ok, here is my opinion,
after speaking with people of both sides of the issue, this is what i see:
supporters want same gender couples equal government benefits that are given to opposite sex couples when they file a marriage certificate.
opposers belive it will undermind the american family and that "gay people will raise gay children" and that marriage is an institute that has been for the most part, seen as a union between a man and a woman.
first of all, i belive that as of now, neither of the extremes will win. so lets unite and have a compromise.
as of now, the states of CT and VT have issued "Civil Unions" to couples. these civil unions provide benefits to couples that are given by the state. however, federal benefits are not given.
so here is what i think....why dont we take marriage out of the government....because when you really think of it, when people think of a marriage, they dont think of a person waiting in line, taking a number at a town office and signing a paper....they think of the ceremony. so lets call 'marriage' (in the governments eyes) a civil union...and leave marriage to the religious organizations.
do you get what im saying, all the government 'goodies' and benefits that couples (regardless of gender) deserve.
that way the conservatives do not feel that their churches have to reconized same sex marriages and they can have marriage all to themselves, and the pro-GNM (Gender Nutral Marriage) couples can recieve the same rights...period
cause when you think about, its just a word, and some people think it is something more, so lets give it to them, while forming common ground.
lets agree to disagree and find a middle to this argument.
As of now though, many gay groups are insisting on the right to call themselves married. They may moderate their stance as they lose more battles in more states. I don't think that our society is ready to hand over the M word just yet.
On the other hand, in pole after pole, Americans routinely come out in favor of giving gay couples the same rights that married couples have.
Bottom line, it's an 8th amendment (equal protection) issue. Withholding those rights is not defensible in the long run.
Besides, why are states in the marriage business anyway? I know, tradition, but what the states regulate are public heath (blood tests) and a business relationship. Marriage, by the definition of those most opposed to gay marriage, is a sacred union between a man and women sanctified by God.
What ever happened to the separation of church and state?
We shouldn’t force religious organizations to embrace or recognize gay marriages. We shouldn’t allow religious organizations to define state law that governs the business aspect of the family either.
--Vern
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."
- Vice Adm. H.G. Rickover
Thanks Vern, I needed a chuckle to help me get through the balance of my workday...
Amendment VIII (the Eighth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, prohibits excessive bail or fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. The phrases employed are taken from the English Bill of Rights.
Interesting that you should intermix fines, punishment and marriage? LOL (My wife doesn't read this forum...I hope!)
It is a fourteenth amendment issue, and you are exactly right. The federal govenrnment has no role whatesoever to play in it, so this damn gay marriage amendment crap should be seen for exactly what it is - drum-beating right wingers trying to herd cowering Christians to the polls.
The state governments have a right to regulate contracts, which is all marriage is for governmental purposes, but no right to discriminate based on gender, race, faith, etc. Its all a distraction from things that really matter.
And as an aside, being a straight married member of my local Stonewall Democrats organization (GLBT), I promise you that virtually none care about the title - a few wacko radicals on the coast that could hold a national convention in a phone booth. These committed couples simply want what we all want - hospital visitation rights, property tranfer rights, survivor rights, legal rights, adoption rights,etc. and without having to jump through any special hoops or incur any extra costs to get them. I say about time and will continue to support them in this most American quest...
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
My Opinion: I am very opposed to same gender marriage and here are three paragraphs that explain of why. First, it is contrary to almost every human culture in all of known history. They all felt the family was extremely important and that always implied a male and female to procreate. In almost every culture, it gave stability for children and society.
Second, our country has already undermined marriage during the past 50 years. Everything from easy divorce laws to a culture that sees marriage as unimportant. Most of the laws that weakened marriage had good intentions of protecting someone. Unfortunately, they also had major side effects. Movies and television have done more than their share of influencing us to think that temporary bonding, having kids out of wedlock, and divorces are the norm and have no negative consequences. People in our society are suppose to hold their tongue if they see these behaviors, because adults have the right to do these things. Who cares how it affects the children. Just make it easy for the adults to do what they want. There was a time in this country that when there was a pregnant single woman, both people took responsibility for their actions and got married for the sake of the child. Today, even after marriage and several kids, it is not a big deal to walk out of your marriage to be with someone else that is more attractive at that point in time. Sure you might have to pay some child support, but it is better than having every day responsibilities of that family. “They can take care of themselves; I’m out or here because I am unhappy.” Marriage in America doesn’t mean much now and gay marriage will make it even more meaningless.
