Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Dawn —

I agree that Kerry/Edwards isn’t giving whole-hearted backing to gay unions (or marriages), but I’m not clear on what you’re saying. Are you supporting the Amendment? If you’re not, Kerry/Edwards is still the right ticket. Better something than less than nothing.

1. Ammendment is dead- so as a practical matter- there is no difference between kerry and bush on this issue.

2. Both Nader and the libertarian Party Candidate Micheal Badnarik have strong pro-gay marriage positions. If you are serious about this issue- you should consider casting your vote for one of these guys. If you vote for Kerry, you are sending the message that (1) this isnt that important to you; and (2) the democratic party can take your vote for granted. Just something to think about.

Alejo - I think her point is that by allowing civil unions in some states, there will be high-profile court-battles challenging them, and this will create more strife for the homosexual community. A similiar arguement was made about equal civil rights for minorities, and we all see how poorly *that* turned out for African Americans. I bet they wish they still had segregated facilities, cuz it sure would have saved them a lot of inconvenience.

Gaelen —

I did get her point. That is, in fact, an issue. Up until about 30 years ago there were various state laws on the books banning interracial marriage, which caused huge problems for interracial couples moving between states. It would be a very real problem for gay couples as well.

What I’m asking is, how is the Bush alternative better for gays?

How I ‘feel’ about the whole thing…

Gays are trying to win a Marathon without running the whole race.

If they would accept Civil Unions and stop trying to take the word marriage away from the people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman they would gain ground faster. It may even make the issue more acceptable.

When I was in High School is when ‘coming out’ began. I don’t remember anyone in our school being beat up just because they were gay. Not to say it hasn’t happened. Being gay doesn’t bother me. Trying to force the acceptance of the word ‘marriage’ for gay couples does.

Trying to compare gay rights to African American rights does not jive with me. Maybe it does with African Americans but I doubt it. They fought much longer and much harder to get equal rights.

(I also have a lot of African American friends who believe affirmative action has run it’s course. Different topic.)

Kerry/Edwards do not believe that gays should use the word marriage. Plain and simple.

By giving states the right to pass there own laws regarding marriage it will cause problems and fuel hate. Causing there quest for equal rights to be longer and harder - all because they want to use the word ‘marriage’.

Alejo,

You said … “Better something than less than nothing.”

George Bush wasn’t doing ‘nothing’. He was trying to give rights to gays and protect the majority of Americans who believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Maybe we don’t need a ban - just a different term for ‘Civil Unions’.

Dawn:

No other word is or can be comparable and acceptable… it’s not just the sound of it, it’s the cultural meaning. You can’t just pick a word and have it magically become equivalent to marriage. Try it, pick any word you like and imagine someone kneeling and asking their loved one to enter into it with them, and see if it carries even remotely the same emotional feeling as asking someone to marry them. And also, frankly, there’s no reason to create two institutions that are exactly the same thing under the law but for different pairings of genders unless the intent is to keep them from really conveying equal rights and protections in the future.

You say “dont’ try to share the word marriage with those of us who truely believe marriage is between a man and a woman.” If all the religions our society embraces in its plurality can share the institution of civil marriage despite clear differences in beliefs over the nature of marriage and the validity of the marriages of other religions, can society as a whole not be mature enough to share it with same-sex couples as well despite clear differences in their beliefs over homosexual unions? Surely the differences between them are no greater than the differences in underlying beliefs between a christian and a pagan marriage, for example, and beliefs alone are not a compelling reason to restrict access to civil marriage, which is an institution quite apart from belief and faith in that it can be entered into by persons of all religions and even atheists. What compelling reason is there to keep the very concepts of homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage separate in our terminology, save to imply that homosexual unions are inferior to heterosexual ones? We did not keep our terminology separated when it was mixed-race marriages which were being fought for, and most people believed they were wrong at the time, so I do not think we should enshrine such prejudice in our laws in this manner now. And trying to is fundamentally an uncivil thing to do.

Finally, you also said “I am not sure that Kerry/Edwards will give gay couples what they really want. They believe in giving the rights of marriage but not using the term marriage.”

You’re right, Kerry/Edwards probably will not give us what we really want unless we can persuade them to a more liberal view of marriage in our society. That said, can you honestly suggest that we should be supporting Bush, a president who wishes to ban gay unions on all levels, not just those using the word marriage but also civil unions as well? The FMA covers both if you examine the language about not conferring the status of marriage or the legal incidents thereof to unmarried couples. At least with Kerry/Edwards, we have some measure of support for our causes. Bush will never support them.

Misha:

You make some sense with this argument, however it is unlikely that Badnarik or Nader would ever be elected, so if gay rights is not the ONLY important issue we are voting on (and I don’t see how it could be the only one in this day and age) we would probably still be better served voting for Kerry/Edwards and also lobbying to change their point of view than we would be to throw our votes away for a third party candidate at this time. This is somewhat akin to the point of view of the Log Cabin republicans who remain republican while working for gay rights from within their own party, though I think we have far less opposition within the democratic party to reaching towards the same ends.

Also, the practical difference between Kerry and Bush on the issue of gay marriage is that Bush supported the FMA and Kerry never would have. The amendment being defeated doesn’t change who supported it and who opposed it. You can’t tell me that just because Bush didn’t get his way on this issue we should be supporting him and Kerry equally.

