to argue with that 'pugs).

[Bertha Venation]

1. Pugs argue?

:eyes:

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

2. EXACTLY! Marriage is RELIGIOUS! The Govt shouldn't do Marriage!

Why is the Govt using a RELIGIOUS institution to confer rights and benefits onto its citizens?

Marriage is RELIGIOUS...therefore the government should not do it. They should have an institution where 2 non-blood related people of legal age agree to enter into a union together to receive all the 1000 benefits that come with said union.

[Lautremont]

3. This is just what Democrats are supposed to say, right?

Not actually do, I mean.

[bryant69]

4. I totally agree

There should be no marriage approved by the government--only civil unions.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[beyurslf]

5. The problem is marriage is both a religious and legal term.

We should have started with civil unions (yes seperate and unequal) before going to marriage. Too many people think of gay marriage and picture two men kissing in front of their church. They do not think of the legal rights involved. But we can't change that without change the semantics of the arguement.

[judy]

9. Oh, I so agree with you beyurslf

and insisting on Civil Unions would also have taken the fundies out of the debate. After all, even Smirky said he supported civil unions.

The legal rights are what matters most of all.

Anyone can get married in front of God at any time. I have been to a few very fancy gay marriages in Churches, or with Ministers officiating.

But I have yet to see a gay couple get inheritance or health care benefits because of their union in front of their fellow citizens...

[progressiveandproud]

28. I reluctantly agree...

...that the legal rights are what matters most of all.

It's just that, and maybe this is because I'm 20-years-old and idealistic, I want the whole hog. I fail to see the logic behind the notion of "traditional marriage"; it doesn't make any sense to me. I've looked at the issue of civil unions vs. marriage for more than a year, and I feel like I can argue convincingly against any rationale for not extending marriage to gay couples.

That is, until I hit upon the issue of pragmatism: maybe my desire to be able to marry is not pragmatic. It sucks, and I feel like it smacks of accomodating bigotry, to ask for civil unions. That's not necessarily true, but it's how I feel nonetheless.

But I wonder if it's any more pragmatic than what I want -- the right to marry another guy if I so desire, the federal government's recognition included -- to say that marriage should be solely a religious matter and civil unions a governmental matter? How is that going to happen any sooner than the government sanctioning gay marriages? I mean, is it really possible to divorce marriage (sorry for the pun) from its legal aspects in this country?

I don't know.

Jonathan

[judy]

32. All your points are well taken, pandp...

I believe that marriage should be extended to anyone who wants it, no exceptions, (maybe it could be limited to 2 human beings :) ) as "all men are created equal", etc.

But it's not going to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, millions of gay couples get insulted and abused by the system everytime they run into things that are considered so normal for "married" couples such as health decisions, inheritance, pension plans, health insurance, etc.

All I am saying, is that going for civil unions first is a way to get these benefits faster than it will take if we ask for marriage.
In France, where they have civil unions (called "PACS"), gay couples have all these benefits, and they can get married with vows and ceremonies any time they want.

Here, I have friends who got married in Church and all that jazz, but if one of them dies or one of them is dying, they have no rights whatsoever...I guess that's all I meant.

[progressiveandproud]

33. Thanks for the kind response. n/t

[HootieMcBoob]

34. being pragmatic is not always accommodating bigotry

in fact it may help to get us what we want faster.

It's more about playing smart.

When Wes Clark was running for president he said a similar thing. He wouldn't talk about gay marriage and said it was a religious thing and should be left to individuals and their churches. He went on to say that two people who love each other should be allowed civil unions and that it should be up to each individual state. He said two people who wanted to commit to a civil union should have all the legal rights that go along with that regardless of sexual orientation. Again - it's a matter of framing the issue.

Bush gave us some great ammo. Now, all we or any candidate has to say is something like "i agree with president Bush we should have civil unions and not discriminate against people. I think government should keeps its nose out of peoples personal lives. The less we have government nosing around in American's personal lives the better we are. That fits the "less government" frame while fulfilling a progressive initiative at the same time.

