If marriage is a sacrament....

[Lorcan]

If marriage is a sacrament, THEN WHY DOES THE FEDERAL STATE RECOGNIZE IT? I thought there was separation of church and state. I'll tell you why: because the "marriage" that the federal state gives you isn't associated with a religion. An ATHIEST can do it. You don't have to have a church ceremony to do it.

It's just that federal state "marriages" and Church marriages have been done at the same time and equated as the same thing for so long that people are confused.

I think that the gays and Lesbians should be given equal Federal rights to "marry" in this country. Then they can move from state to state and still be married, and do their tax forms just like married people.

"Separate but equal" of civil unions doesn't doesn’t give us the same status.

And there are enough gay friendly churches that would be happy to hold a marriage ceremony, if they so wish, but it isn't necessary.

[coyotedude]

"Separate but equal" is an oxymoron, in my view. Mind you, I wouldn't object to civil unions, provided they apply equally to het and gay marriages! But of course, they won't... :eek2: :eek2:

[Dizzy]

Does anyone else feel a little uneasy at the words "seperate but equal"? Because I remember that those were the exact same words that were all over racist legislation in North America from the 1930s-1950s (I think). Since then the idea has been renounced as in America unconstitutional, and elsewhere simply immoral. Why is it popping up again now?

[twosides]

It's just that federal state "marriages" and Church marriages have been done at the same time and equated as the same thing for so long that people are confused.
... and ...
And there are enough gay friendly churches that would be happy to hold a marriage ceremony, if they so wish, but it isn't necessary.

Yes, very good points.

And I agree with you, Dizzy. It's a phrase that's ripe with potential for widely disparate interpretation. What is a better definition of what is being sought? I know that we all want equality in all aspects of our lives and in this world. But somehow, I don't think that's going to come about any time soon. If we keep trying, it could happen though.

I have moved closer over the years to agreeing with the proposition of "civil unions" as opposed to "marriage" for same sex couples. I think there should be provisions for health insurance and hospital rights and such. But, the term *marriage* has such a time-honored identification with a MF union, I find it hard to say that MM or FF unions should be called *marriage*.

Now, before anyone flames me about this, please know that I don't care what _you_ call your long term loving relationship, call it a toaster, whatever you want. I'm looking forward to reading y'all's thoughts.

[diehrd8]

If marriage is a sacrament, THEN WHY DOES THE FEDERAL STATE RECOGNIZE IT? I thought there was separation of church and state. I'll tell you why: because the "marriage" that the federal state gives you isn't associated with a religion. An ATHIEST can do it. You don't have to have a church ceremony to do it.

It's just that federal state "marriages" and Church marriages have been done at the same time and equated as the same thing for so long that people are confused.

I think that the gays and Lesbians should be given equal Federal rights to "marry" in this country. Then they can move from state to state and still be married, and do their tax forms just like married people.

"Separate but equal" of civil unions doesn't doesn’t give us the same status.

And there are enough gay friendly churches that would be happy to hold a marriage ceremony, if they so wish, but it isn't necessary.


Read the constitution
IT DOES NOT SAY SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Amendment I
"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"
.................................................. .............................
Basically it frees people to worship any religion they want and never ever uses those words of seperation it ....And marriage is the union of man and woman something with thousands of history within religions,,,


WHAT is the infacuation with the title marriage ? ? ? ? Why is it so necessary that gay's are wed ? SOme states give 100% equil rights for Marriage and Civil unions,,So what is the beef here ? Really be honest..Stop saying it is a civil right 2 have 2 men married,,,And not united in a civil union..MAriage has been a religious cerimony , why think gays have the right to remove that tradition and belief from the religions of this country ?

I think the crying over title is more a deep routed anger because so many hetro's disagree with gay's life choices and it is an attempt to get even like a vindictive child. Personally I am pretty respectfull of all sides,,ad think comproimise with a desired goal is a better solution then making a fuss which as we have seen brings out the consertive base to crush completly any advancement of gays..SO tread lightly you get more with sugar then shit..

[Dizzy]

I think what is found distasteful diehrd8 is the fact that two athiests in a hetro relationship can marry, but two christians in a homo one can't. Though it has no legal difference, there is a definite discrimination there; and though seperate but equal is better than all for one and none for the other, in an ideal world, there should be no separation at all. Don't you agree?

[canuckotter]

Read the constitution
IT DOES NOT SAY SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
True, that exact phrase is not found in the constitution. But Jefferson wrote in a letter to Baptist leaders in Connecticut, in 1802, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

For more information, check out http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/who2.htm and particularly http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg1.htm

[sammie19]

Marriage isnt necessarily a sacrement. I am unmarried and not religious so if I ever did I would never go through any religious ceremony. It is all very nice the big church ceremony and have attended a few in my life but its not for me. A little registry office do will be fine with me.

I think it is in France where couples have to go through a civil ceremony before legally being married. Many of course still have the church ceremony but I dont think priests have the power to legalise the marriage. Therefore two ceremonies are the case should people decide to have a church wedding.
I think most have the wedding blessing in church and then the civil ceremony later. I believe it is done this way to establish the secular nature of French society and reinforce the authority of the civil law over holy law. In the UK ministers and priests have the authority of the law and act as de facto registrar at a wedding, thus eliminating the need for a civil ceremony. I assume its much the same in the US.

I do believe that church and state should be seperate and that all religious groups should be subservient in law to the authority of the democratically elected government as representatives of the people.

The seperate question of a form of apartheid for the union of het and same sex couples however is important and whatever a union of two people is called, whatever the sex of the couple involved there should be precisely the same rights given in the legal status and therefore the name attached to that status. It installs in law a seperation which we should find unnacceptable and while increasingly many countries are getting round to allowing same sex unions, too many reinforce the seperateness by refusing to attach to those unions the same legal name as for heterosexual couples. This is mostly because of pressure from churches and religious bodies but also because of pressure from the predominantly heterosexual media and more right wing political parties. Its a fight still to be won, and it will be in time.

[bigirl_inwv]

I just think that some of the excuses people come up with are ridiculous. I have heard it would ruin the sanctity of marriage, yet I can name 11 government officials off the top of my head who are divorced. I have heard that being gay is unnatural. Well, but so is polyester, air conditioning, plastic and driving a car. I don't see any objections to those things. I have heard that gay marriage will encourage people to be gay. Yeah, the same way that being around tall people will make you tall. I have heard that straight marriage has been around for a long time and hasn't changed at all. No, hasn't changed a bit, women are still property, black people can't marry white people, and divorce is still illegal. Those seem like some pretty big changes to me. I have heard that gay parents will raise gay children. Both my parents are straight, I'm bi. Both my grandparents are straight, I have a gay uncle. And if only gay people raise gay children, then how was anyone gay to begin with? Its not a choice. I have heard that gay marriage is not supported by religion. Maybe not by YOUR religion, but whose to say that I don't have my own god who thinks that being homosexual is ok. That's why we have freedom of religion. I have heard that children can't succeed without a mother AND a father at home. Yet, I hear no objections to the single mothers all across America. I think that alot of the problem is that too many people don't want to take the time to understand where homosexuals are coming from. If people would actually get to know someone who is gay and in a long term relationship, they would realize that those two people love each other just like a heterosexual couple would. At the end of the day, all I have to say is, if you don't like gay marriages, don't get one. Its not hurting you if someone else does.

[JohnnyV]

Hi all,

One thing I would add to the discussion is this: we shouldn't waste our mental energy reasoning with the people who oppose gay marriage. Remember that they use the issue as a smokescreen to distract American voters from our disastrous foreign policy, crumbling education standards, our high homicide rates, our high incarceration rates (higher per capita than any country but Russia), the escalating gap between rich and poor, and the fact that over 40 million adults and their children have no health insurance.

Who wants to deal with decades of corporate abuse that have drained away tax money to pork barrel projects that backfired and didn't help the public good? Who wants to figure out where we can find McCain's 200,000 new troops he wants to send to Iraq? Who wants to figure out how to pay $300 billion for the Occupation of Iraq? Who wants to figure out a why to cure the fact that 59% of American adults only have the reading skills to get through a cookbook, or less, while the cost of financing a college education is now so high that all but the richest families will spend their working lives paying off student debts? And who the Hell wants to figure out how to get a gas-guzzling, morbidly obese America to make any dent in the environmental crisis we're slipping into?

