How hard do you think R's will push for ban on Gay Marriage?
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 11/06/04 - 17:41 Post subject: How hard do you think R's will push for ban on Gay Marriage?
So when is the next time we will hear anything about a ban on gay marriage from the Bush administration?
Cynically, I think we won't hear much about it until '06 congressional elections and the '08 Presidential election. After all if some state were to actually pass an amendment to ban gay marriage how will the republicans mobilize their 'moral values' contingent?
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/06/04 - 18:29 Post subject:
I dont know, the states themselves seem to be doing alright.
It seems like the people are speaking pretty clearly, that is until the courts start throwing out the laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/07/04 - 15:08 Post subject:
IMHO, they should just drop the whole idea of a Federal Marriage Amendment. Marriage is a state issue, let the states handle it themselves
As for hearing about it again, I agree Mega, two then four years. I think there are more important items that need to be addressed first prior to Gay Marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/07/04 - 22:54 Post subject:
the gay marriage issue was a red herring to deflect attention away from other more important issues. there are voices in the gay community that are saying they don't want/need marrage rights. On the other hand, there are plenty who are asking for some basic benefits that come only from marriage: hospital visitation rights (in cases that involve emergency care or intensive care, some partners have been denied visitation because they are not family or next of kin.) power of attorney in healthcare issues, or even the right to arrange the funeral of a partner. Civil unions could take care of these problems, but is there some reason that gays and lesbians should be denied the full benefits of marriage? history has proven (and courts have stated) that separate is not equal.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 08:23 Post subject:
Steve most benefits they want are a matter of policy for places not laws.
I believe if a lot of places change their policies it will help things.
At CHOP, they offer same sex partner benefits and more and more government and private agencies are starting to also.
I am just not sure where it would stop. I am okay absolutely with policy changes but call me bigotted or intolerant but I still believe marriage is between man and a woman period.
If two men or two women want to get together they can have legal documents drawn up expressing their wishes or granting the legal powers and entitlements.
Though I do think Americans will accept, civil unions, I do not think they are ready to accept Gay marriage. That seems to be a pretty fair majority as seen in the last election.
My only beef with civil unions is that, heterosexuals sould be able to do them to only to escape the marriage tax pentalty. That or the marriage tax needs to be abolished.
So you know I am not enciting arguments, just stating my view point. I no not intend to offend.
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 08:43 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | Steve most benefits they want are a matter of policy for places not laws.
I believe if a lot of places change their policies it will help things.
At CHOP, they offer same sex partner benefits and more and more government and private agencies are starting to also.
I am just not sure where it would stop. I am okay absolutely with policy changes but call me bigotted or intolerant but I still believe marriage is between man and a woman period.
If two men or two women want to get together they can have legal documents drawn up expressing their wishes or granting the legal powers and entitlements.
Though I do think Americans will accept, civil unions, I do not think they are ready to accept Gay marriage. That seems to be a pretty fair majority as seen in the last election.
My only beef with civil unions is that, heterosexuals sould be able to do them to only to escape the marriage tax pentalty. That or the marriage tax needs to be abolished.
So you know I am not enciting arguments, just stating my view point. I no not intend to offend. |
I think we can have this discussion without offending each other. I am not sure how i feel about it just yet, but you can tell that I am leaning toward same-sex marriage. We have seen in the past that separate but equal isn't always equal, and sometimes it takes a law to enforce policy changes. 40 years ago, a lot of people in our country thought that blacks and women were second class citizens and we didn't need any laws to grant them equality. I really think we are in the beginning stages of this, and many years from now we'll wonder what we were arguing about.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 09:54 Post subject:
Three points:
1. I think the Courts do have a role to play in this. These are uncomfortable topics for many, but ones that are crucial to issues of equality. Joe, how many states would have voted for maintaining 'seperate but equal' status for minority children after Brown v. Board of ED. in 1954? Or for that matter, Loving v. Viriginia in 1967 which struck down laws banning interracial marriage? Solid voting majorities could have been found throughout the nation that went against these landmark decisions, but the Courts maintained that these cases impacted the fundamental rights of certain citizens, and so made highly unpopular decisions.
2. We could avoid the whole issue if we had 'civil marriages' and 'religious marriages.' This simply acknowledges that marriage today is both a) a religious sacrament to many, and b) a legal contract with rights and responsibilities. In almost every other Western country people have two ceremonies, if they choose. One blessed by their religion, and one for the state that grants the legal rights of marriage. In Europe, if you're married in the church but not the courthouse, you may save your soul, but have no legeal standing until you do the other ceremony. No church would be forced to acknowledge gay marriages if they didn't want to, but, equally important, those churches that do support gay marriage would not be stopped from marrying couples, as they currently are.
