How does DU see the Dems' stand on equal marriage?

I posted this poll almost two years ago. I am interested in seeing what, if anything, has changed. The last one got 81 responses.

By "equal marriage", I am talking about exactly that: marriage. Not civil unions, not some allegedly parallel form of non-marriage, not something that is supposed to be marriage in all ways except name. Marriage.

Thanks for responding.


(Edited for formatting.)

Why should straight people be allowed to get married if gay people aren't? Let's have no more marriages!

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

I think the government should get out of the marriage business completely. Federal civil-union rights should be the only thing the gov't get involved in. Marriage should be a purely religious matter, a rite that will vary from sect to sect.

Marriage should have no legal standing at all. It should simply be a religious thing done to make you feel warm and fuzzy, and it can be up to the church who they want to marry.

to any two, consenting, non-related adults. Creating a new series of laws is the wrong way to approach this, when there are workable laws in place.

Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

Bryant

between two persons.

and calling it a Civil Union? Again - no legal marriages for straight people either.

Bryant

institution.

and possible church state issues.

Bryant

useful improvement that would come at significant expense and effort, if it ever did at all.

The fight it would take to change the language could be much better spent making far grater improvements toward equality.

It is people who want to prevent gay people from marrying, or entering into anything that looks like marriage (civil unions included) who are muddying the waters.

I am in favor of Civil Unions for everybody, gay and straight alike. And the distinction between Civil and Church marriage does not seem to be as distinct for all people as you portray it.

Bryant

would be recognizing the right of any two people (adult, not-related, consensual) to enter into the existing civil marriage laws.

I touched on why the distinction between civil and religious marriage isn't clear in many people's minds, it's because those who oppose marriage equality muddy the waters with their rhetoric.

Other than simplicity, why do you require Marriage rather than Civil Unions?

Bryant

The laws are in place now, there are plenty of court cases that have honed the application of the laws. Introducing a new set of laws that would be separate, but equal (impossible in the real world) would bring us back to square one.

That refers to the theory that Gays would get one kind of Marriage (Civil Unions) and Straights would get another kind of marriage (Marriage). I am not suggesting that, because like other instances of that sort of thing, the one for the minority would suck. Like having separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks; it's assumed that the black one would go without maintenance (and that's without talking about the societal stigma).

I'm talking about, in effect, building a whole new drinking fountain for everybody. The current drinking fountain is exclusionary and complicated, with societal complications galore; let's scrap it. Build a new marriage system - Civil Unions - and once everybody is in the same boat, it will get fixed up and maintained.

I've had this discussion a couple of times, and it always feels like the people I'm arguing with are missing the point that everybody would have Civil Unions.

Bryant

Though getting rid of something that works for the most part for something untested is an extreme response when the best answer would be to fix what doesn't work with marriage as it exists today.

I don't think that Civil Marriage can be fixed as easily as you seem to.

Bryant

what do you find wrong with civil marriage that scrapping it in favor of civil unions would fix?

If it's all about what religions allow and don't allow, why are divorced people allowed to remarry, when the Catholic Church forbids it? And what about the many religious denominations that DO perform gay marriages?

Perpetuating inequality is not a good thing, even if it's done in the name of equality.

It's just a contract.

Those who are not are unequal to those who are.

Abolition would make it truly equal.

determine who is a legitimate driver and who is not.

As long as there is equal access to partake in the contract, the contract itself is not inherently unequal.

If that were the case, you'd have a point.

If you don't want to form a contract you want the government to recognize, don't.

It's your right.

I don't want to make it illegal, but I would prefer marital status becoming irrelevant.

things.

Did you think your right to speak out was seriously at risk?

seems to violate the Constitutional standard that there should only be one class of citizen.

I have seen very few who understand that on these here internets, and interestingly enough, those few are all women. Go figure.

People choosing to partake in something that others don't choose doesn't make them unequal.

because married couples get all sorts of benefits and tax breaks that unmarried people don't get.

Just because you don't take advantage of every right you have access to doesn't make you less than equal.

my firmly held belief that marriage is a sexist and archaic tool the patriarchy has always used to hold women down and just get married for the fucking tax breaks. Yeah. Whatever.

I have a really simple take on this...the government should not be involved in sanctioning people's relationships. Period.

equal access to the same set of rights that would be nice too.

to the same set of rights...what I don't believe is that some people should get special benefits because they got married.

I remember now why I generally don't talk about my beliefs on marriage on the internet.

not. It's your choice.

Driver's licenses have associated rights and responsibilities. Again, your choice to take it up or not.

Rights of survivorship and all of that?