All that is TOO BIG TO THINK ABOUT! So idiotic spin doctors present the canard of gay marriage and tell the deluded and embittered middle class that homosexuals are the cause of all their problems.

We can't outsmart or argue with the people who oppose gay marriage, because they have no argument to reason with. They're just venting uncontrollably and moronically against the futility of their own existence, focusing everything on a scapegoat that's easy to hate (because of AIDs and centuries of sissy-baiting).

Don't muddy up your mind or tongue engaging homophobes in political discourse. Just show up with your picket signs and throw rotten vegetables at them.

J

[ophelia_in_red]

Just a random point here, but one that I think should be addressed: Here in the UK we have civil unions for gay couples and marriages for straight ones. So far so good? Well, no. Not really. I would like to see marriages available for gay couples AND civil unions available for straight ones. Personally I dislike the term "marriage" because it implies a religious ceremony (even though this is not always the case). At the moment - I am young, but I feel quite strongly about this! - whichever gender I decide I want to settle down with, if at all, I do not intend to get married. I would consider civil union though. I want to have the option of entering a status with my partner which includes all the inheritance rights, financial security and child welfare laws of marriage, but which does not require a pseudo-religious gloss. Marriage implies that we need a piece of paper to say we love one another and want to share our lives. A civil union would just be the sensible choice for two people who wish to live together and perhaps have children.

The two options should be available to everyone!

[Doggie_Wood]

OK - I agree

:doggie:

[diehrd8]

QUOTE
"Who wants to deal with decades of corporate abuse that have drained away tax money to pork barrel projects that backfired and didn't help the public good? Who wants to figure out where we can find McCain's 200,000 new troops he wants to send to Iraq? Who wants to figure out how to pay $300 billion for the Occupation of Iraq? Who wants to figure out a why to cure the fact that 59% of American adults only have the reading skills to get through a cookbook, or less, while the cost of financing a college education is now so high that all but the richest families will spend their working lives paying off student debts? And who the Hell wants to figure out how to get a gas-guzzling, morbidly obese America to make any dent in the environmental crisis we're slipping into?:

Typical anti american redrick,,,Based on Liberal surveys that are tilted to the left..

Fact ,,,lowest unemployment in the world,Strongest economy in the world.Highest Minority and non-minority HOME ownership in the world.Only nation able to project power globally ..

Funny how so many speek freedomm and fairness YET seam to think making every one the same is the answer..If that is true move to cuba there all equill there..Better yet move to an African nation there equill there as well..


The spirit this NATION was founded was on free enterprise which inspires people to acheive,,Blame the rich u chose to sell dope or steal cause mommy is poor,,,Forget there are loans and grants for collage and forget the fact NO HOSPITOL can deny treatment if u are broke..No American can be denied the dream unless that american choses to wine and self destruct..For those i have no pitty,,the welfair state we have created for them sucks,,,kick em in the ass and inspire them stop winning America sucks..

Besides 12 million Mexicans dont sneek here for nothing so stop ating like u carry a banner for under advantaged when clearly there are outsiders willing to risk life and limb to come here..

Eqial rights DOES not mean using the same words for every different group,And trying to creat equaluality like they have tried in france LEAVES 40% unemployed and dependant on welfair , Making it so a company can not fire you as in France crushes compitition within companies who just stop hiring.

The problems are complex,And world wide,To think we can sit by and watch while making America a utopia is about as smart as walking in traffic blindfolded,,And never forget your ability to even think as I read here is ONLY because American power,If we lose that edge gay marriage will be commenced the moment you enter a gas chamber or get sliced up for experimentation.....

Not sure why topic was hijacked , But it confirms my point ,,,,THE TERM MARRIAGE is being pushed for because of another reason...And it aint fairness it is to impose a secular type government on americans JUST like a religion would do if NOT for our constitution.And if ya dont want RELIGION in government who would tell youright from wrong and how to live ya better wake up and realize secular progressivness is identicle except they removed the word religion..

[JohnnyV]

Diehard,

Thank you for proving my point. There is no point trying to reason with people who think the way you do. Great writing skills!

J



QUOTE
"Who wants to deal with decades of corporate abuse that have drained away tax money to pork barrel projects that backfired and didn't help the public good? Who wants to figure out where we can find McCain's 200,000 new troops he wants to send to Iraq? Who wants to figure out how to pay $300 billion for the Occupation of Iraq? Who wants to figure out a why to cure the fact that 59% of American adults only have the reading skills to get through a cookbook, or less, while the cost of financing a college education is now so high that all but the richest families will spend their working lives paying off student debts? And who the Hell wants to figure out how to get a gas-guzzling, morbidly obese America to make any dent in the environmental crisis we're slipping into?:

Typical anti american redrick,,,Based on Liberal surveys that are tilted to the left..

Fact ,,,lowest unemployment in the world,Strongest economy in the world.Highest Minority and non-minority HOME ownership in the world.Only nation able to project power globally ..

Funny how so many speek freedomm and fairness YET seam to think making every one the same is the answer..If that is true move to cuba there all equill there..Better yet move to an African nation there equill there as well..


The spirit this NATION was founded was on free enterprise which inspires people to acheive,,Blame the rich u chose to sell dope or steal cause mommy is poor,,,Forget there are loans and grants for collage and forget the fact NO HOSPITOL can deny treatment if u are broke..No American can be denied the dream unless that american choses to wine and self destruct..For those i have no pitty,,the welfair state we have created for them sucks,,,kick em in the ass and inspire them stop winning America sucks..

Besides 12 million Mexicans dont sneek here for nothing so stop ating like u carry a banner for under advantaged when clearly there are outsiders willing to risk life and limb to come here..

Eqial rights DOES not mean using the same words for every different group,And trying to creat equaluality like they have tried in france LEAVES 40% unemployed and dependant on welfair , Making it so a company can not fire you as in France crushes compitition within companies who just stop hiring.

The problems are complex,And world wide,To think we can sit by and watch while making America a utopia is about as smart as walking in traffic blindfolded,,And never forget your ability to even think as I read here is ONLY because American power,If we lose that edge gay marriage will be commenced the moment you enter a gas chamber or get sliced up for experimentation.....

Not sure why topic was hijacked , But it confirms my point ,,,,THE TERM MARRIAGE is being pushed for because of another reason...And it aint fairness it is to impose a secular type government on americans JUST like a religion would do if NOT for our constitution.And if ya dont want RELIGION in government who would tell youright from wrong and how to live ya better wake up and realize secular progressivness is identicle except they removed the word religion..

[Lorcan]

I hear ya JohnnyV.

Now i'm spiritual. I believe in God. I have a Christain background.

But the government of the United States of America is supposed to be secular. I don't want it recognizing any religious ritual.

But if it's not secular, I suppose we should go out and tell those athiests that they can't be married in the eyes of the state.

And I agree with another person. We should call it "civil unions" for everyone who gets the state to recognize it, and let the church use the word "marriage". Calling what the Federal government does one thing, and calling what the church does another thing would make my first point real clear.

[canuckotter]

Thank you for proving my point. There is no point trying to reason with people who think the way you do. Great writing skills!
Agreed. diehrd has no interest in debating or discussing, only ranting and raving. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to find that he's a Christian "fundamentalist" (which has nothing to do with the fundamentals of Christianity -- it's as bad of a misnomer as calling Bush a "conservative") just on here to troll. :rolleyes:

[12voltman59]

You are right Johnny V--for those so-called conservatives who "stay the course" irrespective of whether or not what they believe truly makes any sense or works out well in the real world--there is no sense in having a discussion with them---something they will not really allow to happen--all they do is start with the bombast at you that is just a regurgitation of the crap they get from The Drudge Report, the phatman drug addict (Rush Limbaugh), Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, FAUX-News, and from our president, VP, and the Secretaries of State and Defense, et al.

I would like to attend some sort of a function where a candidate for office or other individual who plays the gay marriage card--I would ask them what the real harm there is for gays and lesbians to marry when 50 percent of firsttime heterosexual marriages end in divorce and 60 percent of second marriages fail? Further---you identify yourself as a "conservative" and has it not been long a major tenet of conservativism that "we need to get the government off the backs of the people?" or so Ronald Reagan was so revered for saying. That being the case as a conservative--how can you sanction the awesome power of the government to be used to prevent two people who simply wish to follow the dictum "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the way they see fit? or are you a hypocrite and have no problem with using the power of the state to prevent Americans from living their lives in the manner they see fit? you don't really have to answer that--for we know that so many of you "conservatives" really don't have any values other than grabbing and holding power in the way you wish--you all gave up another one of your fundamental tenets in that you no longer seem to care about runaway deficit spending anymore either.."