Are Edwards’ debate statements on the full faith and credit challenges correct? I thought there were federal cases in the system as a result of the latest round of activism.

A good position for either party to take would be to repeal the DOMA act that Clinton signed. Then the Federal government would be required to recognize any State sanctioned marriage. That would be in line with Cheney’s position.

Jarin- Its a difficult line between voting for the side that you think you might have some influence with and not being ignored/taken for granted. Take, for example, my position as a fiscal conservative and libertarian conservative type- Now if Kerry wins, my position is totally out the window (much like the gay marriage position under Bush). On the other hand, for the last four years, Bush has taken fiscal conservatives and more libertarian leaning conservatives for granted and has basically ignored all of their concerns. He did this assuming that they would never leave him because of the alterative (the democrats). I think Kerry is in a similar position vis-a-vis gay rights.

its a very very difficult issue- i am not pretending like I know the line between when you vote against the short term least-distasteful guy at the present moment and hoping to influence the future by showing your party that you cannot be taken for granted.

Jarin,

Because I am not Gay I will never fully understand the way gays feel. Same as I will never understand how people of different races feel.

I just can’t understand why ‘Civil Unions’ cannot be accepted at this time in history. Is that not what Bush offered?
I have tried to think of another term - why would something with the word love or joined not work?

I don’t think that Gay couples want to have to go to court every time they move to a state that does not support ‘Gay Marriage’ or ‘Civil Unions’. It will fuel hate.

I understand not wanting to be separated by a different term for marriage and I don’t.

It seems to me that people are proud to distinguish themselves as African American and Mexican American. There was a time in history when African Americans tried to bleach themselves - now they can be proud to call themselves African American.

Don’t ‘blend in’ - stand up and be proud. Distinguish yourselves from the crowd.

Why do you want to be able to get divorced anyway? Ha Ha ???

George:

Having the cases in the system does not make his statement inaccurate. All he said was that the precedent does not currently exist. If the cases are in the system, they have not yet been ruled on, and thus no precedents have been changed by those cases.

I agree, though… I would love to see the DOMA repealed and I wish that the Dems would have the guts to do just that rather than letting the federal government ignore gay marriage and civil unions even in cases where individual states sanction them.

Dawn -

This really comes down to basic legal concepts:

Separate but Equal

and

Church and State

We’ve had separate but equal laws in this country - and they don’t work. Having a black drinking fountain and a white drinking fountain, though both have water - is not the same as equal.

The only basis for the argument that marriage is between and man and woman is religious. Religious law has no place in the laws that govern the country. If you can find a legitimate legal reason to restrict the access of two legal adults to legal marriage - shoot.

As for Kerry/Edwards. I’m profoundly disappointed in both of them on this issue. As I was with Clinton. This will go down as missed oppertunity for both of them. I’m also not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water, there are a lot of issues out there.

Dawn,

What’s your basis for believing that a marriage is only between a man and a woman?

If any part of your answer involves religion that should be your cue that this is something that should not be engrained in the Constitution.

Someone please tell me why is it that separation between Church and State is the most easily ignored tenet that our country was founded upon?

Dawn:

First, no it’s not what Bush offered. The FMA, which Bush supported, contained language that would have prevented unmarried couples… including those in civil unions rather than in marriages… from being granted the legal incidents of marriage.

I’ve already explained why another term will not work. Culturally, it just isn’t the same thing any more than “legal guardian” is equivalent to “parent”. While the differences in rights and responsibilities of the two positions are theoretically small, the differences in cultural implication and emotion are huge. Imagine if all adoptive parents were required to use the term legal guardian because society decided parent carries the implication of shared genetic makeup and birth-parents didn’t want to share the term. That kind of stigma is what we’re talking about here.

You’re right, gay couples don’t want to have to go to court every time they move to a different state. They want to have the same rights in that regard as everyone else. Show me a candidate with a chance in hell of winning who supports that, and I’ll vote for him. Bush certainly doesn’t.

Finally, I have to say that I find your call to stand up and be different offensive in this context. Culturally, african americans and mexican americans have a very different heritage than white americans. It is that heritage that distinguishes them, and which they feel pride in. Homosexuality is not something that brings with it any such heritage, it does not make us different in any way other than who we feel desire for and who we fall in love with. “Gay Pride”, while a useful slogan for countering the feelings of shame and inferiority that many homosexuals have due to the stigmas of society and certain religions, is in no way comparable to racial pride. We aren’t that different than straight people, and frankly most of us are tired of being treated by the law and by society as if we are. My boyfriend likes sports. I have no fashion sense and couldn’t tie a necktie if my life depended on it, we cuddle up on a couch at night and watch tv, we do errands for each other, we have arguments like any other couple, the _only_ thing that differentiates us from straight couples is that we’re both men. Despite the stereotypes, there just isn’t anything different about us to really take especial pride in our gayness over… though I should hasten to point out that there also isn’t anything different about us to take shame in either. We’re just a normal couple, and we don’t hide that fact or go out of our way to flaunt it any more than any other couple does. What is it that makes you think we would feel more pride in who we are with a separate term that differentiates us from other couples?