[progressiveandproud]

37. Ok, thanks.

I think I'm beginning to get a better understanding of the question of asking for civil unions vs. asking for marriage.

I'm still a little confused, though. In order for the civil union proposal -- what Wes Clark has been saying -- to take effect, wouldn't the legal definition of "civil union" have to be changed? To make myself clearer, I've read that state-sanctioned civil unions (from Vermont, for example) grant most, but not all, of the benefits associated with state-sanctioned marriage. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the case; and if that is the case, then how can citizens like you and me go about changing the legal definition of "civil union" so that it encompasses all those legal benefits?

Jonathan

[beyurslf]

42. The difference would have to be changed at the Federal level. Vermont

civil unions give the rights of marriage from the State of Vermont but do not give the rights of the Federal Govt from marriage. Congress would have to make this change. It is unlikely (impossible) to happen anytime soon.

I think a more important thing to focus on is hate crimes legislation, non-discrimination in work and housing, and health benefits from companies. Who cares if you can get married if you can still be fired, kicked out of your home, denied health care, and killed because you are gay? Whoopie! You got married and lost everything else.

[progressiveandproud]

43. Spot on.

Thank you.

By the way, have you been following the actions of Scott Bloch, Bush's appointee (in mid-2003) to head the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)?

I'd never heard of the man, or even the agency!, until 2004, when I read an article in the Washington Blade about what he'd been trying to do to gay federal employees: trash a non-discrimination regulation that had stood unchallenged for more than 20 years, on the grounds that it was a "redundant" protection against discrimination.

Well, I read up on the issue, and legal authorities, it seemed, were wondering if gay federal workers were still protected at all! Scott Bloch claimed they were; but since when is redundancy a reason for a bureaucratic official to undo regulation? God knows there must have been more pressing issues for him to tackle.

Under pressure from several Congressman, I believe, Bush issued a rebuke of his appointee, but it was toothless: our mealy-mouther Prez left the man in office and did nothing to force him to reinstate the regulation. Last time I checked on the story was before the election, in October, and the latest update was an article in the Washington Blade that came out in August, saying that the gay federal workers were still in limbo, maybe without protection against discrimination.

Boy was I pissed, as you can imagine! Leave it to the corporate media to fuck us over by dropping the ball to a local gay paper, making scarce a mention of a story that voters should've heard about before voting for their next President. And leave it G.W. Bush to appoint bigots like Scott Bloch and make a show of restraining them.

Jonathan

P.S. You may want to check out Bloch's profile on the OSC's website: http://www.osc.gov/specialcounsel.htm. Evidently, the Senate confirmed his appointment unanimously. Background checks, anyone?

[beyurslf]

41. I agree with you completely and can argue why gay marriage is right.

But, I can also argue why this was not the right time for gay marriage and we shot ourselves in the foot by forcing it into the national debate. Of course I believe that gay couples should be able to marry. I believe lots of things that most Americans do not agree with though. I think you take steps to make these things happen. And we jumped over a bunch of those steps and may have landed farther back than we were in the first place.

[progressiveandproud]

44. Yes.

I think it might have been different, though, if Democrats had done a better job of framing "gay marriage". In Don't Think of an Elephant! -- love that book! -- Lakoff introduces the issue as "the freedom to marry".

Don't those words feel better? And talk about stealing from Rove's playbook: hey Karl, Democrats can play the "freedom and democracy" game too!

[Seeing Red]

6. Yes! Thank you

There is a REASON that you have to go to a CHURCH and a COURT to get married

Although I do support civil unions (the "court" part!)-there's no reason to distinguish between gay or straight couples for the legal stuff, etc.

[andyhappy]

7. you can't legislate the sin out of someones heart

If their religeon and their god says that being homosexual is a sin then that person committing the sin is going to go to hell as is gods will. Right?

But oh no, hell isn't enough of a deterrent to these people. They had better get in there and fix gods mistake of letting humans have a little thing called 'free will' and pass a law!