[12voltman59]

I got a private message from someone on her who took exception to what I posted above---

This person stated she was a conservative and felt I was demonizing all conservatives--I am not

I am not demonizing true conservative people--I am demonizing those "conservatives" who have hijacked so much of what has been part of the right and twisted it all in order to grab and hold the reigns of power.

This is not an attack on conservatives, for all my concerns about this is shared by those who do call themselves conservatives of all stripes from those in the religious world to the older mainline bastions of conservative thought and academia who are speaking out to try to reclaim conservativsim from the opportunists.

What George W. Bush and his crowd have done these past six years is hardly conservative--they have given us a budget deficit that is out of this world, they have supsended habeaus corpus, condoned torture and they have greatly expanded the power of the presidency (the unitary executive) which is direct contradiction of what our founding fathers intended and they have totally screwed up the management of foreign policy and the way they conducted our "war" in Iraq.

This crowd that is in power now, in spite of their avowed conservatism,--are hardly conservatives----they are just a bunch of power hungry so an so's-they are not conservatives--they just play them on television and up in Washington....

[diehrd8]

I got a private message from someone on her who took exception to what I posted above---

This person stated she was a conservative and felt I was demonizing all conservatives--I am not

I am not demonizing true conservative people--I am demonizing those "conservatives" who have hijacked so much of what has been part of the right and twisted it all in order to grab and hold the reigns of power.

This is not an attack on conservatives, for all my concerns about this is shared by those who do call themselves conservatives of all stripes from those in the religious world to the older mainline bastions of conservative thought and academia who are speaking out to try to reclaim conservativsim from the opportunists.
e
What George W. Bush and his crowd have done these past six years is hardly conservative--they have given us a budget deficit that is out of this world, they have supsended habeaus corpus, condoned torture and they have greatly expanded the power of the presidency (the unitary executive) which is direct contradiction of what our founding fathers intended and they have totally screwed up the management of foreign policy and the way they conducted our "war" in Iraq.

This crowd that is in power now, in spite of their avowed conservatism,--are hardly conservatives----they are just a bunch of power hungry so an so's-they are not conservatives--they just play them on television and up in Washington....


I see you like to twist facts to support your demonizing .. Go read up on gay marriage 19 states banned it and many more are or have laws for civil unions,,You are losing big time and can only finally now drag up crap about bush..

You like many are Lieing ,,bold faced and are trying to make it sound like you are not,BIG government a term that was created to denote "THE WELFAIR STATE" and is what Big government arguments where about..

You are tryying to suggest AMERICAN CITIZENS have had this enacted against them DEAD WRONG..........

" they have supsended habeaus corpus, condoned torture and they have greatly expanded the power of the presidency"

LOL >>I am sorry but your retoric is mindless,,,,Those actions for habeaus corpus apply to ENEMY combantants,,Torture ? Ya lets have tea and suck cock with those who are found trying to blow up our troups or innocients here or abroad..Dont make them uncomfortable..I find it stunning you support a terrorist over your own nations needs and even funnier the usual because a MUSLUM would castrate any homosexual in there midst , and then stuff it down your throat...Nice people ,,lets have them decide about gay marriage,,we can all do to a stadum with tea and ask the TaliBan what they think of our choices...Give it a break...

You are a bush hater,,meaning no form of logic,reason or facts can even be used in a discussion with you..Your in your mind are totally right and rather then talk about differences you will smear and deomonize any one who disagrees...Nice tatic AND EXACTLY why gay marriage will be banned across the nation..No discussion...No comprimise,no self evaluation,,JUST finger pointing and blame and screaming BUSH is your problem..

To bad those who support gay marriage are aslo those who feel putting a steel spike in a new borns head at birth is also ok so long as the woman choses it to be,,and that 14 year old girl should be able to have an abortion with out parent consent ,, at 14 ya cant give blood with out parent consent AND A DOCTOR can not set a broken leg with out it,,Conversly ya cant drive a car,smoke,drink,join the military,vote or stay up past 11pm LMAO..

Find new allies,,,The left extreamist you have now are Hurting our cause and you rather then fight a moral good issue would rather bash Bush..LOL....

[JohnnyV]

Lorcan

I think one of the difficult questions about religion and government in the US is that, while Jeffersonian democracy is founded on secularism, it was never able to break free from the ancient legal principles that the Revolutionary generation inherited from England. While Jefferson wanted to envision a nation founded on "natural law" and free from the apron strings of cultural history, his vision proved impossible. Therefore the bicameral legislature was structured on the British Parliament, with one house meant to resemble the Athenian assembly and the other meant to resemble the Roman Senate. The President and Vice President were patterned after the office of proconsuls that Jefferson was familiar with, from having studied Cicero and other Roman writers. In Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson alludes to the fall of the Roman Republic as one of the things against which he wanted to guard, which is why he sought to safeguard the US government against the errors that led to the rise of the Caesars.

Within that structure, unfortunately, religion was one of many ancient sources of political structure. The third branch of government, the judicial system, is based largely on the system of judges created by Moses at the end of Exodus. And the idea of confederation (which did not work well in the early 1780s), was loosely patterned after the Amphictyonic League and the Delphic League, two religiously grounded confederacies that anchored ancient Israel and Greece, respectively. In both Israel during the reign of the Judges and Greece during the reign of the city-states, local "tribes" or "city-states" kept their autonomy but formed religiously oriented alliances around centers of worship. In Israel, the holy site of Gilgal, set up by Joshua, was what kept together the twelve city-states. In Greece, the shrine at Delphi was a common place of worship and all the city-states that spoke Greek were tied to it.

So anyways, the issue with "marriage" as a sacrament is that religious vocabulary and concepts were already mixed in with other concepts that all had to do with drawing from past traditions in order to set up a secular democracy. It would be impossible to root out everything in America's legal system that was inflected with a religious past, because it's hard to separate the religious traditions from traditions in general; and if we take out everything religious, we would have to erase every single tradition that predated Jefferson. It would be impossible.

Hope that offers a different angle. :)

J

PS.... to Die Hard: Take your pills.

[12voltman59]

Diehrd's comments in response to my positings pretty well seems to prove my point about the way far too many "conservatives" respond to criticisms of the things they do.

It seems that they are a bit touchy, aren't they????

It does get me-why in the hell are "conservatives" so pissed off these days-- I mean they have control of the both houses of the Congress, the Presidency, the courts are falling their way, they have control over many state houses at all levels, government at the local level in most places, the war in Iraq is going just great--FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH----they have the companies that make most of the new electronic voting machines in their corner (therefore don't be surprised that even though pre-election polling shows a big Democratic win coming it doesn't come to pass)---the economy is doing just great (at least if you are in the .010% or so of the population that really has done well in recent years) and in spite of the enshrinement of the myth that the media is so liberal not really being the case such that the main stream media has largerly given the Bush Administration a pass on so many things------

I mean--what the hell--they have pretty much everything in the bag--

WHY ARE THE CONSERVATIVES SO PISSED OFF???? :) :) :)

[JohnnyV]

Voltman,

A great book to read, to understand the recent emphasis on anger in the right wing, is "Blinded by the Right," by David Brock. He has one chapter called "Holy War" about how, in 1992, conservatives had a backlash against George Bush Sr. for losing the election, and they declared the "Year of the Angry White Male." It was in that season that Rush Limbaugh reached his high profile and the momentum began for Newt Gingrich's rush on Congress. Basically they decided that the best mode for conservatives to follow was "fear and loathing" and perpetual "holy war" against enemies real or perceived. It explains a lot of what seems to confuse you. Without railing against some object of contempt the current conservative movement is lost and unmoored.

J

[mannysg]

At the risk of being attacked, I feel the need to express my opinions here.

I identify with conservatives. I tend to vote mostly for conservatives. That does NOT mean that I agree 100% with conservatives.

Do conservatives bend the truth, or lie, or mislead to meet their needs/goals? Hell yes, and so do liberals. So do independents. Every group at some point does. Pointing fingers to say that one group does it more then another group only proves that both sides can cite "facts" to defend themselves.

Now, to the original issue about gay marriage... I am NOT opposed to gay marriage. TO me, "marriage" is just term for a "legal Union of 2 people." But to many, "marriage" is a religious term.