Third, if you can really redefine marriage so it includes same sex couples, we must allow marriage between one man and many women (or visa versa). After all, this type of marriage has existed in many cultures throughout history. It must be time to lift the discrimination against the Mormon faith because they had to renounce polygamy in order for Utah to become a state. There are other groups in our country that believe marriage should allow for more than two people – for instances, Moslems. If we accept both polygamy and same sex marriage then we should also allow three men and five women become a marriage of eight people.
There is no easy solution to this issue because both sides think they are right and won’t compromise their principles. However, I am going to propose an alternative. One of the big issues is the extra rights that come easy to married heterosexual people. These are the same ones that Mark mentioned below – hospital visitation, property transfer rights, survivor rights, etc. These are things that people dear to each other want, but they don’t always want to have to get married to do this. Examples are relatives that are very close, can’t legally marry and do not want a sexual relationship. Typically, these are people over 70 that are not married, have no interest in getting married again and their grown kids have long abandoned them when they moved a thousand miles away. So my alternative is to make this process simpler and cheaper to make a legal contract with someone for this bundle of rights. Also, it does not automatically come with marriage. When you apply for a marriage license, you have the option to apply for these rights. This makes two separate and legal transactions. One is a legal document for inheritance, the other is a legal commitment to bring children into the world and care for them until they are adults. I personally think marriage is more than that, but it is an attempt at compromise.
I think I agree with your general premise, although will need to sort through it more intensely when time allows. The simple fact is that "marriage" as we tend to address it is already a dangerous comingling of the civil and the religious. The right wing demogogues have pretty steadily argued that all the rights that same sex and other couples seek are already available - assuming that the contractees are willing to take on additional burdens in terms of time, complexity and the financial burden of engaging private legal counsel to secure what is already available to heterosexual couples by virtue of a simple marriage certificate.
I absolutely agree that marriage in the traditional sense has been deeply undermined by the increased independence of and presence of women in the workplace (not a bad thing), the introduction and increase of no-fault civil divorce, as well as the appropriate fall in stature of religious institutions which seek some exalted or preferred status while supporting intolerance, violence, war, capital punishment, profiteering preachers, sexual predators in the ministry, etc.
I would very much like to see civil government support committed civil relationships including multi-generational families and the geriatric arrangements you reference, strong families of whatever composition, etc. and let the religionists sink or swim on the merits of their own performance.
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
I am Presbyterian, my wife is Catholic. When we were married the Catholic Church we wanted to get married in refused to do so, because we did not attend there. Upon telling her father, my wife quipped that we could just get married in the local Presbyterian Church. Her father's response was that, we wouldn't really be married.
In the state of Pennsylvania we obtained a marriage license. We have a separate certificate from the Catholic Church. They are not equal in the eyes of the church - except that as a social courtesy the church is mum on the view my father-in-law bluntly expressed.
As a practical matter we have both a civil union recognized by the State of Pennsylvania and a religious union recognized by the Catholic Church. They are not equals, and should not be viewed to be. The government should get out of the marriage business, and leave it to the religious authorities.
The greatest damage to the institution of marriage has been the conflation of the state contract with a religious covenant. The fact that this is something discussed for legislation demonstrates the extent that the churches have lost control of marriage as a religious bond, and ceded it to the state.
Furthermore, as a matter of church and state, it is for the good of religions to keep the government out of the arena. While many fear the influence of churches in state affairs; the greater threat is the ultimate influence of the state in church affairs as the practices of certain sects become the official doctrine to the detriment of other sects.
Get the government out of the marraige business. Let the churches attend to matters of faith.
Cool name by the way - don't think I've seen it before and I've been around a while...
I appreciate your wading in and hope you hang around. A new voice of reason is always welcome. I would think that your characterization of your license and document from PA is mischaracterized unless I missed some new tidbit (not likely). You characterize it as what it is practically, and what it ought to be actually. What it most likely says is Marriage License, Certifcate of Marriage or some-such.