As for your parting joke, why would we want to get divorced? It amazes me that you can value your own right to marry who you wish so little that you can actual make such a joke, while still maintaining that marriage itself is too important to those who think it should only be between a man and a woman to share the term with same-sex couples.

CER —

The reason the church/state separation tenet is so easily ignored in this country is because more than 95% of Americans claim to have a belief in God. There aren’t many other opinions that can claim such a majority. None, that I can think of.

Jarin,

Like I said — I can’t understand fully…
Please excuse my ignorance. I am not alone in this ignorance.

As for marriage and divorce - I have done both. They aren’t always what they are meant to be. Marriage isn’t always loving and divorce can get really bad. That was the implication of my ‘joke’ and since I didn’t explain and you haven’t been living in my shoes … it wasn’t meant as an insult.

People can be ignorant or hateful. I’m not hateful.
I was just trying to help find an easier way.

Please look at what Edwards said, or more precisely what he didn’t say, again …

Edwards: “But we don’t — we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

But we don’t — what ? Believe that gays should ever have the ‘right’ to be married?

I don’t know exactly what he stopped himself from saying but I can bet it was something that would offend the ‘gay vote’ they are trying so hard to win.

Actually, I have been wondering about this term “marriage”. Isn’t a legal union a “civil union”, and a religious union a “marriage”. I just recall, when I got married, that we had the religious ceremony, and then we did the paperwork so that the government would recognize us in a legal manner. My friends that went to the courthouse had a “civil union”, and the ones that went to a church had a “marriage”.

Isn’t that right? So I don’t see how the word “marriage” got into this in the first place. Allowing a gay couple to be married under the eyes of the law is still a “civil union”, a legal contract under the laws of the state. Getting married in a religous manner is the true definition of “marraige”. And incidentally, if a Muslim gets married, does a Christian recognize it? Well, technically people married under different religious doctrines are not recognized by other religions, but I don’t know anyone who gets in a tizzy about it.

But really, all “sins” are supposedly abhorrent to god, and gay marriage should be equally as bad as a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and Jewish marraige to a fundamentalist Christian. If you’re going to be intolerant, you might as well be consistent.

Finally, the whole state laws generally applies to age limitations. If I’m 14 and married in Georgia, that doesn’t mean Maine has to recognize the marriage. Some states require blood tests, some don’t, and some are requiring pre-marital counseling. So state differentation on marraige is useful.

But really, some pastors are already marrying gay couples before the “eyes of god”, so I think this argument is already moot.

Julia

Julia —

I sure wish you were right about the argument being moot! Unfortunately it looks to me like the argument is just beginning….

Alejo –

Okay, that might be why, but doesn’t that make it right?

People moved to the New World in order to escape religious persecution. Where will people run to next? Antarctica?

Dawn –

An “easier way” might be just to allow people to have the equality that’s promised by our Constitution.

Oops, I meant to say, does that make it right? Gah.

CER:
Could you please show me where “separation between Church and State” is found in the Constitution?
This will help me out alot, thanks.

CER —

Absolutely not. Popular does not mean right, even though we do live in a democracy. Rules like the separation of church and state were laid down during the formation of our government so they would be very difficult, if not impossible, to change, because they were inherently necessary for fair government.

Unfortunately the Constitution doesn’t make a damn bit of difference if it’s simply ignored. “Faith-based initiatives,” anyone?

Alejo-

What do you find unconstitutional about faith based initiatives?

Aritcle I, the Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

kctim —

If you read my posts about this issue, I never said that separation of church and state was specifically quoted in the Constitution. What I did say was that 1) a marriage ban “is something that should not be engrained in the Constitution” and 2) that the Constitution promised equality.

However, I will point out that it is widely recognized that the First Amendment as well as Article VI, Section III point to a … well, I cannot say it better than Thomas Jefferson, “a wall of separation between Church & State.” See his 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Or you can read his original draft which goes a bit further.

CER,

Again - my ignorance. I meant easier for everyone.

How will that make it any easier for the people who do not want gays to use the word marriage?

How will that make the majority of Americans accept it in their heads and in their hearts?

If it is already promised by the Constitution then why are you fighting for it? Because it really isn’t?

Just get married in a church that will marry you and put your spouses name on the insurance form. (Does it ask you if you are gay?)
Then if the insurance company refuses to pay - take them to court. Show your marriage certificate.
Put your spouses name on the tax form - I don’t remember having to say I am a female on that - if the IRS doesn’t accept it - take them to court. They probably wouldn’t even notice anyway.

Doesn’t the marriage license form say - husband & wife - not male and female? - I don’t really remember.

Go from the bottom up - instead of the top down.
I know you want ALL your rights now. This is what I meant by winning the marathon without running the whole race.
Kerry/Edwards won’t get the rights for you any more than Bush. Not the right to be called married anyway.

CER - I don’t know if your gay or not - what I said wasn’t really directed right at you.

Julia:

No, a legal union performed by the courts is a “civil marriage”, not a civil union.

You’re right to think that there is a difference between the civil state of being married and the religious one, but the difference is not the term used but the implications of each. Civil marriage conveys legal rights and responsibilities only, while religious marriage is the formal uniting of two people before the eyes of their god or gods, and does not carry any legal implications by itself.

You’re also right that the religious argument is moot, because not all religions oppose gay marriage and to recognize only their heterosexual marriages under the law while not recognizing their homosexual marriages would be discriminatory and would clearly be a governmental endorsement of a particular religious doctrine over the doctrines of other religions.