The main goal is for a gay couple to have the same rights as a hetero couple. I feel that gay's would have better luck in achieving their goal of having the same rights as a married Hetero couple by abandoning the term "marriage". If you were to listen to the conservative talk shows, their main bitch is about the term marriage. Some of them have even admitted to supporting "civil unions" that give the same legal rights as a hetero marriage.

If you must attack my opinion, go ahead. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine. But don't expect me to get into an argurment with you over it.

Opinions are like assholes... everyone has one and everyone's stinks to other people.

[Enoll]

Does anyone else feel a little uneasy at the words "seperate but equal"?

It's like saying, sure, you can join our club, but you're not one of us.
It's a slap in the face.

[diehrd8]

Diehrd's comments in response to my positings pretty well seems to prove my point about the way far too many "conservatives" respond to criticisms of the things they do.

It seems that they are a bit touchy, aren't they????

It does get me-why in the hell are "conservatives" so pissed off these days-- I mean they have control of the both houses of the Congress, the Presidency, the courts are falling their way, they have control over many state houses at all levels, government at the local level in most places, the war in Iraq is going just great--FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH----they have the companies that make most of the new electronic voting machines in their corner (therefore don't be surprised that even though pre-election polling shows a big Democratic win coming it doesn't come to pass)---the economy is doing just great (at least if you are in the .010% or so of the population that really has done well in recent years) and in spite of the enshrinement of the myth that the media is so liberal not really being the case such that the main stream media has largerly given the Bush Administration a pass on so many things------

I mean--what the hell--they have pretty much everything in the bag--

WHY ARE THE CONSERVATIVES SO PISSED OFF???? :) :) :)


Label me pissed off,,thats not true...Complain capitolism sucks as u so often do i dont mind,complain freeedom sucks as you so often do you have that right.

But I also have the right to correct your lies...There has been no loss of legel rights for americans,,For terrorist or those captured on the battlefield there rights are different then a citizen's WTF why complain about that ?

And to say corporations are evil ? ? ? Ok what is the alternitive ? Allow a few people in government to manage the wealth ? ? ? ? i MEAN ARE PEOPLE THAT STUPID ? ? ? If you look at the world where has that worked ? ? Lets see,,Russia ? N.Korea ? Cuba ? South Africa ? Iran ? Iraq ? Syria ? Saudia Araba ? Panama ? Somalia ? Yemen ?

You see the complainers of capitolism (Ie) the corporation bashers have a history as I have written above , and it is a nasty death ridden history where tens of millions are suppressed and or killed in order to prevent the people from managing the wealth,,When was the last time Ford lined up people and shot them ? Or Microsoft ?

You see i am not angry as much as I am amazed at the stupidity of the arguments as well as there timing in history,As well as the out right public defense for terrorists over there own country,,LETS say americans lost civil liberties and bush took them THAT EQUILS a total LIE which supports a terrorist who is the only one who is not being given constitutional rights our any NON-US citizen calling into our country . .

Back to marriage,,,JUST like Gay....Hetro....The words describe differences as well as commonalities..Every one agrees with those terms and has for a long time,,SO why is Civil union ... marriage .... SUCH an issue....CAN someone tell me with out changing topic to bash bush or america ? ? ?

[12voltman59]

Sorry to everyone on the site that dislikes discussions of a political nature---it is a topic I have always been interested in---and I also apologize that this seems to have become a pissing match between Diehrd and myself--it has gotten a bit more personal than I normally like get but he has made a number of comments that I would like to respond to---I am not going to respond to them all--just one---and that is the comment that he said I am Bush bashing---

To offering criticism of the performance of President George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States--I plead guilty--I do realize that in the talking points memos in this regard from the right wing talking radio heads--any kind of negative comments on Bush are equated with "Bush Bashing."

Well--that is one of those canards the right likes to put out there---nothing I can do about that.

I will say--when Bush was first running for President and I started to look at his record as governnor of Texas and also about more of his life-it kind of made me sick to my stomach that the man could possibly become president---I did not like his record, nor the policies he pushed and most importantly--I did not like him as a person.

My view of him is that he is a person with a hidden agenda, a person without much honor and many other things---his performance as president has not dissappointed me.

About the only time in his presidency that I thought he did any good at all was in the days just following the attacks of 9/11.

His actions for a few days did help the country during a trying time but instead of capitalizing on the common sense of resolve and such---in my opinion--his actions made a lie of his claim to "be a uniter, not a divider."

I won't go into all of the things that I believe that Bush has done poorly as president--for they are legion.

Now to address specifically the charge of my Bush Bashing---I say that perhaps that is so, but why is it so bad to bash Bush when the "conservatives" created an entire industry to Bash William Jefferson Clinton--a president elected --unquestionably elected two times by the American people?

Clinton certainly had his problems---as a godless, treasonous "liberal" I wil freely admit that. His foolish liason with Monica Lewinsky was certainly something that did tarnish his presidency.

The only regret that I have about Clinton is that he made the careers of people like Ann Coulter possible (and many others of similar type)---

Now talk about someone who bashed a president and someone who demonizes "the enemy."

Dear sweet loving Ann has some pleasant little tomes that she has written over the course of the past decade or so with titles like: "Treason: The Treachery of Liberals from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism" and "Liberals: How to Talk to Them If You Must!"

They are such nice reads--they go on for chapter after chapter about the evils of liberals and liberalism and such and basically the books are about how anyone who is a liberal is a communist, in league with Bin Laden and Al Queda and so on---she pretty much says that liberals are basically responsible for a whole list of things that have been wrong in the world since say about 1100 or so.

Of course, for many years old Rush Limbaugh has rallied against the dangers presented by the "femininazis"

Such a pleasant, neutral endearing term for those ladies.

No demonization by the good folks from the far right wing--OH NOOOOO!!!!!

Well--this is about all I am going to say in this thread--this could just keep going on and on and on like the Everyready Bunny.

Diehrd and I are not going to change each other's minds, nor are we "going to win" anything.

The one thing that does amaze me about this whole "right/left" thing is that individuals of each persuasion when presented with the same set of facts--such incredibly divergent ways of interpreting the meaning of those facts can be obtained--absolutely fascinating!!!!!!

I have to go change my clothes now--they are a bit damp and smelly....

[canuckotter]

But I also have the right to correct your lies...There has been no loss of legel rights for americans
I know diehrd won't care what I say, but just in case there's anyone else reading... Diehrd is misinformed (or lying). American citizens have lost protections against invasions of privacy under Bush. The Patriot Act gave your government a lot more leeway to invade your privacy, as the federal wiretapping program shows.

And mannysg, don't worry, you're not the only conservative around here. :) I'm socially liberal but very fiscally conservative. Just remember that most of the people calling themselves "conservative" these days are anything but. :(

[12voltman59]

I lied--I had to do one more post on this thread--it contains something that I had planned to put in that last thread but had a brain fart and didn't.

This is about president bashing on from someone on the right.

Back when Clinton was president--some conservative politician---perhaps it was a Congressman from some rural congressional district in a red state---

This person made a comment that he would have no problem if a person in the military refused to follow any orders given by Bill Clinton because Clinton did not deserve to be serving as Commander in Chief--so much for loving the Constitution--this document clearly outlines that the president serves in that role as president.

Could you imagine if anyone were to say that about George W. Bush? My God, the talking heads on Fox and talk radio would be spastic.

Somehow when Clinton was president--it was the duty of all good patriotic Americans to criticize him but if you criticize Bush--then you are a traitor and are in league with Osama Bin Laden.

[darkeyes]

wooooo. just got in from the pub and a triff halloween do an wot duz me find. Full scale civil war in the ex-colonies. tee hee. The US don seem 2 b a marriage made in heaven duz it? Not all sweetness an lite wen its come 2 ya Pres an his cronies. Mus be elections a cummin or summat!

Really cant undastand wy cos Bushie really has taken a shaky world wich wos very unpredicable an paranoid by the balls an turned it in2 a world which is now decidedly more unsafe an downrite dangerous (an even more unpredictable an paranoid) for every living thing on this planet... 2 unwinnable wars spirallin outa control an the contempt he an his shows for any an every1 who has the cheek 2 disagree wiv his idea of Gaaad an freedom!! At least another bein mooted in sum quarters wen they cant win the two they landed with now, an gettin up the noses of jus about every country on the planet by the high handed an arrogant way they deal wiv international diplomacy. An it seems that the tolerance Bushie shows for the rest of the world is also shown by his supporters an allies throughout the US by demonisin every American who has the cheek 2 question wtf he is up 2. OMG is ther no hope?

