Obama on same-sex marriage

[Kryzbyn]

I'm ok with getting gov't out of marriage.
Have legal jargon covered by a civil union, and leave the definition of marriage to be a religious ceremony. For everyone, equally.
I mean we already do this now, we'd just be able to finally quit it with the discrimination vs gays.

[GentleGiant]

Kryzbyn wrote:

If you think all conservatives or 'right wingers' are on board with DOMA, you're mistaken.

I don't, I know there are "reasonable" people on the right side of the aisle. ;-)

However, they seem to be in such small numbers that they're unable to sway any kind of politics. Maybe because of lack of numbers, maybe because of not wanting to raise a ruckus, maybe because of fear of ostracism, maybe because of...???
I might not have looked the right places, but where is the big conservative campaign against DOMA and FOR gay marriage?

[Kryzbyn]

Sadly I don't think there is a vocal one, I know though that there are alot of gay conservatives who are for equal marriage (I'm starting to dislike the term gay marriage) and against DOMA. But there are very few of them. I imagine it's hard to be a fiscal conservative and gay. What party would they belong to? I have been pretty vocal here and on facebook, whenever someone tries to use Christ or legislation to refuse gays the ability to marry. It's hard to refute 'equal protection' arguments, and Christ's actual teachings. So I think folks like us that are conservative and Christian trying to set the record straight (no pun intended) will have success in the end.

[pres man]

Yeah, I don't see large groups of democratic congresspeople working to overturn it either. As most of the amendment votes show, there are people on both sides of the aisle that are happen to keep equal marriage from occurring.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I'm ok with getting gov't out of marriage.

Have legal jargon covered by a civil union, and leave the definition of marriage to be a religious ceremony. For everyone, equally.
I mean we already do this now, we'd just be able to finally quit it with the discrimination vs gays.

I'm not sure that would end anything. Or that those religiously opposed to same sex marriage would go along with it.

After all, some churches and other religious groups would happily perform same sex marriages, so you would still have married gay couples, which would destroy the institution of marriage or whatever it is they think will happen.
Many of these groups do not simply want the government to stay out of religious affairs, they want their religious rules enforced.

[Kryzbyn]

Well we already have to get a license to marry, which currently has to be signed by an officiator of the marriage, whether its a judge or a pastor, priest, etc.
We change it to:
In order to get married, you must get the license, and have a judge sign it. Whamo, you have the legal benefits of being married for your civil union.
If you then, also, want to have a marriage ceremony in a church, go for it.
This goes for hetero or gay couples.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Well we already have to get a license to marry, which currently has to be signed by an officiator of the marriage, whether its a judge or a pastor, priest, etc.

We change it to:
In order to get married, you must get the license, and have a judge sign it. Whamo, you have the legal benefits of being married for your civil union.
If you then, also, want to have a marriage ceremony in a church, go for it.
This goes for hetero or gay couples.

No, I get that. I see how it works.

I'm saying it's not an easier political solution. A lot of the groups opposed to gay marriage will still oppose this, because gays will still wind up being married.

There's even opposition to civil unions for gays. The amendment in NC bans recognition of anything but heterosexual marriage, no civil unions or domestic partnerships, even for straights.

[GentleGiant]

pres man wrote:

Yeah, I don't see large groups of democratic congresspeople working to overturn it either. As most of the amendment votes show, there are people on both sides of the aisle that are happen to keep equal marriage from occurring.

Sadly that is true.

If you look at people outside of congress, however, it seems that those working to get same-sex marriage approved are mostly of the non-conservative bent.
Some Democrats (politicians that is) are still in the "claws" of their religious constituents and some of them are probably opposed to it on religious grounds (seeing how there are no non-religious reasons to not allow same-sex marriage and end DOMA).

[NPC Dave]

Auxmaulous wrote:

Interesting article from CNN on the Gay/Bible issue. The author debunks various commonly cited sources from the Bible in the argument against homosexuality.

link.