I don't think that such rights have anything to do with what VelmaD is talking about. Why should these rights be restricted to marriage? Reread her post, please:

VelmaD (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-10-08 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. actually it does
because married couples get all sorts of benefits and tax breaks that unmarried people don't get.

Will now read the rest of the thread! Heh. :)

By your logic, that makes slavery an equal right.

I don't make the slavery analogy lightly. Traditionally, marriage was a contract of ownership.

Slavery isn't, and wasn't, a right.

But there are no systemic barriers to anyone choosing to form a legally binding marriage - unless they want to marry a person of the same sex.

Is that the state should not be "promoting" marriage.

Of course, his solution is to ban marriage so the state will have nothing to promote. A bit more drastic than actually required.

the legally binding contract some choose to make.

and I don't see it as drastic at all. YMMV and all that.

...what would be a better way of saying it?

Which it essentially is by granting tax breaks, etc.

The problem I see with doing away with marriage and civil unions altogether are things like determining next-of-kin. So instead of marriage you have to write up a living will designating who gets to "pull the plug", etc. Plus a dying will designating who inherits what.

Okay, those are good ideas even if you are married. But, marriage as a legal construct includes a lot of other default conditions than just who is the next-of-kin. So you could get a lawyer to identify and write up legal documents defining each and every one of those.

Or, you just sign a marriage contract with someone, and all the conditions legally covered by a marriage certificate are done.

Marriage is just a legal shortcut. Like a limited partnership or a corporation. You and a friend could open up a business together and identify/define/document every nitpicky piece of the business in a fashion that would be identical to a limited partnership. Or you could just file your business as a limited partnership with everything that legally implies. The latter would certainly be simpler and less expensive.


Want to have some real fun. Check your state's marriage laws and see if they say anything about "in perpetuity". I find no such provision in the Illinois laws. Which means there is nothing from stopping myself and a woman entering into a 7-yr marriage contract should we so choose.

Of course, the courts can always rule otherwise given the long-standing tradition of our courts (dating back to before the Angles and Saxons migration to Britain) permitting the courts to apply their own judgement where not otherwise directed by legislation. But you'd sure get your 15 minutes of fame if you wanted to give it a shot.

Not to mention a poke in the eye to the marriage zealots in this country.

:evilgrin:

Gosh. How unfair. :eyes:

your loathing of the origins of the institution with the right of US citizens to take part in a right to which they should be entitled.

The right to impose economic hardship on someone if you want to break up with them? You may think that proper, but I think it's childish.

The right to rape someone and not go to jail? Repugnant.

The right to tax breaks? Total bullshit.

What precisely is it that makes married people so goddamn special?

The rights and responsibilities they grant each other through that contract include:

Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits
Joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
Joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
Family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
Next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
Custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Right of survivorship of custodial trust

Spousal income and assets are counted in determining need in many forms of government assistance, including: veteran's medical and home care benefits; housing assistance; housing loans for veterans
child's education loans; educational loan repayment schedule; agricultural price supports and loans
eligibility for federal matching campaign funds
Ineligible for National Affordable Housing program if spouse ever purchased a home:
Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
Ineligible to receive various survivor benefits upon remarriage


You can choose to avail yourself of such a contract if you wish, but no one is forcing you to do so.

Too bad not everyone has equal access to this contract.

So yeah, I'm such a lucky ducky because I have the option of marrying a man, and getting $ome goodie$ from the state. Whoop-de-motherfuckin-doo.

I've never been barred from visiting friends in hospital or prison, personally, but some of them likely discriminate on the basis of marital status, and I think that's fucked up. I have no sympathy for those who think such discrimination is fine if they benefit from it. It's the very thing I loathe in straight people.

As someone who would like to marry my spouse, but is not legally permitted to, I can tell you I couldn't care less about the "goodie$". I barely think about my taxes now and I don't care what happens to them if I were to marry.

"I've never been barred from visiting friends in hospital or prison, personally, but some of them likely discriminate on the basis of marital status, and I think that's fucked up."

Not marital status but next-of-kin status. That's not discriminating on the basis of marriage. Marriage just designates next-of-kin status by mutual agreement. But even married people don't have the right to visit friends in restricted areas - only their families. Just like everyone else.

PS: Incidentally, I'm not sure I thought you were straight. I thought you were sort of asexual/antisocial, but could still opt for a marriage just for the "goodie$" since that' the only part of it you think about.

The pay is better, you get more free time, and no legal ties binding you if they go all psycho on you. (Aside from any complications resulting from acts of self-defense, of course.)

All kidding aside, is the symbolism what matters to you? I understand that it's very important to most, even though it doesn't make much sense to me.