I was raised to think about the world I live in. Question what I have been told and never to take at face value what governments of any political colour tell me and to stand up and be counted when I feel things are not as they should be. These tenets of DEMOCRACY I live by as should any who believe in true freedom. I do not adhere to DEMONOCRACY whereby governements and supporters of the ruling party accuse their political rivals, enemies if you prefer, of treachery simply because they differ in how things should be done in contrast to their wonderful political masters.

It has long amused me how right wing americans so easily accuse Democrats and the Democratic Party of being communist simply because they are considered the party of the less well off. I assure you now, and any right wing republican, any other American that the Democratic party is a long long long long way from being a communist or even a socialist party. I am socialist, committed to a destroying a political and economic system which I see as anti people anti justice anti democratic and anti world. I loathe and detest war, violence of any kind, discrimination and intolerance and believe that there are better ways for humanity to live. I believe that Marx's analysis was essentialy right about the evils of the capitalist system, and that the means of production should be in the hands of the people not multi national corrupt corporations or any other gaggle of rich and greedy sods! I believe in the creaton of a world state where all peoples have proper justice and no one should be deprived of the means to live, has the right to a decent home, a job and free health care and education. I could go on and on.

My point is not whether what I believe is right or anyone else is wrong. I have a set of beliefs which I hold with a real passion, and while I rail and rant as is my right against my or any other government on the planet, I have no right to accuse any human being of treachery against his or her country merely because he or she holds a set of beliefs and values different from my own. If I am unable to argue coherently and with some knowledge and conviction then I should just shut up. More so no government has that right, or the right to encourage its supporters as individuals or organisations to act in any other way than with decency compassion honesty and understanding for political supporters and rivals alike. They are the servants of the people only for as long as their mandate holds. We are not theirs however much they would wish it to be otherwise and often act as if it were so.

There is another "minor" point. What if it was a socialist party? Is it such a big deal? Is a party that fought for free education and health care for all, overturning the political system and making it truly democratic, redistributing wealth, fighting corruption, fights for true justice for all, fights for racial and sexual equality (including the rights of gays and bisexuals) destroying the current world economic order and replacing it with a system which was more fair to all people as well of course in attempting to curb humanities seeming headlong dash to environmental catastrophe..is that something which deserves to be demonised? Of course you may disagree with any or all of it. But it is a valid political philosophy which for all its faults deserves more than being dismissed as the politics of scrounger and parasite. Disagree with it by all means. But disagree in the manner of proper political debate.. reasoning thoughtfulness, justification, logic, not by hysteria, slur and hypocrisy and yes lies!

In ending I say this. I hate many things about political parties and political philosophies. But as a human being who tends to like other human beings quite a lot, I find it very difficult to hate another simply because of a set of beliefs. I may hate the message but love the messenger. Too many of us forget that. Certainly our political masters dont often practice it too much. And Bushie wudnt know it if it got up and slapped him in the face!!

[diehrd8]

I know diehrd won't care what I say, but just in case there's anyone else reading... Diehrd is misinformed (or lying). American citizens have lost protections against invasions of privacy under Bush. The Patriot Act gave your government a lot more leeway to invade your privacy, as the federal wiretapping program shows.

And mannysg, don't worry, you're not the only conservative around here. :) I'm socially liberal but very fiscally conservative. Just remember that most of the people calling themselves "conservative" these days are anything but. :(


Tell us exactly WHERE your rights have been lost ? ?

Your personal calls CAN NOT be monitered..Same as before..What is monitered are calls from foregin nations being dialed to our nation with the origonating caller being a foregin national with suspected ties to terror...PERIOD...In your statement you try to make it sound as if there listening to an american citizens calls..Thats a misleading totally decipitive portrail of the program 100% false..

Dont mention the leaked information that allows you to misrepresent the program was a violation of national security, , Nope let that part be ok because it allows people with a dislike for the current administration to twist the facts and accuse the government of invading Americans Privacy,,,I laugh at what I have read in here,,Why dont people post a FACT instead of a standard headline or catch phrases to defend there posistion . . ANd why has a high court agreed with the program and allowed it to continue ? ?

BACK to gay marriage....

WHY IS IT OK TO CALL , MAN > MAN , GAY... WOMAN >WOMAN LESIBIAN and MAN > WOMAN HETRO an acceptable use of words..BUT NOT OK to say gay Civil unions and hetro Marriage..

Please explain to me why THE NEED to use a hetro term to describe a GAY union ? ? ? ? ? Explain with facts how this WORD difference diminishes GAY RIGHTS ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Please someone with any origional thought and insite answer this question....

[canuckotter]

Please someone with any origional thought and insite answer this question....
You still have to respond to my question. Why are you trying to deny the religious freedom of those churches that allow gay marriage?

[twosides]

You still have to respond to my question. Why are you trying to deny the religious freedom of those churches that allow gay marriage?
I just reread the thread, and I might have missed it, but please point us to the line where diehrd was advocating the denial of any churches religious freedoms.

[JohnnyV]

Twosides,

It is an indirect reference. Some religions use the term marriage to describe a love union between two members of the same sex. Diehard is supporting the opinion of those who oppose using the word "marriage" in this way because he has stated that religious traditions necessitate differentiating between heterosexual and homosexual relationships through selective use of "marriage."

But as Canuck points out, Diehard's support of the anti-gay-marriage viewpoint means that he advocates preventing the use of the word marriage to describe gay unions, and therefore, he advocates limiting the freedom of the religions whose doctrines compel them to use the word marriage when gays or lesbians express their spiritual commitments to one another.

Canuck's statement makes sense to me.

J

[JohnnyV]

If you are interested in an easy-to-watch commentary about the curtailment of Americans' constitutional rights under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, here's an eloquent speech by Keith Olbermann:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5hhI-7R6gU

Also, one correction to Die Hard's post earlier: The court system has shot down many of Bush's domestic security measures, including some of his wiretapping, his collection of information from telephone companies, the conditions at Guantanamo, the use of military courts, the abduction of "suspects" without a full trial, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus. It was because of the courts' resistance that Bush had to get the Congress to put forward the Military Commissions Act of 2006; it would not have been necessary otherwise.

J

[Herbwoman39]

Diehard;

I REALLY don't feel like being yelled at so let's agree to be kind to one another, shall we?

My reason for protesting the use of the terms gay civil unions and straight marriages are because they are divisive. They separate one community from another by differentiating on the basis of sexual preference.

My understanding of the LGBT movement is that we are all working to be integrated into society...to be accepted on equal terms. In order for terms to be equal, it is my opinion that the verbage should also be equal.

We as human beings communicate in words, so the phrasing makes a difference. We are all capable of understanding that a civil union is different from a marriage because the words themselves are different. The rights involved in both may be precisely the same, however because the term "marriage" has a longer history and is a very well respected tradition, it is perceived as superior on an unconscious (or conscious) level by the general populace. Therefor because the term "marriage" is perceived as having a superior status, then it stands to reason that "civil union" is perceived as having a lesser status.

I certainly hope this helps to clarify my position.

[twodelta]

Very well said Herbwoman39. Very similar to what Enoll said,"you can join our club, but you are not one of us". I think Groucho Marx said it best though, when he said,"I wouldn't be a member of any club that would have me as a member". Are we so different that we cannot get past questions of labelling? If we can agree that unions between m/f, m/m, f/f, (and dare I say unions of three or more) should have the same legal rights, then why can't we agree on what to call that union? Personaly, I don't care what You call it, but if all are on the same ground legally, why shouldn't they be called the same thing? I don't know, maybe my way of thinking is just too simplistic, but it makes sence to me. Just my :2cents: - Dave :bibounce:

[twosides]

... My reason for protesting the use of the terms gay civil unions and straight marriages are because they are divisive. They separate one community from another by differentiating on the basis of sexual preference.
I believe that there are many other communities in our world that are being separated by delineations more important than sexual preference.


... however because the term "marriage" has a longer history and is a very well respected tradition, it is perceived as superior on an unconscious (or conscious) level by the general populace. ...
Well, com'on. We all know that the general populace are idiots. ;) I don't know if they think that "marriage" is superior to "civil union" as much as it's just the way it's been for so long and that's the way it should stay.