[calimary]

8. Yes INDEEDY! "Marriage DISCRIMINATION Amendment" might

be one way to label it - to REFRAME the debate. After all, we need to WELD the idea of DISCRIMINATION to this as though we were - uh - well - MARRYING the two.

And YES, it's NONE OF "BIG GOVERNMENT'S" BUSINESS. Emphasis on "BIG GOVERNMENT." The Enemy likes to prattle on about how they want small government and wanna drown it in the bathtub and get the government off your backs and all that. Yet they're into stuff like THIS. This needs to be hung around their necks and GLUED there.

The republi-CON party: Haven of Hypocrites.

[smoogatz]

10. Here's another option:

Let's talk about the real threat to marriage and the American family: divorce. More than half of all straight marriages end up in divorce, and the effects on women, children and the broader society are devastating. Straight people SUCK at marriage. And, from a religious standpoint, the Bible says that anyone who marries a divorced person is committing adultery. If we really want to defend the institution, we should start by completely outlawing divorce. Let 'em chew on that one for awhile.

[noamnety]

11. Nice revisionist history

Marriage is not a concept of the religious world. In neo-babylonian times (predating Christianity by hundreds of years), marriage and divorce were legal contracts.

The religious right may like to believe they somehow "own" the concept of marriage, and they certainly act like they get to make the rules because it's (in their minds) a church ceremony that they are kind enough to let the rest of us take part in. In reality, it's originally a nonreligious ceremony that the church decided to "borrow."

Although I was personally married in a church, I find your statement that only churches should be able to marry people highly offensive.

http://www.ehistory.com/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=58

[Bertha Venation]

13. We are not going to get our rights recognized by attempting to force

the entire country to change the way it does this basic RIGHT. The Supreme Court has already said that MARRIAGE -- not "civil union" nor "state ceremony" nor any other name one would put to a marriage devoid of religious connotation -- is a basic human right.

This country will recognize my legal right to marry. It would be harder to carry off what Roscoe T. suggests than to stop what we've gained so far. What's already in motion will carry us through to the right and proper -- and inevitable -- conclusion: the right of all citizens to marry the consenting adult of his/her choice.

Lwfern, I appreciate what you've said.

[Pepperbelly]

12. There is only ONE appropriate response.

Specifically, one should say: Why in the FUCK are you asking me about THAT when this rat-bastard son of a bitch Bush and his fucking pirates are stealing everything not nailed down and they're coming back for that and you ask about gay fucking marriage?!?!?!

That's how I would answer it anyway.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[moobu2]

15. "I am against gay marriage" well, just dont marry a gay then....hows that?

[Telly Savalas]

21. Sounds like the best way to "let the people decide" to me, moobu2

[noamnety]

17. The "gay lobby"?

I'm not gay, and I don't consider myself to be part of a "gay lobby."

But I agree it should be left to the people to decide. We just disagree on which people. :)

Makes sense to me that the people who get to decide are the ones actually getting married. When I married my husband, I don't recall having to get approval from the majority of the people in my state.

People in congress, people in Michigan, it's all the same to me. I don't care where they live, it's not their marriage, they don't get to make that decision for me.

[Telly Savalas]

23. Damn straight, the gay lobby

Read all about it at Fafblog:

Responding to Wesley Clark's and Howard Dean's calls for civil unions, Mr McSouthenshucky says, "Do they even believe what they're saying when they go home at night?" Of course they don't, Mr McSouthenshucky. Who would? But they are politicians - corrupt, Democratic politicians yoked to the special interest powerhouse that is Big Gay - and so they profess to deny what every American has come to know: that gay marriage will corrupt and destroy the divine institute of Marriage at an existential level. Because it is controlled by an octopus from God.

"Big Gay" Ha ha ha

[Rockholm]

27. Boo frigging hoo on your taxes, pal.

Your arguements are so uneducated and lame. I could deconstruct your post line by line, but you are simply not worth it.

[orleans]

16. I know! let's all get married to someone of our own gender!

that'd show 'em!

"take that!"

serves 'em right, too.