Or maybe it has to do with changing next-of-kin status? I'd rather that be totally voluntary myself. I know I'm not the only one who shares DNA with some twisted individuals.

seek them. Who cares?

"All kidding aside, is the symbolism what matters to you?" Not a lot - the mutually agreed upon next of kin status does, as well as the protection for the partnership we have created.

impose economic hardship on someone if you want to break up with them" because divorce isn't just a break up.

Divorce is the dissolution of a legal partnership.

If you don't want to form a legal partnership, compplete with all the rights and responsibilities, DON'T.

But why you think you need to stick your nose into other people's choices to form patrnerships is a mystery.

Aside from that, I couldn't care less.

Is that it?

I also have the aforementioned philosophical distaste for the institution, but people do all sorts of things I find foolish, and it doesn't affect me one way or the other, so whatever.

The tax thing is real, tangible economic discrimination, and "let them eat wedding cake" is not gonna fly with me.

marriage is probably linked to public opinion polls. Most polls show that the majority of Americans do not support same sex marriage, civil unions or even lifestyle. Most people don't really see it as a civil rights issue. I don't believe any headway will be made on this issue until the majority of voters is really willing to get behind it, and even then, it will depend a lot on who is in office at the time.

Lots of poll data here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

But, truthfully, I'm not sure where the candidates stand on the issue. Have any unequivocally stated support for equal marriage rights? They all seem to choose their words very carefully when addressing this issue.

Sid

dance around with "civil unions", but Kucinich is the only one who has come out clearly in favor of civil marriage for all.

if it's based on personal belief or political expediency. And I'm not sure which of those two possibilities turns me off more.

I knew it would take time for the party to embrace equal marriage, but I honestly believed discussing civil unions during the '04 primaries was a step in the right direction. Now it seems we've regressed and this is very disappointing to me.

The issue of gay marriage is hardly the most pressing issue facing our nation this year. Iraq, the economy, the environment--all of these take much more precedence in my book. Social issues in general will always arouse the emotions and passions but generally take a back seat when it comes to issues of national importance.

States issue marriage licenses, so states will inevitably decide who gets married and who doesn't. I don't see it as a major national issue. I know I might sound cold and indifferent when I say that, but going into the voting booth the issue of gay marriage is not going to the prevelant one crossing my mind.

I'll assume you speak from ignorance.

They see it as a debatable social issue. Factors exist there which differentiate it from the civil rights push for African Americans we saw in the mid 20th Century.

I'm not saying I necessarily personally believe it isn't a matter of civil rights, or at least that there isn't some sort of civil rights component to it. But most Americans don't see it that way, especially when you factor in the word "marriage". Like it or not, it is what it is.

Whether it is a civil right or not is a legal determination. Some just choose to ignore that.

I think the capacity for the majority of Americans to shift their position and agree on civil unions or certain marriage-type rights being given to gay couples is fairly decent. But throw the "marriage" word in there and you've got a huge mountain to climb. I'm talking about thousands and thousands of years of social norms and expectations that a lot of people don't want to throw on its head, especially in such a quick manner.

Acceptance of interracial marriage has become overwhelmingly the case because I think people quickly realized the intrinsically trivalness of skin shade, and the civil rights movement helped bring it on. When you are dealing with the matter of one's plumbing down there, however, people are going to be less willing to throw old attitudes aside because it's always going to be viewed as something more substantial.

I don't disagree.

My issue with your stance is that you seem to simply not care.

It's one thing to recognize a political reality, but another to cavalierly accept it.

...which are going to take years and years to sort themselves out due to the inevitable existance of social and cultural norms, is just counterproductive when you have a national political party that has to deal with the here and now. That's why I tend to eschew these hot-button single-issue social matters, when frankly we really do have bigger fish to fry.

Ignore it? Certainly not. But we've got to work within a framework when going outside that framework is bound to fail.

their very real denial of civil rights as "dicey social issues" is both insulting and deameaning.

Anything that rocks the boat and challenges cultural and social norms is bound to be dicey. That certainly doesn't make it wrong or bad or mean that such change shouldn't be effected, but there's no insult in calling it dicey or controversial when that is what it is.

which sounds inconsequential and rather arbitrary.

And you, as a presumably straight man, have no right to tell someone what is and is not offensive.

I am a queer woman and calling something that has a very powerful impact on my life a "dicey social issue" is profoundly insulting. The fact that my partner has a myriad of health problems and NO insurance because my employer only recognizes spouses for family coverage on the company health plan is not a "dicey social issue". The fact that when she collapses and has to go to the emergency room, I have to sit outside instead of being there at her side because we're not related is not a "dicey social issue". The fact that if I die, my homophobic family can throw her out on the street is not a "dicey social issue" and there's not a damn thing she can do about it.