“If it is already promised by the Constitution then why are you fighting for it? Because it really isn’t?”

What? Are you implying that every group that has been forced to fight for the equality promised by the Constitution really wasn’t promised equality? I sincerely hope you are not.

My point is is that all citizens deserve equal rights under the law. As Jarin eloquently pointed out, gay couples are the same as straight couples. The only thing that separates them in the hearts and minds of the “majority of Americans” is a religious belief.

To me this isn’t about whether or not marriage is between a man and a woman. That is beside the point. It’s about people making their religious beliefs US law, which is inherently – yes, I’ll say it – UnAmerican.

CER —

Well said! As an amazingly apt editorial cartoon pointed out, the Consitution does not read, “We the Straight People….”

But yes, you’re right. Neither party is willing to do the right thing here. But I again agree with Jarin and Alejo. Better a party that is at least open to the idea, rather than one that shuts it down completely.

And also, I didn’t think you were directing statements at me. It just makes me a little angry.

Dawn:

Given that San Francisco recently had hundreds of gay marriages annulled, how can you suggest it’s all as simple as putting a same-sex partner’s name on the form after finding someone to marry you? This strikes me as willful ignorance of the problems faced by homosexuals in having their partnerships recognized under the law. If you do so and take the IRS to court, you will lose because legally same-sex marriages are not recognized at the moment.

Also, the promises of the constitution only hold weight if we can get the present courts to recognize and uphold them. The problem is not what the constitution promises, but what our courts are willing to acknowledge. It is only recently that the courts acknowledge a right to sexual privacy, and ruled that statues criminalizing homosexual sexual contact were unconstitutional… in a society where we need such judicial review of laws hundreds of years old, how can you suggest that merely having the promise in the constitution means the battle is already won?

Finally, I think finding an easier path to civil rights is fundamentally a contradiction. It’s never easy for a society to admit that it is wrong in its prejudices, and remove the ones it has enshrined in law. You talk about trying to find a way that is easier for both us and for those who do not wish to share the term marriage with us… would you have also supported trying to find an “easier” way for both the african americans and those who did not wish to share their schools and restaurants and bathrooms and public drinking fountains with them, when it was their community fighting for equal rights? I suspect you would have, and that “easier” way is simply segregation. The doctrine of “separate but equal”.

Actually, make that thousands of gay marriages, I lowballed the number there…

Oh, my G-d, PEOPLE!!!

I started to read and then didn’t have the strength (or time) to read all of the responses to Dawn’s statement.

First, a little about myself:

I am a female, graduate-degreed, home-owning, law-abiding, tax-paying, peace-loving, lipstic-wearing, poker-playing, gay trauma nurse who lives just outside of Ann Arbor, MI. Who gives a sh-t, right? I just want you to know the perspective from which the following comments are presented.

1) I have been with my partner for over 11 mostly glorious years.
Our families love us. Our neighbors and co-workers are good to us. Our friends(gay, straight, and everywhere inbetween) enjoy us and we them. We are unbelievably fortunate - and BLESSED-to have all of these fabulous people we have in our lives. Except
- a few of those folks, despite how well they know us, like us, and value us think that the whole gay mariage thing is going too far. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Republicans. A couple are even GAY Republicans, which completely baffles me! Anyway, my point is this: Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, Marriage. CALL IT WHATEVER YOU LIKE, but recognize that there are people of the same sex who DO intend to spend their lives together through thick and thin. Who DO have families with children through a variety of circumstances. Who DO contribute to their communities in a myriad of ways. Who ARE just, reasonable, and fair. Why discriminate against these people, who like myself, are just happy to be alive? You know- healthy, employed, fed, clothed, sheltered, educated, and motivated. We are all so much more alike than different. We want the same kinds of things in our lives -including the responsibilities and expectations.

2) My mother made the argument that if two men or two women can get “hitched”, then what is to stop a human from getting “hitched” to an animal, or polygamy from becoming a norm? To which I answered: ” Have fun taking your spouse, the goat, on a date” and “If someone wants to sign on to have more than one spouse - Knock yourself out!” Personally, I have my hands full with just the one and sex with the fish, fowl, and four-legged doesn’t seem like it would be that great.

3) The gay folk have always been around - and always will be regardless of law or attitude. How about an embrace? How about a “Welcome Mat”? Other than it being a different concept to what most, if not all, of us (myself included) have been raised with, is it really, truly, THAT big a deal?? We are all just trying to make it through day to day life intact.

4)A far as the religion thing:
I identify as a protestant Christian who goes to church occassionally. I consider myself well-informed on or at least interested in doctrinal matters. However, my “learned” experience with religion and spirituality contrasts with fair sharpness to my “life” experience with religion and spirituality.
What about trusting God ? What about trusting people to have confience in their personal relationships with God to know what is right for them individually in their own lives? Or what if they don’t believe the same or at all? LIVE AND LET LIVE. The rest will take care of itself in time. Amen, so be it, and let the sunshine in!

As for Kerry and Edwards - they may not actively work for me, but I KNOW Bush and Cheney stand to actively work against me.

Well, Peace to you, my politically minded friends!
Enjoy the rest of the day.