This is the foundation of why I lean towards conservatism. Don't get me wrong about my politics or anything, I have plenty of history that would not fly in the Bible Belt or the GOP. But I identify with the word conservative as more of an idea of let's keep things from changing too much, too fast. I'm all for change when it's thought out and going to do good, as in the acceptance of things like the Civil Rights movement, women's rights, the public's need for computers, and so on.

Society changes regardless of what we do today or tomorrow. The question is do you like the changes that are happening? For instance, is the fact that children are becoming sexual at the age of 10 a good thing? Is that something that is good for our society? Is it good that divorce has become so prevelant that people get married and say "Oh if it doesn't work out, we'll just end it and go marry someone else." Is it right that society has become so litigious that a suit against McDonalds for their coffee being too hot is accepted as normal? You get the idea.

I encourage anyone to get out there and make changes within your sphere of influence. I think that's part of our life's mission. But it shouldn't be mandated by a small segment of society when the larger segment of society has resistance to that change. "Civil Rights" had a relatively long battle to get society's understanding to coincide with the minorities POV. I don't see the issue of whether or not a gay/lesbian union is called a marriage is in that level of importance. Is it important to you, or you? I'm sure it is. But let's pick our battles. Along the argument of whether it's good for Pride parades to showcase the flamboyant and outrageous, should we be so in their face about "gay marriage" that we end up harming the movement when the alternative of civil unions seems to be closer to being accepted by the general populace.

Let's keep up the fight for change. Let's be vocal about the desires of our community. Also, let's not sit on our laurels when we get one or two small steps closer to the ideal we want. We will see acceptance in society happen eventually. But we also need to keep in mind that the world will never be a perfect place for everyone.



PS - I doubt it will happen, but please don't let this post be a thread killer. :rolleyes:

[darkeyes]

Diehard;


My reason for protesting the use of the terms gay civil unions and straight marriages are because they are divisive. They separate one community from another by differentiating on the basis of sexual preference.

My understanding of the LGBT movement is that we are all working to be integrated into society...to be accepted on equal terms. In order for terms to be equal, it is my opinion that the verbage should also be equal.



So well said Herbwoman. Whatever we call the legalised union of two people, whatever the sex or sexes of those people the same term should be used accross the board. Even today in the 21st century, in the eyes of many so called tolerant and god fearing people there is a look of disdain when others are found to have merely undergone or are 2 undergo a civil ceremony of marriage. Such people are considered to have undergone second class marriages not least because they have not been wed in the house of the Lord. Certainly some, who because of some churches refusal to marry divorced people in their House of God receive a blessing for their union but this is not considered enough in the eyes of many.

I found such craziness when I was to be married and the look of absolute horror on the faces of my prospective mother in law's face when I started to argue for a Registry Office wedding and the subsequent rows which followed confirm me in this view. In the end, I agreed to a big church wedding and tarted myself up in the whitest white you can imagine and did the religious thing. At the time I was coming to the end of a crisis of faith and had more or less come to the conclusion that the existence of a God was a fairy story. The why's and wherefores of this are not important, but what is important is the fact that like a little hypocrite I allowed myself to be badgered into something I did not want because of the snotty opinions of people for whom I felt little and a fiance who had scant regard for my own feelings. All in the name of what is and is not a true marriage.

Similarly, for gay and bisexual people of the same sex, this term, and the inferred acceptance of true equality of union is often denied them because of the insistence of the state, urged on by church and media. Whether we have equal rights under the law or not, we cannot allow ourselves to be denied that equality for so a long as we are denied our right to marry the person we love irrespective of sex, in the ceremony of our choice, and be accorded the courtesy of having that union recognised in precisely the same verbal term in law as a marriage of two heterosexual people, true equality and acceptance of our kind can never exist in the wider society.

Those of us, who for whatever reason, within our own community deny us the right to call our unions the same as for the rest of society do our cause a disservice and really should know better.

[Long Duck Dong]

I love the idea of civil union over marriage cos i am seeing it in action in nz

in nz, marriage breakup means 2 years of separation then a divorce.....however the civil union allows you to end it and walk away....

in my eyes, if the marriage is screwed then why spend the next two years unable to walk away fully and live your life

so in essence, if we are calling for civil union and marriage to be put in the same pot and called marriage, we are also asking that we add the 2 year chain to civil union

the main difference between civil union and marriage, is two things.... the lettering and the rights.... if we combine the two together, them we are taking away the rights of people to choose between the two, and in doing so, we are imposing our opinion on the rights of others, in the same manner that the religious are imposing their opinions on gays by denying gays and les, the right to be joined

in nz i have the right to decide if i have a civil union, a marriage, or stay unmarried......so for me, its either civil union or unmarried, cos I am sure as hell not paying the govt a fortune just to have my love for somebody, put on a piece of paper

[darkeyes]

Time then 2 change the marriage laws and bring down the divorce timetable isnt it?

And just walking away? Is that what u think a union of two people means?? Sounds very cynical to me.

[diehrd8]

[QUOTE=Herbwoman39]Diehard;

I REALLY don't feel like being yelled at so let's agree to be kind to one another, shall we?

My reason for protesting the use of the terms gay civil unions and straight marriages are because they are divisive. They separate one community from another by differentiating on the basis of sexual preference.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::End Quote


I am sorry but that reply has me lughing so hard because it is just about as silly as anything i have ever read..Lets see Hetro depicts STR8 sex GAY depicts man on man and lesbian depicts Woman on woman (Whoo Hoooo lol)

Hetro,Gay depict divisivness of sexual preferences..SO again explain why thats ok yet Civil union is not ok for gay and marriage is not ok for hetro ? ?

Italian,Irish,English,Mexican,Latin,Russian,Africa n,American,Caucasion,, Depict divisivness amoung people and cultutre.......

And the list of Decisive words used to depict people and culture goes on endlessly to describe our uniqueness and differences..Fact of the world,,Embrace the differences accept them and provide EQUIL Rights to all people..I am for that,,I am also for protecting traditions from each group and there uniqueness..

So Civil unions,,,Gay ,,Marriage Hetro ..I am sorry but for every hard thought reason you seam to provide I can in miliseconds offer simple examples to show your argument is dead in the water..

The argument "Some churches beleive in gay mariage holds little water" BECAUSE currently there are NO gay marriages.So even a religion who beleives in that can not offically get the marriage reconginized by any state in the US.

I am sorry to pound practcle points so hard,,BUT the fight is misguided..Rights YES lets fight for them,,But to insist a word must also be hijacked to make things equil would be like forcing every religion to call it self muslum because by saying Jewish,Christiasn or whatever depicts devisivness,,,

What you are fighting for is an equality called Secular Progressive...A world where no differences are recognized at all , and all that matters is 100% equality from economics to every one's right to do as they chose so long as it makes them happy, , and to be free from critics or judgements reguardless of there behavior. A very dangerious and destructive outlook that would doom this nation and ultimatly the planet.

Look at france,,Please look at france.....Government continues to promiss giving free to the public every election cycle..YOU can not be fired from a job,,You are guranteed a job once you graduate..Are you kidding me ? 40% Unemployment , 40 Percent ! And thats what the phlosiphy of the secular movment is based on,,,So if thats what you want Move to france and let America be ................American......................

[darkeyes]

diehrd8... were u really born such a tit? goin bed..an 2 tired 2 try an reason wiv ya...but wer ya? born an tit?

do me a fave deadsoft read what ya sed an do sum readin on the subject mattas. An learn. Wotya sed wos clap an wen ya reads a bit mayb then ya can open ya gob an speak a bit... till then...shurrup!

[canuckotter]

The argument "Some churches beleive in gay mariage holds little water" BECAUSE currently there are NO gay marriages.So even a religion who beleives in that can not offically get the marriage reconginized by any state in the US.
But there are churches arguing that it should be. And there are churches performing weddings for gay couples, it's just that the marriage isn't legally recognised. If you're going to allow civil unions that are equal to marriage in every way except name, then why not allow the name? Simply, as you yourself pointed out, it's a religious thing. Religious groups don't want to allow gay couples to use the name. And yet other religious groups already do.

So yes, it's a matter of religious freedom. One religious group is forcing its views on another, which is exactly what your Constitution was intended to prevent.

Also, you might want to read up on secularism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism), especially since it's one of the founding principles of the United States.