Please STFU with that, it's insulting, and hiding behind the "this is what everyone thinks" crap is bullshit.

issue.

And suggesting it go to a back burner as unimportant certainly doesn't help educate people.

it shouldn't matter what most americans think.

The role of the Senate is to protect the rights of the aristocracy from mob rule. Remember, the Senate has nearly all of the power in Congress (ratify treaties, authorize Executive appointments, etc.; the House only has the power to first author spending bills,) and Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures, not by an actual vote of the people. Senators were also given the longest term of office under the Constitution, again to better insulate them from popular opinion and the democratic urges of the Great Unwashed. Letters written by Madison and other Framers indicate a desire that Senators be appointed from the upper, educated classes.

When we become willing to set civil right aside (almost always when it concerns someone else's civil rights) we harm all of us, we harm the very essence of who we are as a country.

that it is a mighty big issue for many who oppose marriage equality. It gets those fundamentalist types into the voting booth. As somebody once said, a lot of them feel powerless and voting to stop gay marriage or to vote marriage as equaling one-man and one-woman gives them a small sense of power.

Would you have suggested that African-Americans stop fighting for their civil rights when Vietnam was going on?

Once the concerted effort was made by the African American community to make a major push for equal rights, and that push was broadcast nationwide, Americans were easily persuaded to realize it as a matter of civil rights.

But when it comes to sexual orientation, it is just a lot more difficult and complex, and it just isn't going to happen in the realitively quick manner that it happened for blacks. And some of the resistance is going to come from the hard core fundamentalists, but some of the resistance is going to come outside of that community as well.

Also your lack of knowledge about the black civil rights movement. "Americans were easily persuaded"? :wtf: How were the 50's and 60's quick or easy for civil rights. (not to mention the rest of the history of this country leading up to it)

People said the same crap back then. Backing the civil rights movement cost the Democrats the south. It was still the right thing to do.

And while same sex relationships have been around since the days of Adam (figuratively speaking) and in some civilizations considered highly acceptable and even encouragable (such as the ancient Greeks), actual institutional and on the books marriage of same sex couples has never really been a feature of any major civilization throughout history. Hence you get into the area of social norms. And perhaps unfortunately, most social norms are not overturned overnight, or even in a decade or two. It takes a long, long time to shift the paradigm.

Why is alcohol considered socially acceptable, while other drug use is not? Because alcohol has long been considered within the social norms of society, whereas most major societies never featured other drugs within that same level of acceptence. The same goes for the issue of same sex marriage. Now, you may not like it, I may not like it, but the fact remains the changing of a social norm is an extremely long and arduous process that generally does not come from a sudden reversal.

Now, I think a vast majority of Americans do not have an opposition to gay relationships, especially if they are privately polled. And I think a good majority of Americans, if privately and confidentially polled, would be supportive (at least to some degree) of civil-unions. But you throw the word "marriage" in there, and a lot of people are just not going to be ready for such a major change.

So knowing that like it or not, Americans are not going to warm up to idea of gay marriage overnight, why should our national political party gamble its viability with the people on one social issue generally relegated to the states, at the risk of losing our voice on the multitudes of other issues which frankly may bear more immediate importance to our country? I say we should gradually work up the marriage-associated rights for gay couples, including the civil union concept, but to immediately throw gay marriage into the mix would just be counterproductive for everyone involved.

They were?

How revisionist.

Before that time, not so much. TV made it personal to them.

But the black civil rights movement had TV footage of attack dogs and water-hoses. The gay rights movement, at least as it relates in terms of gay marriage rights, does not have that luxury. Now it is true that the gay-rights movement has things like the Matthew Sheppard incident, and I think the spotlight on such incidents has thankfully helped bring a lot more acceptance and tolerance to the idea of one's sexual orientation, but that doesn't translate with most Americans to the issue of marriage.

And skin color will always be a less complex issue than either gender or orientation. I'm not saying that such complexities should act to serve as a bar, but they do exist.

Are you going to send me a check for the $5,000 in extra taxes I pay every year because I can't get married?

I'm not gay, and I'm tired of the Dems absolute wimpiness on the issue of equal marriage.


All of them, with the exception of Kucinich, are absolute triangulators about equal marriage. Politicians in this country always boast about how we lead the world. Well, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain are leading when it comes to equality in marriage, and we're not even following, save for Massachussets. If they'd show a little courage and make a bold stand, I think they'd be surprised at the results. For every bigoted voter they'd lose, they'd gain one impressed by their courage. And for a lot of people, even many who don't necessarily support equal marriage, standing in support of it would not be enough to lose their vote.