Amy

Like I said - ignorant. Getting mad at someone because they are ‘ignorant’ doesn’t help. Both sides end up mad. It doesn’t change that it won’t be ‘easy’ and it doesn’t change the right to be equal under the law.

Back to the reason for the post -

Right now I don’t see either party supporting Gay Couples being married. The majority of American people won’t support it. You know as well as I do that there are very few, if any, politicians that will stake their careers on supporting Gay Marriage.

I guess their is a belief that Kerry/Edwards will be better for Gay Rights. I just don’t see it. No it was the Democratic Party.

People do vote for one issue. People could be getting ready to vote just on this issue. Both Republicans and Democrats. Both for and against Gay Marriage.

Is it up to an Insurance company whether they will cover Gay couples? There isn’t any law against them doing it is there? I really don’t know. If there isn’t …
Get one to do it and the rest will follow for the business. Not easy but can be done I’m sure.
If there is a law against it of course it won’t work.

I wonder if Kerry/Edwards know that what they are proposing would take away some rights from Gay and Lesbian couples.

Completely false. You can’t take away rights they don’t have already. Sure, Kerry/Edwards don’t go as far as many of us progressives would like, but that’s a political reality - the country just isn’t ready for that yet.

As for Kerry and Edwards - they may not actively work for me, but I KNOW Bush and Cheney stand to actively work against me.

Exactly, Amy.

Dawn —

I don’t think anyone was trying to attack you personally. You’re just said some things that are leaving people slack-jawed.

You’re right, there aren’t many, if any, politicians willing to go out on a limb for gay rights. But the fact remains that homosexuals have to vote for, at this point in history anyway, the candidate who is least anti-gay. It’s a far cry from having an advocate, but it’s better than voting for someone who wants to pass a Constitutional Amendment that will destroy your rights for years to come, maybe forever.

As for the insurance companies, I work for one, so I can tell you that it is up to the companies whether they’ll cover gay couples or not. Mine doesn’t, most don’t, because the law doesn’t require them to. And that’s the approach most companies will take too.

CER:
I know you did not say seperation between church and state are in the Constitution.
In fact, that meaning was put into place by liberal judges who interpret but do not respect the Constitution. I was only saying that it is not a valid arguement to use on this issue.
If you are going to respect the Danbury address as meaning that people can be fired for speaking about and expressing their love for God in public places, like happens in todays USA, then you must surely respect that the founding fathers also said “all” citizens have a duty and a right to keep and bear arms.

As for this gay issue, why should anyone care whether gays get married or not. I think its gross, you may think they will go to hell for it. Well guess what, it doesnt matter what we think. If two gay people wish to get married, it is not our right to deny them theirs.

As for the topic of this post.
Dawn, you are absolutley correct. kerry “says” he is for it but does nothing to support it. Bush says he is against it and does nothing to support it. Which one is the hypocrite on this issue?

kctim -

Why isn’t it a valid argument?

Was Thomas Jefferson a judge?

Why are you arguing with me, when it seems to me, from the rest of your recent post, that we agree?

Dawn wrote:

Is it up to an Insurance company whether they will cover Gay couples? There isn’t any law against them doing it is there?

No, but the Republicans would like there to be such a law. The Republican platform says:

We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.

That is, benefits like insurance should be only for married couples, not couples involved in a civil union, and marriage will be exactly what the (Republican) Congress says it is.

It might be that Gays and Lesbians won’t win with Kerry/Edwards, but they will certainly loose under this platform.

Amy,

That was great. More people like you should speak out so that people who are ‘afraid’ of what Gays are doing may not be.

Everyone else,

I’m not afraid being gay will ‘rub off’ on me. I’m not afraid my marriage will be less important.

I’m ‘afraid’ forcing the issue is going to work to your disadvantage.

I’m afraid trying to change the minds of the wonderfully understanding, lovingly religious people who go to church 3 times a week by telling them they should just accept the rights of gay couples will create a bigger fight against you.

I’m not afraid to change my mind. More people like Amy would help.

I am not totally against gay marriage. Never have been. And guess what - I’m a registered Republican.

I think of marriage as a man and a woman - making babies - if I remember right only men and women can make babies - that is where part of your arguement is lost to some of us. Call that ignorant if you want. It doesn’t mean I said gay couples can’t raise children. They can probably do a better job than a lot of straight couples.

As long as others are made to feel like they are being forced to change - they won’t. In both Parties and all across America.

CER:
I am by no means arguing with you. Simply stating that the seperation of church and state reference you made does not hold water. It is just another opening for the oppossing side to use against your arguement. If you agree that we should use Jeffersons thoughts at Dansbury, then you must be willing to use his thoughts about arms.

Until religious people understand and respect the gay lifestyle AND gays understand and respect a persons religion, there will always be this divide.
Religion has no business in govt. you say. Well, over 70% of the population side with religion on this issue so, in a way, it does here.

You cannot force either side to accept the others views, but both sides can try to understand and respect the other side.

What I gather from Dawns posts is this:
Forcing something on people is alot harder than working towards a common ground.

I think I love you, Dawn!!