[Herbwoman39]

I am sorry but that reply has me lughing so hard because it is just about as silly as anything i have ever read..

I asked politely for a reasonable discussion but you my friend were rude. I'll be happy to have a discussion with you just as soon as you can behave in a reasonable manner. Until then I will not be responding to any of your posts.

[darkeyes]

Am not goin r rant at ya this time diehrd rather 2 apologise. Wen I stuck in my reply 2 u las nite wot I sed wos inexcusable an the lingo jus a wee bit much. Actually did reread wot u sed jus now an while I disagrees with much of wot ya sed sum actually makes sense. Sumhow las nite me misread it an wether it wos the tone me picked up on rather or not I cant say. Wos a little down an under sum stress las nite an mayb that played its part but for wotever reason the words I used wer unforgivable and Im really sorry.

[diehrd8]

I asked politely for a reasonable discussion but you my friend were rude. I'll be happy to have a discussion with you just as soon as you can behave in a reasonable manner. Until then I will not be responding to any of your posts.


I feel as if a victory has been won..You have taken your invlid points off the table and now i am the problem,,A simple way to avoid admitting your argument is defeated..

Gay describes a sexual devisivness,,Difference,, Prefernece,,You are ok with that YET Civil union is not OK because it creates a divisivness , Differnece ,, Preference..Senseless to the extream,,,It would be like Black people arguing civil righs are not complete until there refered to as caucasion. . . LOL...

[smokey]

Only the human heart can make marriage a sacrament or a travesty...the ritual of a religion or the mumbled words of a justice of the Peace are just legal forms.

[Tigerguy193]

Tell us exactly WHERE your rights have been lost ? ?

Your personal calls CAN NOT be monitered..Same as before..What is monitered are calls from foregin nations being dialed to our nation with the origonating caller being a foregin national with suspected ties to terror...PERIOD...In your statement you try to make it sound as if there listening to an american citizens calls..Thats a misleading totally decipitive portrail of the program 100% false..




Everything you said in the above paragraph is intellectually dishonest.

Your personal calls CAN be monitored. Why? It is the total discretion of the US Department of Justice who may be called a suspected terrorist.

Groups that have been deemed to be terrorist by the Bush administration:

PETA, ACLU, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League, Catholic Workers Group, Greenpeace.

The FBI has already spied on these DOMESTIC organizations and the CITIZENS involved with them.

Congress has, by omission, approved of these activities.


The Constitution is in the most danger it has been since 1974 when President Nixon considered mobilizing troops around the White House to make it impossible for the Supreme Court to seize tapes. Had that happened, the Constitution would have buckled. It's unclear whether the union would have survived.

We're pretty close to the same thing today.

If (and of course, this is a big IF) Bush-like Presidents continue for the next couple of decades, the US Constitution is nearing the end of its life.

Let's hope the people come to their senses soon, beginning next Tuesday.

[coyotedude]

Boy, I'm away from this board for a week, and all hell breaks loose! Dang....

Looking through dictionaries, I find that marriage can be defined as


a social institution
a legal contract
a religious ceremony


to describe the union of two people.

In fact, we use the term "marriage" loosely to describe a number of similar - but not the same - types of relationships.

A marriage in the legal sense is NOT necessarily a marriage in the social sense, both of which are NOT necessarily marriages in the religious sense.

Legal marriages are not always recognized by religious sects. Example: The Roman Catholic Church refuses to recognize legal marriages as spiritually valid under certain circumstances. (Someone with a Catholic background please explain why!)

Religious marriages are not always recognized by the legal system. Example: I have witnessed and even assisted in spiritual wedding ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples. The religious leaders who performed these ceremonies would not have done so if they had believed that these ceremonies were not appropriate and valid and binding on the couple making their vows before our Creator. Yet these ceremonies - recognized before our Creator - are not recognized by the legal systems of most states.

Religions are and should be free to define their own views on marriage. But the institution of civil marriage - that is, the union of two individuals as a legal and social contract - should be available to gay and lesbian couples in the same way it is available to heterosexual couples.

Sorry, but of all the threats facing my own marriage and my own family, Adam and Steve getting hitched is pretty damn low on the list.

Peace

[canuckotter]

I feel as if a victory has been won..You have taken your invlid points off the table and now i am the problem,,A simple way to avoid admitting your argument is defeated..
No, you've just been rude and offensive to the point where people stop talking to you. With some of my relatives, were you as rude to them in real life as you've been to people on this board, by now you'd already have had your nose and probably jaw broken. All you've done is further cement the stereotype of the anti-gay-marriage crowd as ignorant, arrogant bastards without any shred of common decency. Congratulations. :rolleyes:

[Brian]

[QUOTE=Herbwoman39]Diehard;

I REALLY don't feel like being yelled at so let's agree to be kind to one another, shall we?

My reason for protesting the use of the terms gay civil unions and straight marriages are because they are divisive. They separate one community from another by differentiating on the basis of sexual preference.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::End Quote


I am sorry but that reply has me lughing so hard because it is just about as silly as anything i have ever read..Lets see Hetro depicts STR8 sex GAY depicts man on man and lesbian depicts Woman on woman (Whoo Hoooo lol)

Hetro,Gay depict divisivness of sexual preferences..SO again explain why thats ok yet Civil union is not ok for gay and marriage is not ok for hetro ? ?

Italian,Irish,English,Mexican,Latin,Russian,Africa n,American,Caucasion,, Depict divisivness amoung people and cultutre.......

And the list of Decisive words used to depict people and culture goes on endlessly to describe our uniqueness and differences..Fact of the world,,Embrace the differences accept them and provide EQUIL Rights to all people..I am for that,,I am also for protecting traditions from each group and there uniqueness..

So Civil unions,,,Gay ,,Marriage Hetro ..I am sorry but for every hard thought reason you seam to provide I can in miliseconds offer simple examples to show your argument is dead in the water..

The argument "Some churches beleive in gay mariage holds little water" BECAUSE currently there are NO gay marriages.So even a religion who beleives in that can not offically get the marriage reconginized by any state in the US.

I am sorry to pound practcle points so hard,,BUT the fight is misguided..Rights YES lets fight for them,,But to insist a word must also be hijacked to make things equil would be like forcing every religion to call it self muslum because by saying Jewish,Christiasn or whatever depicts devisivness,,,

What you are fighting for is an equality called Secular Progressive...A world where no differences are recognized at all , and all that matters is 100% equality from economics to every one's right to do as they chose so long as it makes them happy, , and to be free from critics or judgements reguardless of there behavior. A very dangerious and destructive outlook that would doom this nation and ultimatly the planet.

Look at france,,Please look at france.....Government continues to promiss giving free to the public every election cycle..YOU can not be fired from a job,,You are guranteed a job once you graduate..Are you kidding me ? 40% Unemployment , 40 Percent ! And thats what the phlosiphy of the secular movment is based on,,,So if thats what you want Move to france and let America be ................American...................... Your arguments are flawed in several respects diehrd8.

1.
Read the constitution
IT DOES NOT SAY SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Yes it does. And the US Supreme Court has time and again said so. You are right in that it doesn't use the words "seperation of church and state", but you, and other conservatives who desperately cling to that same argument, are wrong when you say the legal concept is not there. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That IS a mandated seperation of church and state. How can you have a marriage of church and state that does not effectively make a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

Take the Alabama ten commandments thing as an example. How can you post the ten commandments in a court house and not affect the application of justice equally to non-christians? It's impossible. How can a Muslim on trial in Alabama get a truly fair trial if the jury walks by the ten commandments as they enter the court house? The state embracing one particular religion by posting it's doctrine in a courtroom is effectively a "law respecting an establishment of religion" and "prohibiting the free exercise" of other religions; clearly a violation of the requirment for a seperation of church and state as outlined in the first amendment.

You are flogging a dead horse. Every version of the Supreme Court for 200 years (even heavily conservative versions) have correctly interpreted the first amendment as requiring a seperation of church and state (in layman terms) and playing with words by saying "it doesn't say 'seperation of church and state'" isn't an argument that is going to change that. In fact, it isn't really an argument at all.

2.
Eqial rights DOES not mean using the same words for every different group
SO again explain why thats ok yet Civil union is not ok for gay and marriage is not ok for hetro ? ?
You are using the old "seperate but equal" argument - the last defense of those who hold tradition in higher regard than equality. There's big problems with what you are trying to argue.