I would be proud to get behind any movement that sought to divorce government from the marriage business and solidify its role into that which is proper, practical and practiceable - which is legal unions. Don't think this would be a winner for Unity 08, though...
On the light side, I (raised Catholic) was married in a non-denominational Christian church to my Jewish wife by a Presbyterian minister who "confessed" that he was acting under the powers invested in him by the State of Texas. We wrote our own vows and there was probably a prayer in there somewhere (mentioning God but not Christ, Jesus or whoever) It was a brief lovely ceremony after which my mother felt compelled to ask if God had been in attendance. I told her she was likely the best judge of that LOL.
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
One definition of the word "will" is, "A legal declaration of how a person wishes his or her possessions to be disposed of after death." But, the word "will" has several other definitions, most of which pertain to our belief in choice, or as some call it, "free will". If we "divorce" (splendid word choice, Mark) government from marriage, then legal unions should not be, as suggested by another post in this forum, based on a legal sexual union. Any two people should be able to get one between them, whether they're your parent, sibling, partner, or trusted best friend. In fact, a person should be able to name another as an executor of their free will even if that person does not reciprocate the same contract. But, what do we call it? I have an idea. How about a "Guardian of Free Will Contract"? What a slogan that'd be. Someone who GUARDS your FREE WILL? That's so jingoistically American, it's almost painful. A big, smug, campaign trail thumbs up for me.
As offensively paeanistic as that monicker is, it's entirely accurate: It's a contract where you appoint the person who represents your choices beyond your capacity to do so. If we lump the concept more with living wills, it'll be easier to market to people who oppose gay marriages or even "civil unions". Everyone can go to their prospective gurus and get married in a manner they find intrinsically holy. If you elect your spouse to be the guardian of your free will, so be it. If not, that's no problem either.
Forget married homosexuals for a moment; there are plenty of SINGLE people out there (like me) who may desire a contract like this in times of need, especially if they're geographically distant from their actual families and closer to their longterm friends.
Marriage and the Law has simply become a marketplace for divorce lawyers. They want same sex unions, imagine the fees!!
What are you here to do exactly? Make observations about corruption to validate a defeatist position or discuss ideas of how to improve our current policy?
Marcus, I am a populist. As such, I see many things as elites vs. real folk. Indeed, much of the problem we see in DC is the eliteism of the politicos. What makes them any better than me and you?
I believe that the best way to go is to create a platform that matches the majority view of America and then implement it. I am willing to forgo my own personal viewpoints and support the majority view.
I believe that the desires of the American people are not in the best interests of those who have power now, so I believe that they will not be part of the solution.
The solution is wholesale change.
What riles me is the elites who wear the poplulist garb and populists who become the elites based on the perception of "majority rule/view" whatever that is really deemed to be. The elitist/populist dicotomy is hard to ferret out if you ask me. The majority have too many interests themselves (diverse and many dissonant) and they put their various interests and issues into different contexts without addressing fully the costs od certain policies. The elites play that like a symphony!
What we need at Unity is to put/gather these diverse views in a bipartisan way into some overaching framework of choices/options where costs (choices have costs!)and benefits of policy options are laid out clearly and objectively rather then try to up front delineate through spiffed up polling magic of some sort "populist majority" rule. Informing the American electorate in a bipartisan and open way the various diverse policy options, cost, hard truths and THEN letting the majority decide is the best way of countering the elites' astro-turf politics that has held sway in DC.
So let the majority choose for sure but before they do lay out all the major options AND hard choices so when implementation time does come they know what costs their decisions will incur. To many times the American people want their cake and eat it to and the elites Special Interest K street Lobbists who hold sway in DC and around the country have feed off that cognitive dissonance for too long!
If we keep to the approach of putting one of the two parties in power, you can't get a government that reflects the most popular positions of both parties. When a party wins we get their agenda, not the majority viewpoint.
I hear what you say John and I'd like to believe that the government can cure itself. I'm a bit doubtful though and as such I am a supporter of wholesale change -- and end to bipartisanship for at least a while. If you look at US history, the most change politically was when third party or other populist movements held sway, i.e. periods of wholesale change.