You make some outstanding and undeniable points:
1) T wo vaginas and two penises just can’t make a baby. When this is typically brought up as a defense for marriage recognition exclusively between members of the opposite sex I always think “Well, DUH!!” Followed closely by “So, what’s your point??” Because I don’t think men and women fall in love and intend to spend their lives together with producing progeny as the center piece of their relationships. Some even actively choose to not do so. Or can’t. This IS a totally separate issue from the CAPABILITY of rearing children.

2) Regarding the vehemently relgious folks who could be knocked over with a feather at the thought or discussion of two men or women getting “hitched”: Yes, it does and will continue to freak them out. Yet, keeping the issue quiet and hoping it will go away freaks out the gay folk! Who gets the “Freak Out” rights? Nothing ventured is nothing gained and, at 36 years of age, I am ready for the fight. Doesn’t mean I like it. Doesn’t mean I feel hatred for these folks. Frustration? Yes. Hatred? Never.

I agree forcing anyone to change is threatening and anger provoking. How do we take the sting out of this power struggle?
Seems to be a stale mate. An impasse. Both “sides”, if you will, feel utterly confident in their beliefs.

Off to work.

A.

kctim —

You speak as though someone who supports the separation of church and state must be against gun ownership. Why would you believe that? I support both issues.

And, whether people believe religion has no place in government or not SHOULD be irrelevant. Unless this country is ready to repeal that part of the Bill of Rights, of course.

And what exactly is this common ground?

kctim -

No matter what the % of population thinks about it, until you revoke the Constitution, it is a fact that religion has no business in American government. That is all I’m saying.

I do agree with Jefferson on the right to bear arms, so what’s your point?

From another recent thread on this issue…

How about his bullcrap lie about….There is no need for the marriage amendment…”no state has to honor a marriage from another state”
As an attorney HE KNOWS full well that if you get married in Ohio and move to Michigan, Michigan can’t say..”you aint married in this state”.
Marriage laws were written long before anyone thought a liberal judge would rule that “you can marry anyone, or anything, or mulitpals thereof.”
States can set rules for marriage, but once legally married in any state, it becomes federal!
This is a “slipperly slope” issue that anyone but the simple minded can see through.

What part of that don’t people understand ?

Alejo and CER-

You are both using a very liberal interpretation of the establishment clause as an argument against any state sponsorship of religion. Unfortunately, history does not support your cause.

The United States of America has never been a secular country. Religion and the freedom to practice it have been an integral part of our country from the beginning, and primarily Christian values are woven into all of our laws statutes, and procedures.

If you want a secular country, I suggest you support amending our constitution, because it does not support your position as currently written.

My point is, this is not a political issue. It is a personal and religious issue. The right to bear arms is in the Constitution, so therefore it is a political issue.
To over 70% of the population, being gay is immoral, it doesn’t matter which political side you are on. The majority of liberals and conservatives feel being gay is a sin and therefore is wrong. They feel this way because of their religion. You cannot force them to go against their religion though.
I agree, religion has no place in govt., but you have got to understand the religious side of this issue. Because of religion, liberals and conservatives vote for the same thing. Unbelieveable isn’t it. Because of this common bond, it forces religion into the picture. It must be dealt with that way also. Its not fair, but thats how it is.
Common ground? One thing to do would be to quit letting extremists like rosie o’ and her ilk represent gays. Become more moderate and try to work together with religious groups for a better understanding of both sides.

Link in support of above (especially Article VI. “Religion and the Federal Government”)

Library of Congress

As a matter of fact, not all gays are voting for Kerry/Edwards. I can’t say exactly how many will vote for Mr. Bush, but some are. And for those who are, myself included, our vote doesn’t constitute an endorsement of the president’s views on gay marriage; it does constitute an endorsement of his view that we must kill the gawd damn terrorists before they kill us.

Paul,

I checked out your link.

I just hoped that people are not falling for what Kerry/Edwards say about a lot of things.

Not just in what they say about Bush failing in everything he does but what they are claiming they will do if they take office.

Dawn,

Gays aren’t trying to “take away” the word marriage from heterosexuals. They want equal treatment and equal protection under the law, and that can ONLY be achieved by classifying their unions the same way as heterosexuals.

Now the “marriage” argument is merely semantic in my opinion, but so long as one is deemed “marriage” under the law, the other should be.

My personal opinion is that since “marriage” seems to be a religiously derived term, that classification should be left for the religious institutions to determine.

Under the eyes of the law, however, EVERYTHING should be considered a “civil union.” Because under the law, that’s really what they are. They’re not an expression of love or commitment (since it is not illegal to philander), they are really a status under the law that grants certain privileges.

So why not just call everything a “civil union”? That seems fairest to me. If your objection to gays using the term marriage is, ultimately, because you disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons, doesn’t it make sense to remove the religious aspect from the equation? Let your respective religious institution define its own terms.

Dawn, all I can say here is that your logic here is a bit twisted.

Misha is correct that the Admendment is nothing more than a red herring, there never was any real support for it. It is simply Bush being devisive as usual, and appealing to his right wing base. It’s CBN Bush.

Misha, are you advocating the protest vote? Isn’t Nader kind of a dead horse , too? Or is it simply a subterfuge to hide your Republican leanings?

George,

Amending the Constitution in what way? You don’t think that Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment is correct? That a wall between the church and state had been erected?

Even if you don’t agree with that, from what you said, “Religion and the freedom to practice it have been an integral part of our country from the beginning, and primarily Christian values are woven into all of our laws statutes, and procedures.”