I think many of them probably would support it if they could cast their votes anonymously - but, they feel it's too risky of a stance to take politically.

Heck, we have 70% of the people against the war in Iraq and most Dems are still afraid to take a strong stand against it, or even do more than submit one bill with a timeline to Herr Bush.

So, I'm afraid it might be a while before Dems in Washington start openly supporting gay marriage.

Gives a person a few things to consider further.

The previous poll worked so well, I copied the questions exactly (I thought of changing "gay" to "GLBT" but I wanted to keep the data points the same for comparison.) The results show a significant disjoin, which (I would think) the party would be wise to acknowledge.

And I really don't understand why. I wish someone would explain why basic equality and fairness is something to be against.

somewhere between reluctant and opposed. And it makes me feel like this: x(

I had thought of changing "gay" to "GLBT" but I thought that might make comparisons with my earlier poll suspect. :hi:

I understand :hi:

I'd love to see just one of the front-runners say that equality is a moral imperative, that they know there will be political fall-out for it, and that they'll do everything in their power to support marriage equality anyhow because it's the right thing to do.

I refuse to vote for anybody in the primary who advocates for anything less than full and equal marriage, so unless something changes I'll be voting for Kucinich. I'm not sue how I'll handle the general yet.

I tend to agree with you, but it still sickens me.

i think a lot of people feel that when bill clinton tried to tackle the issue of gays in the military all he succeeded in doing was piss off both sides. we dont like him cos dont ask dont tell sucks, and the parts of the military would prefer to still see homosexuality as a disease.

having anti gay amendments on the ballot in several key states helped the republicans out.

i think Dem politicians believe that democrats do not care about gay rights with the same vehemence and fervor that conservatives care about anti gay rights.

He caved faster than the Democratic Congress caves to Bush's war demands. We have Don't Ask/Don't Tell BECAUSE of Bill Clinton. We have the "Defense" of Marriage Act BECAUSE of Bill Clinton. He could have -- and should have -- vetoed these bill. If they got overriden, so be it: he would have been on firm record as a supporter of equal rights.

Sure it would have taken a few years to get full compliance but it would've happened eventually.

Segregation of the armed forces was a command decision; as Commander In Chief, the president had full authority to desegregate the troop. The prohibition of gays in the military was embedded in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is a collection of laws, not a policy manual; any and all changes to the UCMJ must be made by legislative means, not executive decision.

While DADT was touted as a compromise, it actually stripped protections away from gay and lesbian soldiers. Previously, there was no requirement for commanding officers to take action if they learned that there were gay people in their command structure. Under DADT, they are in violation of the UCMJ (ie, they are breaking the law) if they have knowledge and do not act on that knowledge, and can be reprimanded or even face a court martial as a result.

The law requires the Commander-in-Chief (The President of the United States) to implement the provisions of the UCMJ. The President does this via an executive order known as the "Manual for Court Martial" (MCM).
The Bush Administration Yes Clinton should have done it so don't even go there ya'll. So sick of "I know what you are what am I?"

to use civil unions as a measure to bring some resolution in a way that would be broadly acceptable to the electorate.

Please note, I do not consider civil unions practical or equal to actual marriage. But I do think Dems could establish themselves better as problem solvers who can move on by promoting them as a step to make some sense of what is now a mess. I think there is enough suppotr for some legal recognition, such as unions, that would shut up some in the middle while bringing same sex couples closer to equality.

I would say that most Democrats, including all of the current leading Democratic Presidential candidates, seem to support or at least pay lip service to the idea of employment protections and domestic partnerships/civil unions for GLBT individuals but they seem very reluctant to endorse full marriage equality for GLBT individuals, which is very disappointing but to be expected given their perpetual fear of incurring the electoral wrath of anti-GLBT zealots and the people whom they are (somehow) successful in scaring against supporting equal rights for GLBT individuals. I have a feeling that the advancement of rights for GLBT individuals is really going to have to happen from the ground up starting with the states and localities before anything meaningful can be achieved at the federal level. Fortunately, more and more towns and states, not to mention businesses, are adopting civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other protections for GLBT individuals and, hopefully, as more people begin realizing that the sky isn't falling because of such advancements in GLBT rights, opposition to full equality for GLBT individuals will eventually evaporate. It will certainly be a long and gradual process before full equality for GLBT individuals is fully realized however and, unfortunately, I don't expect (most) Democrats in Congress or in the White House to assume a position of leadership on this particular issue. It is a sign of progress, however, that all of the leading Democratic candidates attended a GLBT forum last year to discuss GLBT issues, something that would've been completely unthinkable at one time for any candidate running for President.