That's extremely generous calling it a debunking. It looks more like the author reading his own opinions into an ancient text that was written by someone without modern day views or reference frame.

While the Gentile cultures of the ancient world tolerated homosexuality to a greater or lesser extent, Jews considered homosexual acts as a sin, regardless of why. Paul draws on this very conventional(at the time) Jewish polemic.

And while the author attempts to address Romans 1, he does not even attempt to address Paul's other condemnations of homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. That is because he can't, as the moral condemnation is so explicit and clear he can't try and play word games to pretend it is only social(and not moral) condemnation.

The proper response to someone citing the Bible as a reason the government should prevent homosexual marriage is to point out that the Bible makes no attempt to suggest marriage is a government institution in the first place. Not re-write the Bible with rationalizations.

[thejeff]

GentleGiant wrote:

pres man wrote:

Yeah, I don't see large groups of democratic congresspeople working to overturn it either. As most of the amendment votes show, there are people on both sides of the aisle that are happen to keep equal marriage from occurring.

Sadly that is true.

If you look at people outside of congress, however, it seems that those working to get same-sex marriage approved are mostly of the non-conservative bent.
Some Democrats (politicians that is) are still in the "claws" of their religious constituents and some of them are probably opposed to it on religious grounds (seeing how there are no non-religious reasons to not allow same-sex marriage and end DOMA).

It's certainly true that Democratic politicians aren't working as actively (if at all) for same sex marriage as I would like. Whether that's due to political cowardice or personal, probably religious, convictions .

It's also true that the overwhelming majority of politicians actively working to ban it, particularly on the state level where the action currently is, are Republican.

[Kryzbyn]

Well, I think the NC amendment should be tossed out as unconstitutional, and I think it will be should it ever get to the SCOTUS.
One can not simply use popular vote to deny constitutional protections.

[Irontruth]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I'm ok with getting gov't out of marriage.

Have legal jargon covered by a civil union, and leave the definition of marriage to be a religious ceremony. For everyone, equally.
I mean we already do this now, we'd just be able to finally quit it with the discrimination vs gays.

So I can start my own religion that does same-sex unions, call it 'marriage' and everyone will acknowledge them as such, just like other religious ones?

[Kryzbyn]

Why would they not? Are pagan marriages recognized now? Buddhist ones?
The only snag is the same sex part, which currently, no it would not be recognized.
My plan is, legally it would be recognized, and the pastafarian wedding ceremony is just window dressing.

[thejeff]

Irontruth wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

I'm ok with getting gov't out of marriage.

Have legal jargon covered by a civil union, and leave the definition of marriage to be a religious ceremony. For everyone, equally.
I mean we already do this now, we'd just be able to finally quit it with the discrimination vs gays.

So I can start my own religion that does same-sex unions, call it 'marriage' and everyone will acknowledge them as such, just like other religious ones?

You don't even have to start your own. There are already churches happy to do same-sex unions. Legal marriages where it's allowed, civil unions or simply religious ceremonies with no legal significance where it's not.

None of this makes the anti-gay marriage folks happy. They don't want the government out of religious affairs, they want it to enforce their rules.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Well, I think the NC amendment should be tossed out as unconstitutional, and I think it will be should it ever get to the SCOTUS.

One can not simply use popular vote to deny constitutional protections.

In the long run yes. When the SC decides that gay marriage is protected Constitutional Right, then NC's amendment will be superseded. That's not going to happen for awhile yet, certainly not with the current court.

[Auxmaulous]

NPC Dave wrote:

Auxmaulous wrote:

Interesting article from CNN on the Gay/Bible issue. The author debunks various commonly cited sources from the Bible in the argument against homosexuality.

link.

That's extremely generous calling it a debunking.....

Well, I should have carefully stated "attempts to debunk" or "interprets" or ...wtf is the point? You are going to take your own spin to support your own view no matter what the guy wrote.

I must remember to be more neutral in my language when posting here so as to not draw the ire of Left-wing/Right-wing wackos.