And yet from your link, “Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support.”

Thus, any amendment seeking to ban gay marriages is wrong, because if my religion allows gay marriage and I got married to a woman, the law will be restricting my freedom to practice my religion AND, in the same vein, it will be preferring another religion over mine.

Either way, in my opinion (of course) the amendment is unConstitutional.

Nicely put, CER. I think the problem is that the people who keep talking about how the country’s laws are founded on religious beliefs are the people who believe that if the government does decide to back a particular religion it will be theirs, and they’re okay with that.

Everybody needs to go and read a little Joseph Campbell. Sure, many laws are based on religious rules. That’s because the religious rules were devised as societal controls to begin with and many of them happen to make sense.

CER-

Again I think you when you flip the logic around to exclude anything religious from government (verses excluding the Federal government from religion) you go against history and intent.

I will say that I think a President, as policy, could do just as you suggest. I believe Madison once denied a grant to a Baptist church using a similar argument. But I equally believe that Bush has the right, as policy, to support the faith based initiatives.

On gay marriage I do give Bush some credit on his position even though I do not and would not support such a ban. If the Constitution is a “living document” then it should live by amendment and not by reinterpretation. That does not bode well for minority positions like Bush’s but that is by design.

Just to be clear I feel that the DOMA is unconstitutional and the Federal Government should be required to recognize any marriage or union sanctioned by a State. We threw the 10th Amendment out with the (dirty) bathwater back in the sixties, and we continue to pay the price for it.

Okay. Let’s agree to disagree. Constitutional intent is something that’s been argued over for quite a while and we’re not going to settle it in blog comments.

I’m as straight as a board, but I just gotta say…Marriage is a union between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Putting the tag “…between men and women” is an attempt by narrow-minded people in this country to discriminate. People are mistaking marriage with religion, and therefore not separating religion and politics, a foundation this nation was built upon.

Its so sad, I really don’t know how to express my deep feeling for someone that has allowed the press to misguide. Do you realize that we are at war in America, Its not with who you think, but it with the media for our childrens’ soul. Today should you want to hire a young man to mow your yard, you can’t why, well its too hard work, it might hurt you ego, Oh I know son, one of your friends might ride by, so its ok I hire an illegal to mow my grass. Why do you think we’re over run with Hispanics, somebody has to do the physical labor, and surely our poor kids and the people on welfare can’t do it, so who, right! Why or how does this have anything to do with Gays and Lesbians voting for Kerry and Edwards. Its all a plan of the media to control us, just like the communists, they will bury our grandchildren, But its a stealth enemy. You cannot see it can you, but wait, remember, and watch what happens to your grandkids. They don’t know how to even change a car tire, they have to hire somebody to wash their car, mow the grass, and fix the plumbing. Can you believe its all connected. Of course is it. All one plan, make the people helpless, tell them they are mixed up and maybe they are homosexual. And now they spend all their time thinking and planning and working to fight a war against God’s Laws that they can never win. What an awesome trick of the media, I wonder who designed this plan, awesome. How can we get things back, only by turning from our sin, sloth and trusting one God, one creator, and one way. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and trust him with your life and death, and then believe he will save you from an awful life after death in hell full of memories and desires you’ll never fulfill. Then by believeing he was actually alive and died and shed his blood for you and rose again can you get out of this life alive.

Just FYI….

Go back up and re-read the first amendment. It says that the government cannot FORM a religion. Not that religious beliefs must be banned from all government. It’s the Freedom OF religion, not the Freedom FROM religion.

And as for CER’s comment “Thus, any amendment seeking to ban gay marriages is wrong, because if my religion allows gay marriage and I got married to a woman, the law will be restricting my freedom to practice my religion AND, in the same vein, it will be preferring another religion over mine>” All I have to say is….go tell it to the Mormans.

Rachael:

How can anyone have freedom to practice their own religion, if they do not also have freedom from being required to adhere to the tenets of the religions of others? Freedom of religion implies freedom from other religions, by nature.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sounds pretty secular to me. Religion and government are clearly viewed as separate entities here.

It does not say that religion has no place in America,just that a particular region cannot be favored by law.

Go forth and pray, just don’t attempt to pass a law advancing your religious beliefs, or abridging mine.

It’s absolutely amazing how awfully this blog has degenerated. These ridiculous interpretations of our first amendment really is just insane. You people realize you can’t just make shit up right?

And Gary Mitchell, holy hammer of god man, what the hell? Time to pull your head out of your ass, I have no idea where that post came from but I do know that I want nothing to do with it. In my esteemed opinion, it is you bible-thumping psychopaths that fuck up this country. If it were up to me, I’d deport every last one of you fuckers in favor of those hispanics you rail on about. Speaking of which, I believe this man says it best.

The marriage debate reminds me of a line from the movie The Best Man. Henry Fonda is trying to woo the support of a southern delegate. The southern delegate says: “We’ve made great strides in my state on the subject of desegregation.” Fonda: “Is there any desegregation in your state?” Delegate: “No, and god willing there never will be, but we’re making great strides.”

There is a fundamental illogic in the position of both major parties: “We believe in equal rights for gay people, except when we don’t believe in equal rights for gay people.” And this illogic cannot be resolved without a large, active and angry crowd of gays and their supporters in the streets demanding action now.