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

Government is not going to force any religious groups to recognize gay marriages. That would be in violation of the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment (which don't forget, cuts both ways), and I don't think proponents of gay marriage are advocating churches or religous organizations to recognize gay marriages--the marriage status sought is strictly on the civil, secular governmental level.

But this isn't necessarily always true:

the marriage status sought is strictly on the civil, secular governmental level.

Several Christian denominations and several other religions have been performing and blessing same-gender marriages for years. There are plenty of couples out there who are fully married in the eyes of their faith, just not by the laws of the state. What about the religious freedom of THOSE sects? You're precisely right, it cuts both ways. Or it should.

Religious organizations have always had the right to determine who does and doesn't get married in their church. Some won't do interfaith marriages. Some won't marry people who aren't members of their church. Some won't do second marriages for divorced people. That's their right. And it's the right of the couple to have their marriage in a court of law even if a church has turned them down, because no religion is the final arbiter of who does and doesn't get to make a lifelong commitment, with all the legal and financial rights and responsibilities that entails. Marriage equality in the LAW won't change that.

And that, therefore, the state's antimiscegenation laws were perfectly constitutional. The United States Supreme Court politely disagreed in Loving v. Virginia.

The issue is not that "everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex" and never has been. The issue is that a certain class of people are prohibited by law from marrying their consenting adult partner solely because of that partner's gender.

Edited for format.

The OP is not arguing on the basis of law, otherwise he would have included civil unions. He's arguing on the basis of marriage. He wants marriage specifically, and that's a part of religion, not law. If the law wants to recognize it or not is irrelevant.

And as it relates to gay marriage, the issue only pertains to the governmental recognition of the union under the law. No one has ever proposed religious institutions be forced to recognize and perform gay marriages. No one.

At least, that is the situation in the United States ever since ratification of the First Amendment. The Constitution expressly prohibits Congress -- and by extention of the 14th Amendment, any other subsidiary government -- from instituting, recognizing or interfering with religion.

Religious groups are free to define or recognize the word "marriage" however they wish. With regards to legal marriage, however, religious views, definitions or practices are entirely and thoroughly irrelevant. Thank you, First Amendment!

I am most certainly making a statement about the basis of law. Civil unions, domestic partnerships and the like are NOT marriage, otherwise they would be called marriage. By creating a separate institution, the law is admitting that it is not marriage.

Marriages in one state are universally recognized by all states. Civil unions et al. are not.

Marriages have several hundred to several thousand rights, priveledges, protections and responsibilities accrued to them by local, state and federal statutes, not to mention centuries of judicial precedent and common law. Civil unions et al. have a very few statutory rights under local and state law and absolutely none under federal law; in addition, civil unions et al. are too new to be a part of case law, not to mention the fact that since civil unions et al. are not marriage, case law regarding marriage cannot be applied.

And you are delusional if you think marriage is about religion and not law. Delusional, or willfully ignorant. The First Amendment prohibits ANY level of government from instituting or implementing religion; if marriage were a religious matter, no level of government would be permitted to acknowledge marriage in any way, much less regulate it. Could the government do such a thing for baptism, confirmation or ordination? No religious ceremony, ritual or blessing is or can be a required part of legal marriage. The only requirements -- let me repeat: THE ONLY REQUIREMENTS -- for legal marriage is that the couple being married make an oath that they want to be married before someone authorized by state law to take such an oath and in the presence of two additional witnesses, and that a written statement signed by these five people be filed with the appropriate civil authorities upon payment of the appropriate civil fee. Marriage is, in effect, a jurat no different than what one might do with a notary public. In fact, in Maine, Florida and South Carolina marriage IS a jurat; notaries public in those states are authorized by law to officiate at weddings.

If you would like to contribute to this discussion, it would behoove you to actually learn something about it first.

Edited for grammar and clarity.

that authorizing clergy to do the ritual is a violation of the Establishment clause.

But it usually isn't. Hell, I'm authorized to do it because I got ordained as a minister by mail.

I very much like the idea of giving notaries public the authority to solemnize marriages, though, and I submitted draft legislation to both of my state representatives and state senator to that effect (alas, too late to make the agenda for this year's short legislative session, although one rep wants to meet and discuss the possibilities.) Marriage is, after all, nothing more than a specialized notary act and it would reinforce the fact that legal marriage is a civil act, not a religious institution.

on the basis of making civil unions aquire more rights equal to marriage. You are arguing on the basis that marriage in and of itself is unequal. And as i've already pointed out, it's not. So again, your framing is off. Fine, marriage is not purely a religious matter. So what? Whether the definition of marriage is determined by governmnet or by religion doesn't matter a hill of beans. Fact of the matter is I have yet to hear a rational explanation why marriage is unequal. Please feel free to enlighten me on that, rather than the semantics of marriage as it relates to government and religion.

to argue otherwise is to be uninformed at best.