3. The Gay Marriage Amendment is nothing more than a pandering sop. They need supermajorities to get such legislation out of the Congress, and they don't have enough R's in the House who would go along with it, even if every D voted against it. That doesn't even take into count the Senate. So its DOA legislation that's just trying to whip up the base.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 09:59 Post subject:
RR,
Your point #2 is exactly my view on it. I'm still confused by what a "civil union" is and how exactly it is different than marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 10:03 Post subject:
I am okay with point #2, and that would be a good compromise. My question though, would a marriage ceremony performed in a church/synagogue/mosque, satisfy the civil requirement.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 10:06 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | RR,
Your point #2 is exactly my view on it. I'm still confused by what a "civil union" is and how exactly it is different than marriage. |
I thinks it's signing the marriage certificate at the courthouse---even religious weddings in a church have to sign it to be "official". It is already two separate acts.....so in essence nothing really needs to change. We just need the people at the courthouse not to notice that it's two people of the same sex signing and everyone's lives can go on as normal.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 10:19 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: | | I am okay with point #2, and that would be a good compromise. My question though, would a marriage ceremony performed in a church/synagogue/mosque, satisfy the civil requirement. |
Using the European model, no. It would require two separate events. What's odd is how these countries have much greater enforcement of separation of church and state than we do, despite our Constitution.
Of course, I think we started our tradition based on the vastness of our land. It was hard enough to get a priest to a marriage ceremony, let alone a judge, too, for much of our nation's development. So we settled on the 'by the power vested in me by the State of ____' solution.
So let's just decouple them again. The benefit of the two disctinct events IMHO is that it would be a clear delineation for those folks who worry about the sanctity of marriage based on their religious worldview.
Also IMHO, civil marriage=civil unions, just avoids using the hot-button 'M' word.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 10:27 Post subject:
I'll have to check the tape, but I don't remember our priest saying by the power vested in me, by state of PA.
I like your idea Rex, I think its a good solution to the marriage question
The logistics of two ceremonies would have to be worked out. Personally I think having it done twice is redundant. A detail that can be worked out though I am sure
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 10:48 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: |
So let's just decouple them again. The benefit of the two disctinct events IMHO is that it would be a clear delineation for those folks who worry about the sanctity of marriage based on their religious worldview.
Also IMHO, civil marriage=civil unions, just avoids using the hot-button 'M' word. |
I don't think they even need to be decoupled, and I'm not entirely comfortable with taking the "M" word out of the equation. The "M" word denotes a higher level of commitment to me. There can be a civil marriage done on a beach or at the courthouse, and we call that heterosexual couple "married". It wouldn't feel right to not be able to use the "M" word because they did not have a religious ceremony.
Besides, after Sandy and I walked down the aisle at the end of the ceremony, we went to the church's office and signed the state's marriage license so it could be a legal marriage. We paid our $85 and had the paperwork sorted out. So, it was both a religious ceremony which was for us, for our family, and to be married in the "eyes of God". But, it was also a civil ceremony which could have been performed in a parking lot by the 7/11 because we signed all the legal papers with witnesses that we needed to.
My former friend Earl was married by a justice of the peace at the courthouse. It is a "civil union" but it is also a "marriage" Why should two women have to have their relationship be called a "civil union" instead of a "marriage".
I think that whenever this discussion is going on in congress or in government or when this is being presented to tbe public, there should be some sort of explanation that individual churches should still retain the right to marry whomever they choose and can deny that ceremony to whomever they choose. Sandy and I couldn't get married at a particular chuch because we both weren't Catholic. Then the explanation should continue to say that while religious institutions have the right to accept or deny the ability to be married in that institution, the state can provide a civil marriage with all the rights provided by law.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 10:57 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: |
Of course, I think we started our tradition based on the vastness of our land. It was hard enough to get a priest to a marriage ceremony, let alone a judge, too, for much of our nation's development. So we settled on the 'by the power vested in me by the State of ____' solution.
|
Just to put a little historical perspective on it, the sheer size of our land and the limited number of governmental/religious officials was one reason that common-law marriages became so prevalent in this country. Because common-law marriage is ripe for abuse and is no longer necessary, it's been abolished in several states, recently right here in the Commonwealth.
Interesting how the state has no problem saying "You now need to make it legal by coming to the courthouse" to one group and "You can't make it legal by coming to the courthouse" to another.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 11:03 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: |
I don't think they even need to be decoupled, and I'm not entirely comfortable with taking the "M" word out of the equation. The "M" word denotes a higher level of commitment to me. There can be a civil marriage done on a beach or at the courthouse, and we call that heterosexual couple "married". It wouldn't feel right to not be able to use the "M" word because they did not have a religious ceremony. |
Oh, I agree personally. I just think the term civil union was bantered about first because it avoided the M word, and was less inflammatory.
| Quote: |
I think that whenever this discussion is going on in congress or in government or when this is being presented to tbe public, there should be some sort of explanation that individual churches should still retain the right to marry whomever they choose and can deny that ceremony to whomever they choose. Sandy and I couldn't get married at a particular chuch because we both weren't Catholic. Then the explanation should continue to say that while religious institutions have the right to accept or deny the ability to be married in that institution, the state can provide a civil marriage with all the rights provided by law. |
Absolutely! That's the crux of the biscuit.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