As America learned in the 50’s and 60’s in the struggle for civil rights for African-Americans, rights are not given, they are taken. Blind support by gay people of the Democratic Party has gotten us nowhere. DOMA, and “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” are legacies of a Democratic Party willing to be the lesser of two evils, not genuine leaders willing to stop injustice.

And as in the South in the 50s and 60s perhaps a more overt oppression would ultimately do the cause of gay rights more good. It was not well-meaning northern liberals who achieved rights for African-American, but the confrontation between intractable racists on one hand, and dedicated African-American men and women and children, on the other hand, unwilling to be crushed, unwilling to give up the struggle. One teenager crucified on a Wyoming fence did more for gay rights than a thousand cocktail parties hosted by wealthy and polite gay men and women in Los Angeles.

I am not calling for willing martyrs, but merely recognizing that equality for gay people will be achieved by confrontation, not accomodation.

Queer and Dis:
I am afraid you may be right with what you have posted. Drastic, but probably true.
One thing you must remember though, it was not just the racists against blacks seeking equal rights. It was racists against blacks and white sympathizers. Blacks alone did not do it. Until the people see being gay as a lifestyle and not a sin, it will be a long battle. Gays will not be able to get these rights alone, they will need the support of the people.

While you are correct in stating, kctim, that African-American civil rights could not have been achieved (are they achieved yet?) without the tacit or explicit approval of whites, for power in America rests and will continue to remain with white people (despite demographic changes); yet the impetus for change did not come in the main from white people. It was the willingness of African-Americans to confront racist southern governments, along with media attention, which informed potentially sympathetic whites of this injustice.

Similarly, the responsibility to achieve absolute equality for gay people must rest with gay people, not with straight people. The ignorant are not responsible for their ignorance, nor can straight, white people be faulted for not being oppressed. Until gay people themselves make it clear that injustice and inequality in any form will not be accepted, they will continue to be the house slaves of the Democratic party. Until gay people accept the responsibility of confrontation, how can they possibly expect apathetic, potentially sympathetic white, straight people to support their struggle.

QaD
I totally agree with you. Well said.
However, I by no means meant to imply approval or anything like that from whites. I was only stating that the bigger the support from the majority, the better the chances.
I know blacks led the way, but the understanding and support of the white majority helped them out.
I know gays need to lead the way also, but with the support and understanding of the majority, it will happen faster.
Unfortunetly, the majority of Americans are anti-gay right now. Mainly due to religious ideas that know no party line. But I do believe equal rights for gays are attainable, it will just take time.

You miss my point, kctim: straight, white power is irrelevant to the struggle for gay civil rights if gay people themselves are unwilling to confront authority. Gay people will never achieve their rights when the agenda is set by the religious right and a fearful center. Until the argument is turned from the politics of threatening sexuality, the the real issue will never be discussed: anything less than absolute equality is unjust. Unless there is the willingness of gay people to state their own case en masse, then gay people will continue to be buffetted by changing political winds

I do not see that willingness. Much of gay America appears sleepily content. “Things are getting better” they say with a yawn and have another apple martini. Until they are roused from their torpor things will continue on the same, a little better one year, a little worse the next, but in the end never achieving much.

I’ve lived in Texas for over 25 years.

This is redneck heaven. George appeals to them good old boys, cause he goes to their kind of churches, drank their kinnd of beer, and eats their kind of barbeque.

He tells the same kind of nigger and homo jokes to his close friends.

I’ve known a lot of guys like him. I’ve lived alone most of my life and don’t always have a girlfriend around. Funny thing is some of these kind of guys have made passes at me. Some of them are married and some have girlfriends.

I’m not gay and not a redneck, but I wear cowboy boots and I’m a single white guy over 40. It sure did surprise me when a roomate I had 25 years ago told me he was attracted to me, and understood that he wasn’t Marilyn Monroe or anything…. I gently declined his advances. Thank God, he was moving to Austin the next day.

I often wonder about those macho cowboy types. It makes me wonder about dear old GW and those coke and alcohol filled nights in Houston’s Montrose section when he lived here in the 70’s. There’s a whole ‘nother story about them Urban Cowboys that has yet to be told. I once heard someone say there ain’t nothing but steers and queers from Texas…could it be true?

they are just not listening… KERRY SAID in the debate he is for MAN and WOMAN marriages… OK THEY WILL VOTE FOR HIM so they could be married and because KERRY WILL do such a bad job with NATIONAL SECURITY we will have some type of a BOMB exploding in AMERICA, economy will go into depression, more jobs will be lost HEY BUT AT LEAST they will be able to get wedding rings… STUPID STUPID STUPID..
i`m a bush supporter because I believe he is a stronger person then KERRY and he will defend our country unlike KERRY WHO WANTS to use DIPLOMACY with TERRORISTS and give GIFTS to OUR ENEMIES like IRAN(we all know what i`m talking about NUCLEAR power)…

Umm that’s a different greg above..way different.

Ha! That’s funny. I thought you’d gone schizo!

Dawn? Stop spewing your right wing conservative backwards comments. What Kerry/Edwards are stating will pave the way for Civil Unions in America. Don’t twist the words!

SELFISH HETEROSEXUALS SHOULD GO TO HELL!