First, you imply that there is already precidence for "seperate but equal" with respect to marriage, that straight marriages that take place outside of churches are, and always have been, "civil unions". That is not true. My father's second marriage took place at City Hall - it was a "civil marriage", not a civil union. "Civil union" is a new term. Your pastor has mislead you.

Secondly, it's great that you support "civil unions" and giving all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples (at least I think you do). But by not giving full equal rights to GLBT folks and allowing people to "marry", you are saying that a gay marriage is not REALLY equivalent, legally, to a straight marriage. It would be sort of like the state of Mississippi in 1968 saying blacks don't have the right to the vote, but they will be granted an "electoral designation ballot" - it will hold the exact same weight as a vote and will be counted as a vote, but technically won't be the same thing.

Here in Canada, this argument has been put forth before the Supreme Court on the same-sex marriage issue, and other issues of human rights before it. And the Supreme Court has been clear that "seperate but equal" arguments are fatally flawed and are simply not good enough to justify discrimination. Some Federal judges/courts in the US, and Provincial courts here in Canada, have also been able to put themselves in the shoes of minorities and come to the same judgement, but it's been spotty. I think time will straighten this out and eventually it will be a generally accepted legal principle in the US and other western countries that "seperate but equal" is not really equal - it's simply human rights for the bigotted.

3.
The argument "Some churches beleive in gay mariage holds little water" BECAUSE currently there are NO gay marriages.So even a religion who beleives in that can not offically get the marriage reconginized by any state in the US. I'm not sure your point, but the fact that the United and Metropolitan Churches want to marry same-sex couples in their churches is very significant. These churches come by this view honestly through years of thoughtful reflection on the bible. The fact that some people, I think you included, want to deny the right of these churches to marry same-sex couples puts you in the awkward position of opposing religious freedom and equality for all religions. If marriage holds a special place in our society and has something to do with a covenant before God, as neo-cons argue, then how can the state justify outlawing this religious practice in Metropolitan and United churches?

Beware the man who believes in religious freedom for only himself and those just like him, because he doesn't really believe in religious freedom at all.

4.
To bad those who support gay marriage are aslo those who feel putting a steel spike in a new borns head at birth is also ok so long as the woman choses it to be That statement officially moves you into the "religious radical" column, which maybe explains much of your flawed reasoning on the other stuff, and perhaps your tendancy to ignore practices of proper spelling and grammar too.

- Drew :paw:

[12voltman59]

Many Unitarian Universalist churches will perform "marriage" or "joining" ceremonies of same gender individuals even in states where such marriages are not yet officially recognized--it is up to each congregation and each UU minister to determine the policy for each individual church and minister (in some states it is illegal for ministers to sign a marriage certifcate for same gendered individuals so they cannot do it in those places)---

UUs have been very supportive of the rights of GLBT people for many years.

Statement of the president of the UUA regarding the recent NJ State Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriages:

http://www.uua.org/president/061025_ftm.html

UU pamplet on the policy of the Unitarian Universalist church regarding GLBTs:

http://www.uua.org/pamphlet/3065.html

[coyotedude]

Unfortunately, Drew, all too many (so-called) "religious" radicals have excellent spelling, grammar, and writing skills. Plus they have a knack for phrasing half-truths and outright lies that make them more palatable to those who aren't inclined to expend any energy thinking for themselves.

That makes them far more dangerous than our friend diehrd8 here, who is simply clueless. I almost feel sorry for him. (Not quite, but almost.) I gave up reading any of his posts on this issue quite some time ago. I'm interested in dialogue and discussion, not inane blather.

Peace

[mannysg]

Reading the posts here about the various political issues strengthens my belief that BOTH sides of the argument TWIST facts, and STRETCH the truth to support their side of the battle. Some of the items are an interpretation issue. The constitution is clear on many issues, but is vague on many others. That's the reason for the Supreme Court, to interpret the constitution in those vague areas.

Getting back to the original discussion...


Diehard;

I REALLY don't feel like being yelled at so let's agree to be kind to one another, shall we?
My reason for protesting the use of the terms gay civil unions and straight marriages are because they are divisive. They separate one community from another by differentiating on the basis of sexual preference.
My understanding of the LGBT movement is that we are all working to be integrated into society...to be accepted on equal terms. In order for terms to be equal, it is my opinion that the verbage should also be equal.
We as human beings communicate in words, so the phrasing makes a difference. We are all capable of understanding that a civil union is different from a marriage because the words themselves are different. The rights involved in both may be precisely the same, however because the term "marriage" has a longer history and is a very well respected tradition, it is perceived as superior on an unconscious (or conscious) level by the general populace. Therefor because the term "marriage" is perceived as having a superior status, then it stands to reason that "civil union" is perceived as having a lesser status.
I certainly hope this helps to clarify my position.

I understand your position, you make many good and valid points. Darkeyes makes some good points also. HOWEVER....

I hope that we agree that the MAIN reason to make gay marraige legal is for homosexual unions to have the same legal rights and recognitions as heterosexual unions. (Note, I did not say "only" reason as there are many.)

Why not take "baby steps" to achieve your overall goal? As a first step, accept "civil unions". When homosexual legal civil unions are accepted across the country, providing the same rights as "marriage", then push for the terms to be identical.

Perhaps after you have won the battle (for a homosexual couple joined in a civil union to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple joined in marriage) you could then push for the term "marriage" be applied to a couple (hetero or homo) joined in a church (or religious ceremony), and the term "civil union" be applied to a couple (hetero or homo) legally joined OUTSIDE of a chruch.

People's attitudes and opinions are a difficult thing to change. There are times when you can give a strong argument to change them. More often then not, you have to slowly change their opinion/attitude.

Some things are difficult to change. When you hit a brick wall that should be removed, sometimes it's easier to remove it 1 brick at a time.

Manny

[Brian]

Wise words Manny, and an interesting perspective.

- Drew :paw:

[JohnnyV]

Reading the posts here about the various political issues strengthens my belief that BOTH sides of the argument TWIST facts, and STRETCH the truth to support their side of the battle. Some of the items are an interpretation issue. The constitution is clear on many issues, but is vague on many others. That's the reason for the Supreme Court, to interpret the constitution in those vague areas.

Manny,

I'm glad you want to be the peacemaker, but in this case I think the fact-twisting is fairly one-sided. I can't see how the people who have posted here in favor of gay marriage have twisted any facts.

J

[mannysg]

Manny,

I'm glad you want to be the peacemaker, but in this case I think the fact-twisting is fairly one-sided. I can't see how the people who have posted here in favor of gay marriage have twisted any facts.

J

Johnny,
I'm not trying to be a peace maker. Just stating an observation in reference to the many political issues in this thread, not specifically the gay marriage topic, but all the various political topics in this thread. However, there are a few cases where people on both sides of the gay marriage issue have stated a "fact" when the "fact" is actually an interpretation of a fact.

An example:
Separation of church and state.. The constitution doesn't specifically say "separation of church and state". It has been INTERPRETED by the Supreme Court that the constitution calls for "separation of church and state". If you read the constitution with an open mind, trying to see both sides of the argument, then you will see how the Supreme Court came up with that conclusion.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Look at it literally.

Given a different set of Supreme Court Justices, they could rule that CONGRESS can't make any laws regarding religion, but a STATE or CITY could.

Take this example if interpertation that required amendments to change:


Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Before the 15th amendment, black PEOPLE were not allowed to vote;


Amendment XV - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

And until 1920 and the 19th amendment, WOMEN must not have been "people".


Amendment XIX - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Back to gay marriage:
Show me where in the constitution, or any amendments, a reference to marriage. There aren't any. Neither is there any reference to homsexuality, heterosextuality, or bisexuality.

So, does the constitution apply in ANY WAY concerning Gay Marriage?

YES!

How? Amendment 10 puts it into the STATES hands:


Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Again, I am NOT opposed to gay marriage. In fact, I'd like to see it be legal. My opinion is that it could be best achieved one step at a time, with the 1st step being "civil unions".

Manny

[twosides]

Thank you manny for the clear thought. And for supporting what I essentially said about allowing time for change to happen. It's going to happen. Do you really believe it won't, someday? Probably not as fast as everyone wants. Maybe not in my lifetime. If you beat anyone with "facts" and pompous beliefs, they're going to ignore you and keep on believing what they want, and slowing down the change. But if we keep the *civilized* pressure on, those wearing blinders will eventually see what's going on around them.

(Where is the third political party?)