-

Thanks for checking me on that.

[ciretose]

Kryzbyn wrote:

If you think all conservatives or 'right wingers' are on board with DOMA, you're mistaken.

The vast majority of those running for office are. And they are the ones who actually decide what the laws are.

So that kinda matters.

[ciretose]

Irontruth wrote:

So I can start my own religion that does same-sex unions, call it 'marriage' and everyone will acknowledge them as such, just like other religious ones?

I was married by a guy who got his certification online from the Universal Life Church. He could have just gotten an officiant certificate.

So yeah.

The state doesn't care how you are married, as long as you are agreeing to the legal standing that comes with it.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

Barack Obama's B@~$!@!@ Gay Marriage Announcement

Mostly, I just like the title.

[Irontruth]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Why would they not? Are pagan marriages recognized now? Buddhist ones?

The only snag is the same sex part, which currently, no it would not be recognized.
My plan is, legally it would be recognized, and the pastafarian wedding ceremony is just window dressing.

I was just asking for clarification.

Overall, I'm okay with it, but I don't see why it has to be a fight over why the word in the law books is "marriage" or "civil unions". It seems like if you're going to make civil unions exactly the same as marriage, it would just be simpler to use the word that people are more familiar with using in every day language, marriage, instead of inventing a new term that people have to be assured has the same legal definition as the old term.

[meatrace]

Irontruth wrote:

It seems like if you're going to make civil unions exactly the same as marriage, it would just be simpler to use the word that people are more familiar with using in every day language, marriage, instead of inventing a new term that people have to be assured has the same legal definition as the old term.

Because that's not what he's saying at all, from what I can tell.

Make civil union a completely legal thing, like power of attorney or filing for change of address or wtf ever. Then, since it's solely a legal process, it has to be applied legally without all the baggage of marriage being: between a man and a woman, for raising children, etc.

Then, if you're a religious person, get married however you see fit.

You could just do one or the other. If you're only interested in the legal benefits of marriage or aren't religious then just file for civil union (or whatever). If you're religious, or just want to declare your commitment in a ceremony with friends, JUST have a wedding and be financially separate.

Marriage needn't be an all-in-one package that it currently is.

[thejeff]

meatrace wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

It seems like if you're going to make civil unions exactly the same as marriage, it would just be simpler to use the word that people are more familiar with using in every day language, marriage, instead of inventing a new term that people have to be assured has the same legal definition as the old term.

Because that's not what he's saying at all, from what I can tell.

Make civil union a completely legal thing, like power of attorney or filing for change of address or wtf ever. Then, since it's solely a legal process, it has to be applied legally without all the baggage of marriage being: between a man and a woman, for raising children, etc.

Then, if you're a religious person, get married however you see fit.

You could just do one or the other. If you're only interested in the legal benefits of marriage or aren't religious then just file for civil union (or whatever). If you're religious, or just want to declare your commitment in a ceremony with friends, JUST have a wedding and be financially separate.

Marriage needn't be an all-in-one package that it currently is.

So under this approach, would there be any actual restrictions on marriage? Since there are no legal effects, nor is there any actual official paperwork showing you're married, would the government restrict the use of the term to people actually married in a religious ceremony? Could they? Should they? And who defines religion or religious ceremony?

What stops a couple who've only been "civil unioned" from calling themselves married?

Unless you restrict the use of the word married to some form of official religious process, you haven't separated religious marriage from secular civil unions, you've made it meaningless.

And this is all besides the larger point that it won't satisfy most of the people opposed to gay marriage. How could it? Gays will be able to get married! What do they get out of dropping their opposition?
If it's not easier to do politically, why go to the bother of changing everything. Just keep fighting for same sex marriage.

[TheWhiteknife]

ciretose wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

If you think all conservatives or 'right wingers' are on board with DOMA, you're mistaken.

The vast majority of those running for office are. And they are the ones who actually decide what the laws are.