Get a clue.

Fuck you.

Crawl back under the rock freeper.

Did I hurt your feelings by pointing out some unfortunate facts about marriage? I'm sorry if you CHOOSE not to marry someone of the same sex because your sexual orientation has you preferring to be close to someone of the same sex. I'm a heterosexual, and I CHOOSE not the marry for my own reasons. Doesn't mean I can't. Just like you aren't barred either.

Again, argue on the basis of civil unions. but leave marriage out of it. You have no right to force religion to adhere to your sexual preferences. And i'm speaking from the standpoint of an agnostic.

Justice of the Peace. We are married and it had nothing to do with religion. Hope you enjoyed your stay here.

Straights can get married in a fucking courthouse.

So your argument is not valid.

And I bet you are not an agnostic. Your argument is straight out of the Evangelical playbook.

Sexual Preference = what you like to do (toys, missionary etc)

Sexual Orientation = weather you like it or not you are attracted to a certain sex or both sexes.

The whiny, stupid, "oh it's religious discrimination" argument- YES. It is "religious discrimination" for kids to be taught science FACT in public schools. It is "religious discrimination" to say YOU can't discriminate against gays and lesbians in employment or housing. It is "religious discrimination" to force fundy Xtians to LIVE IN A COUNTRY where, down the street from them, a gay couple may have a marriage license- FROM THE STATE.

It's not about religion- some religious denominations already DO perform gay marriages. Also, the Catholic church doesn't "marry" people who are divorced, yet it's legal for divorced people to remarry. Does that mean that the Catholic Church is being "forced" to adhere to jack diddly shit?

in frozen pizza land)

...how about we allow the millions of GLBT citizens to have the same right to marry their significant others as the rest of us, and then we can worry about the apparently inevitable grandmother or tree-branch marrying cases as they come up? :eyes:

Nobody is proposing forcing any religious groups to redefine marriage. The government never tells Catholic priests or Orthodox rabbinim that they must conduct interfaith marriages.

Straight people go to the justice of the peace to get married all the time, and if you insist on calling that a civil union, then that's your business. Try to force others to do so, and you will be rightly denounced as a hysterical nincompoop.

Enjoy your stay at DU. :hi:

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

Need some more french fries there, genius?

go have government redefine marriage to how it suits you. But don't tell me that marriage as it is currently defined somehow constitutes bigotry towards gays.

I see you are now 'stoned, so run along and give your preacher another blowjob, mmmk?

They always crawl out of the woodwork when equal rights are mentioned, don't they?

:hi:

that bigots abound in our great country.

:hi:

:rofl:

its too much i tell. too fucking much.

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

niece you are a pedophile.

and kinda gross.

n/t

maybe we shouldnt engage him any furhter.

:rofl:

"colored person" person.

:puke:

:puke:

You are the one that is spinning your freeperish bigotry.

My church fully supports the marriage of its congregates, but that's not the point, it's the civil recognition of those marriages that's lacking.

Quite frankly, I don't care if a church will marry a same-gender couple or won't, that's their choice. I do however expect the laws of this country to recognize my marriage the same way it does my brother's.

If you want to claim that everyone has equal marriage rights then that's just not true. In 49 out of the 50 states men have the right to marry a woman. In 49 of the 50 states women have the right to marry a man. They don't have the same rights as each other. Just a bullshit 'separate but equal' set of rights.

And last time 'separate but equal' got challenged in the supreme court it was deemed unconstitutional.

If you fail to see the distinction between marrying somebody you love, who is of age and can consent, doing no harm to anybody, and marrying a child, one's grandmother or an inanimate object, than you are either heartless, a moron, or both.

Please, never vote.

:pals:

I went with the exact same wording I used the last time I posted this poll, as I wanted to get an accurate comparison between the two. If you wouldn't mind, please translate "gay" as "GLBTQ."

:hi:

:rofl:

:eyes:

:toast:

Keep in mind, that was roughly a decade ago, and so much has changed since then... for the better as far as I'm concerned.

The point being, "evolution" is as much a multi-faceted definition/argument as any other, and unless anyone starts name-calling or going toward personal attacks, the ISSUE is what's being debated.

I've just a little more to say. Except people are free to do what they want; that's their business. I'll simply save the semantics for discussions that won't truly devolve into petty trolling and/or bickering, and the "marriage" topic is quite obviously such a topic that nobody will properly discuss. Mostly because those who want to disseminate semantics would just be summarily spat on. That's not discussion of any sort. That's militant flaming. There are many perspectives, sad but true.