[dbt]

18. This approach will work for a number of issues.

Abortion? That's a decision that is none of the government's business. It is the province of the woman whose life it involves, perhaps her partner and perhaps her (insert deity of choice here).

Guns? The government has already spoken on that, better than 200 years ago. Religion? Ditto.

Gay sex? That's a "decision" that's none of the government's business.

I attempted to post about this two nights ago during the Great Abortion Frenzy. My point was that there are some issues that will simply never be resolved to the satisfaction of either side and are simply being tossed out as distractions.

We will argue til Doomsday over the Big Four and nothing will be decided. Meanwhile, the Regime will continue stealing in the name of the Lord.

:freak:
dbt

[greymattermom]

19. one at a time

They need to introduce the thousand or so bills that will provide equal rights one right at a time. Start with hospital visits and keep at it. Leave out the marriage tax.

[KuTava]

20. Gay marriage is already legal.

It was never banned. So if we're happy for gov't to stay out of it, we already have our wish!

[dolstein]

22. I hate to point out the obvious, but

anyone who'd buy that response is probably already supportive of gay marriage.

[Telly Savalas]

24. Perhaps.

But if someone opposes gay marriage on the basis that it will defile a "sacred institution", one is cutting their legs out from underneath them by questioning why the government has its nose in a "sacred institution". While some on the Right are theocrats, there are still quite a few who acknowledge the existence of the 1st amendment.

[progressiveandproud]

38. Aha.

<<But if someone opposes gay marriage on the basis that it will defile a "sacred institution", one is cutting their legs out from underneath them by questioning why the government has its nose in a "sacred institution". >>

I like that response. I think it would make sense to a lot of conservatives, since it's on the basis of their own values system, not on the progressive values system.

It's about focusing on the main objective in this situation, which is to further progressive policies, not necessarily to start the impossible task of convincing conservatives of progressive ideals.

If that made any sense. ;). Keeping the main purpose in mind.

Jonathan

[Ravy]

25. The Simple Solution.

Government should only recognize and perform civil unions. Get the Government out of the marriage business. If someone obtains a civil union license, and then gets married in a church or civilly united by a justice of the peace or ship captain or whatever... should be the same to government--civilly united.

Laws, practices, and regulations that required couples to be "married" rather than civilly united should be deemed as religious based discrimination.

[noamnety]

30. Or take the opposite approach

Get the church out of the marriage business, since they stole it from the rest of us. :)

I don't really have too much desire to spend the next 40 years telling people I am "civilly united" instead of saying I'm married, just because some fundie got his panties in a wad over the fact that a nonmember of his church didn't follow his church's teachings. I imagine gay people feel the same way.

[liberal43110]

39. lwfren, i agree with with ravi instead of you

I understand from your post that marriage began as a legal construct, not a religious one. However, marriage today is involved with religion. Catholics have certain rules about who can get married in their churches, Jews do too, etc. etc. Regardless of how the institution began millennia ago, it has religious elements now.

From the government's perspective, the civil union aspect should be the only salient part. Period.

[Vincardog]

26. WE want to keep the Guvmt out of the bedroom

as well as peoples private medical conditions.
It all comes down to all people being afforded equal protection.

[ClassWarrior]

29. Do YOU want the government telling you who you can and can't marry???

NGU.

[progressiveandproud]

31. That's the spirit! And the framing. n/t

[Beer Snob-50]

35. I would disagree with your response to this issue

Gay Marriage is a function of the government as civil marriage laws are made by the government. Now a religious marriage is a function of the church. Thus they have a right to say this or that cannot be married in their churches.

Regarding gay marriage in civil matters, the rights of the individual outweigh an individuals prejudices and as such, gay marriages must be allowed.

[ProgressiveConn]

36. I completely agree!

This is the best way to handle it. I'd love a Connecticut state amendment that does not recognize marriage only civil unions be them Male+Female or Male+Male or Female+Female. The Neo-cons are right about one thing. Marriage is defined by god. Regardless of what you think that god is. Separation of Church and State should Government out of Marriage.

[moggie12]

40. Hey, that's brilliant n/t