So that kinda matters.

This, I agree with. Dont get me wrong, I think there are a few more pressing matters....ie assassinations, wars, and indefinite detentions and such. IMO, if the Republican party wants to keep pressing neocon after neocon as their nominees, they deserve to lose every election they run for.

Someone in some thread mentioned the difference between actual conservatives and the tripe that the republican party has been putting out over the last 3-4 decades. I, for one, would like to see a return to actual conservatism.

[thejeff]

TheWhiteknife wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

If you think all conservatives or 'right wingers' are on board with DOMA, you're mistaken.

The vast majority of those running for office are. And they are the ones who actually decide what the laws are.

So that kinda matters.

This, I agree with. Dont get me wrong, I think there are a few more pressing matters....ie assassinations, wars, and indefinite detentions and such. IMO, if the Republican party wants to keep pressing neocon after neocon as their nominees, they deserve to lose every election they run for.

Someone in some thread mentioned the difference between actual conservatives and the tripe that the republican party has been putting out over the last 3-4 decades. I, for one, would like to see a return to actual conservatism.

Agreed. You might find that surprising since I'm fairly far to the left of the Democratic party these days.

I'd like to see the Democrats in charge and move back to the left, but I appreciate the need for a good opposition party. The current Republican party is a nasty combination of grifters, con-men, looters, and the really scary true believers they've conned into buying the bill of goods they're peddling.

A real, sane opposition party would be good for the country. I don't know if it's going to be the Republicans though. I don't know if they can fix themselves.

[meatrace]

thejeff wrote:

So under this approach, would there be any actual restrictions on marriage? Since there are no legal effects, nor is there any actual official paperwork showing you're married, would the government restrict the use of the term to people actually married in a religious ceremony? Could they? Should they? And who defines religion or religious ceremony?

What stops a couple who've only been "civil unioned" from calling themselves married?

Of course not, why would you restrict that? That's like having laws about who can call themselves Jewish. The religion defines religious ceremony.

Look, we have a birth certificate and we have baptism. They're separate things for separate purposes.

Nothing would stop someone from calling themselves married. Nothing stops people right NOW from calling themselves married. Nothing stops me from calling myself the king of spain. This is a very very silly question.

[meatrace]

TheWhiteknife wrote:

IMO, if the Republican party wants to keep pressing neocon after neocon as their nominees, they deserve to lose every election they run for.

You heard it here first folks, TheWhiteKnife endorses Barack Obama for president!

;)

[thejeff]

meatrace wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So under this approach, would there be any actual restrictions on marriage? Since there are no legal effects, nor is there any actual official paperwork showing you're married, would the government restrict the use of the term to people actually married in a religious ceremony? Could they? Should they? And who defines religion or religious ceremony?

What stops a couple who've only been "civil unioned" from calling themselves married?

Of course not, why would you restrict that? That's like having laws about who can call themselves Jewish. The religion defines religious ceremony.

Look, we have a birth certificate and we have baptism. They're separate things for separate purposes.

Nothing would stop someone from calling themselves married. Nothing stops people right NOW from calling themselves married. Nothing stops me from calling myself the king of spain. This is a very very silly question.

It's not a silly question, though that's the obvious answer.

It gets to the heart of what the religious people fighting against same sex marriage want. They want marriage to be defined as their religion defines it. Not just for people in their particular church, but for everyone.
This "fix" does the exact opposite. It lets everyone define for themselves what they want to call a marriage.

What do they get out of this approach? Why should they support it?

[meatrace]

thejeff wrote:

What do they get out of this approach? Why should they support it?

Nothing. But screw them.

I was just pointing out that people who have civil unions right now can call themselves married, which has been a sort of flippant defense of this sort of discrimination for a while. Nonetheless, as long as government holds the reins on marriage, and can determine who can be married and who can't, it has to be applied equally.

You'd think conservatives would be for this approach, since it gets government out of marriage :)

[thejeff]

meatrace wrote:

thejeff wrote:

What do they get out of this approach? Why should they support it?