Anyone who disagrees may have the last word. I'll even take it a step further and guess: "Flame away." Don't expect a response because I've tried rational discourse in the past, only to get irrationally flamed because only one way is the right way, seig heil. No discussion allowed. And had other DUers telling me they supported me because they knew and agree with how I feel, but were too afraid to respond because of the vitriol spewed by such "evolved" people.

There are plenty of people, on both and other sides of the issue. If more people listened to others, instead of getting all one sided and militant, it's be an intelligent and rewarding case study. Somehow, human nature accepts it's more fun to draw lines and perch on them and point fingers at the other.

And don't ask; I'm keeping MY personal life out of this. At best, it's an indirect tangent to the OP - one that should have been locked as flamebait to begin with for obvious reasons. :(

That'll teach me to focus on work for a few hours.

:hi:

Trust me, you really didn't miss anything exciting.

It gets to the heart of the matter.

The leading group to keep marriage equality legal in MA after the court decision was MassEquality, and it was always termed marriage equality in their advertising campaign. A lot of minds changed over the few years since the court decision, and I do believe that the language was one of the reasons. :)

not everyone can be concerned about every issue, and this is one that i don't really pay any attention to, so i don't have any perception of how the dems as a party stand or seem to stand on it. :shrug:

That's how they roll.

"I am white. Jim Crow does not affect me."

"I am a Christian. Anti-Semitism does not affect me."

"I am a man. Sexism does not affect me."

See where that logic leads?

there are too many other issues that DO affect me for me to keep tabs on.

every person can't involve themselves on every issue, and this one isn't my battle.

sorry...:shrug:

Most white Americans said, "Segregation does not affect me and as such I don't pay much attention to it." Most historians and sociologists would argue that segregation did affect white America, in that it reinforced the meme that blacks were inferior and did not deserve the full range of protections and services -- did not deserve the same RIGHTS -- as whites.

Sorry.

the vast majority of people will not consider gay marriage to be as important an issue as jim crow was- because it isn't. although if it affects you directly, you might not feel that way, but from a societal standpoint, it's not even comparable.

for one thing, many of the things that gay marriage would provide for can be accomplished thru other channels and legal methods- power of attorney, living wills, etc.
slaves didn't have anywhere near the kinds of options that are available to gay couples.
so- don't expect too many people that aren't directly affected to get too worked up over it, and i doubt that we'll be putting together an underground railroad to canada or vermont anytime soon.

The elements of marriage are not easily handled through other means, and many aren't at all.

And Jim Crow wasn't about slavery. Jim Crow laws enforced "Separate But Equal" status, and there was no underground railroad in response to that either.

If you can't get worked up about inequity in civil rights unless it affects you directly, it's pretty sad.

Of 40 respondants who self-identify as gay (meaning GLBTQ)

2.5% see the Dems as fully supporting equal marriage. (1)
5.0% see the Dems as only half-heartedly supporting equal marriage. (2)
12.5% see the Dems as reluctant in their support for equal marriage. (5)
80.0% see the Dems as opposing equal marriage. (32)

Of 79 respondants who self-identify as not gay

1.3% see the Dems as fully supporting equal marriage. (1)
35.4% see the Dems as only half-heartedly supporting equal marriage. (28)
45.6% see the Dems as reluctant in their support for equal marriage. (36)
17.7% see the Dems as opposing equal marriage. (14)


The difference between these two groups is most interesting.

what exactly is the difference between "half-heartedly" and "reluctant"...? :shrug:

Half-hearted: "Yeah, yeah, once the five hundred more important things on the To Do list have been achieved."

Reluctant: "The only reason we bother talking about equal marriage is because you ingrates refuse to shut up about it."

By way of contrast,

Fully support: "Yes, this is important: the lack of civil rights for any group diminishes the human dignity of all."

Opposing: "Go away. But vote for us first."

YMMV. :hi:

:shrug:

Basically: You may find the information more or less useful than it is to the person providing it.

The expression became a joke of sorts after automaker Isuzu ran an ad campaign featuring Joe Isuzu, a liar who made the most outrageous claims. A typical commercial would feature Joe making outrageous claims about this or that Isuzu model ("It get's 500 miles to the gallon in city driving conditions!") while a sub-title issued disclaimers ("Your mileage may vary.")

the rest will be stuck with a historically embarassing backwards-ass position a few decades hence when people see this as the basic equality question that it is.

I'm straight, and I say full marriage equality for our GLBT citizens. Nothing less.

last 25 years.

apparently the party motto has become 'the right thing should be done only if it's convenient!'

but there it is. Not being able to stand up for what is right illustrates weakness.