Nothing. But screw them.

I was just pointing out that people who have civil unions right now can call themselves married, which has been a sort of flippant defense of this sort of discrimination for a while. Nonetheless, as long as government holds the reins on marriage, and can determine who can be married and who can't, it has to be applied equally.

I'm all for the "screw them" approach and I don't have anything against this from a theoretical "If I was dictator" line of thought.

Practically speaking though, it's usually proposed as a kind of compromise: Secular government gets to have civil unions with all the legal benefits for everyone and the religious right gets to keep the term "marriage" in it's traditional use. I could see some going for that deal, if they could keep marriage in the "one-man/one-woman" definition. But they can't keep the term.
So it's going to be a bloody fight either way. And I think this one would be harder than just adding same-sex marriage would be. With this approach, you really are changing the institution of marriage, just like they always claim.
It would be a harder fight and I just don't see the benefits.

[TheWhiteknife]

meatrace wrote:

TheWhiteknife wrote:

IMO, if the Republican party wants to keep pressing neocon after neocon as their nominees, they deserve to lose every election they run for.

You heard it here first folks, TheWhiteKnife endorses Barack Obama for president!

;)

If you were here right now, I'd throw something at you. 8p

I agree with theJeff, tho. We definitely do need a (sane) opposition party (or 2 or 3!). I am conservative, in the sense that I believe in actually conserving things like money or civil liberties. There is very very little that is conservative about most of today's elected republican party.

[Darkwing Duck]

IF Civil Unions were changed so that all rights and benefits marriage provides, civil unions provide as well, I'd be okay with this option. Its easy enough to find a church that will perform a marriage ceremony for LGBT couples.

But bigots don't want that. Thats why Romney, Obama, et al haven't offered it.

[Erik Mona]

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Do as thou wilt.

(Nudge, nudge, little Alan Moore for you there--didn't get a chance to bring him up re: polygamy up above)

Ahem.

Alan Moore got it from Aleister Crowley, who got it from Rabelais.

I think all three of them would have the same opinion on this topic, incidentally.

[Detect Magic]

Marriage is a religious tradition. Why it confers legal benefits is beyond me. That's what a civil union is/ought be for. (AKA - what ever happened to separation of church and state?)

[BigNorseWolf]

Yes, but one would complain about the movie lacking subtext, the other would complain that no one found him offensive anymore, and the other is too busy swimming laps in the monastery pool and going wheeee over his tax free palace.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

Erik Mona wrote:

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Do as thou wilt.

(Nudge, nudge, little Alan Moore for you there--didn't get a chance to bring him up re: polygamy up above)

Ahem.

Alan Moore got it from Aleister Crowley, who got it from Rabelais.

I think all three of them would have the same opinion on this topic, incidentally.

I was willing to stick out my tongue and throw down more Grateful Dead links and leave it at that when Citizen Meatrace said it, but if the frickin' Publisher of Paizo is now going to call me out, then I have to say:

It looks like we can't have in-jokes anymore, Hitdice.

What we need, now, is for Gargantua to step on the headquarters of the National Organization for Marriage.

Hee hee!

EDIT: It would probably be solipsistic to expect Citizen Mona to be familiar with Doodlebugspeak, so Hee hee! = ;)

[Hitdice]

In jokes? It didn't climb up and it didn't fly off!

[Evil Lincoln]

TheWhiteknife wrote:

I, for one, would like to see a return to actual conservatism.

***recursion limit reached***

[Thunderslash]

If the President had endorsed this 1 or 2 years ago instead of simply to help his numbers during an election cycle I would have been impressed. Now I am simply disgusted. And the media and the Left don't see this as what it is? Amazing.

[Kirth Gersen]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

TheWhiteknife wrote:

I, for one, would like to see a return to actual conservatism.

***recursion limit reached***

(No kidding here, btw) I'm impressed, EL -- you found a word I actually had to look up, and used it in an agile, pithy manner with great precision. Very nicely done.

[thejeff]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

TheWhiteknife wrote:

I, for one, would like to see a return to actual conservatism.

***recursion limit reached***

(No kidding here, btw) I'm impressed, EL -- you found a word I actually had to look up, and used it in an agile, pithy manner with great precision. Very nicely done.

To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

[thejeff]

Thunderslash wrote:

If the President had endorsed this 1 or 2 years ago instead of simply to help his numbers during an election cycle I would have been impressed. Now I am simply disgusted. And the media and the Left don't see this as what it is? Amazing.

Part of the reason is that it isn't a clear political winner. It'll boost his popularity among those who'll vote for him anyway and get him a short term funding bump, but it could also hurt him among the independents he needs in swing states.

I'm sure there's political calculation involved. There is in anything a serious politician does. He may be honest about his opinion having changed. It may just be the first time the political impact didn't look horrible.
It may not be a great act of political courage, but it's an important milestone none the less.

[TOZ]

thejeff wrote:

To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

I Googled it.

[Irontruth]

Thunderslash wrote:

If the President had endorsed this 1 or 2 years ago instead of simply to help his numbers during an election cycle I would have been impressed. Now I am simply disgusted. And the media and the Left don't see this as what it is? Amazing.

Obama has supported gay marriage since 1996. There is even a news article from 1996 where he is quoted as saying as such. If anything, you should be annoyed that he hid his true intentions up until now, not that he has suddenly shifted his viewpoints to fit his campaign.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

TheWhiteknife wrote:

I, for one, would like to see a return to actual conservatism.

***recursion limit reached***

Wassup, Evil Lincoln?!?

When did you get back?

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Thunderslash wrote:

And the media and the Left don't see this as what it is? Amazing.

Have you been reading my links?

[LazarX]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Well, I think the NC amendment should be tossed out as unconstitutional, and I think it will be should it ever get to the SCOTUS.

One can not simply use popular vote to deny constitutional protections.

I'm not sure where the amendment violates the North Carolina Constitution.

[meatrace]

thejeff wrote:

To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

I believe that's what they call a double redundancy I believe.

[meatrace]

Thunderslash wrote:

If the President had endorsed this 1 or 2 years ago instead of simply to help his numbers during an election cycle I would have been impressed. Now I am simply disgusted. And the media and the Left don't see this as what it is? Amazing.

What is the most amazing to ME is the conservative media and talk shows doing a 180 in under 24 hours on an issue they've been pretty staunch on.

Before now, it was bandied about that most Americans don't want gay marriage, that civil unions are fine, yadda yadda.

Now, Barry O says "gay marriage is A-OK" with me, and the conservative media turns around and says "well he's only saying that to gain POPULARITY, so he isn't on the WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY" etc.

[ciretose]

TheWhiteknife wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

If you think all conservatives or 'right wingers' are on board with DOMA, you're mistaken.

The vast majority of those running for office are. And they are the ones who actually decide what the laws are.

So that kinda matters.

This, I agree with. Dont get me wrong, I think there are a few more pressing matters....ie assassinations, wars, and indefinite detentions and such. IMO, if the Republican party wants to keep pressing neocon after neocon as their nominees, they deserve to lose every election they run for.

Someone in some thread mentioned the difference between actual conservatives and the tripe that the republican party has been putting out over the last 3-4 decades. I, for one, would like to see a return to actual conservatism.

And I would actually vote for a conservative. Huntsman would have made it a really hard choice for me.

[LazarX]

Detect Magic wrote:

Marriage is a religious tradition. Why it confers legal benefits is beyond me. That's what a civil union is/ought be for. (AKA - what ever happened to separation of church and state?)

Legal benefits or more accurately Legal status, is what the core issue is about. They define whole swaths of important issues. Such as who counts as "next of kin" when critical medical decisions need to be made. Joint property issues, Even how domestic disputes are resolved.