I agree with you GEA on this as to the approach the 2 Parties use to mealy-mouth the hard choices and produce the "fudge" that becomes their agenda. I think as you say government cannot cure itself as it is presently constituted. The K St Lobbyists and PACs ahve too much control for sure on the agenda items in Congressional Subcommittees and Agency implementations. I agree with you on the impact past third party polulist movements have had.
But realize that for them to be effective in policy and implementation they had to have a couple of key issues that activated them and focused their energies (i.e. slavery, robber barons, etc). If Unity or any Third Party is to be effective we must in some bipartisan/multipartisan/nonpartisan way channel those energies into the 2 or 3 crystalizing activating issues. Passions of the majority are all good and fine but they don't mean squat if they are not focused, organized, informed and channeled in some effective way!
I feel we need to call for a new consitutional convention and reform the Constitution. The amendment process would take far too long for all the reforms that are needed. John Locke said it best in the 17 th century, when government no longer serves the people, the people have a right to scrap that government and form one that represents the will of the people. By the way Locke's philosophy was the guiding force behind many of the founding leaders political philosophy.
A Mo South Independent
sounds good to me. I've been labeled a Ultra-Conservative and a a conservative, so what, today I voted no to an amendment to make the state constitution recognize a marriage only between a man and a woman. My beliefs are not what is important on this issue but the rights of others. I agree that the state should issue civil unions contracts or whatever and give them the same benefits. I also split my ticket ....
a boomer independent
smhiott: I take it back after reading how you voted you are definitely not a conservative. But like you said labels really don't mean a thing. Have a good day.
Boomer A TRP Independent
Being an evangelical Christian I cannot condone same sex marriage. However, contrary to what the media thinks and some people within this movement, there are large numbers of we evangelicas who believe what people do is between them and God. By the way we do not want to take over the government, the last I checked the Constituion would prevent that. We simply live our lives according to our beliefs, like any other religion does everyday. And I might add we are not in the business of judgeing people, one of Christianity's basic beliefs forbids that. I believe Jesus said "judge not lest ye be judged"
Let me close by saying, let the people of each state decide the issue of same sex marriage and the courts butt out.
Many would probably label me conservative as I am a Christian, but I also voted no to a constitutional ban on gay marriage. I also vote pro-choice, split my ticket, and voted in the last Democratic primary even though I'm not a registered Democrat. It is not easy to pin me down, and I'm sure that is frustrating as hell for both parties. :)
My take on gay marriage is this... taking religion out of it just for this argument. My husband and I could have gone down to the local courthouse and gotten married without the church involved at all. In my opinion, we are denying a right extended to others, it's that simple.
If the church was the final word on marriage licenses, than we would have a different argument altogether, but since they don't there is no reason to make it a consideration for our candidate. Whether or not the church agrees with it or not, they have no bearing on whether or not I can get married (legal age and other requirements met, of course).
-Keely
As far as homosexuals, they should be totally free of persecution and discrimination for jobs, housing, etc. It should not be considered a negative term by anyone. I don't know why there are homosexuals, but it is not something that they decided they would become. And they are no more promiscuous than heterosexual people.
However, I can't figure out why people would be for giving same-sex unions all the rights of heterosexual marriage. Do you have any idea why throughout history governments and societies have given extra rights/benefits to married heterosexual couples?
If those reasons are no longer valid, then maybe we need to get rid of them. On the other hand, if we are going to give the rights to same-sex unions/marriages, why does only sexual relationships get these rights? It wouldn't be fair to refuse these rights to others in loving/caring relationships that are not based on sexual intimacy.
If we really want to be fair, we should give these rights to any group of people who have a documented relationship.
If you think Social Security is in trouble now, just watch what happens when all these new people get benefits from someone they have a relationship with. Health care coverage cost will increase, and other company benefits will decrease.
I don't have a problem with giving other people certain non-cost rights, like hospital visits and domestic violence protection.
See other arguments against same-sex marriage on my September 1 posting.
So as long as it doesn't cost anything, gays can have their rights. The "slippery slope" argument didn't work when black were allowed to marry whites and it doesn't work now.
And if by "why governments granted...granted extra rights to married heterosexual couples" you mean procreation, I know a lot of married couples whose marriages should be annulled. They are either unable or unwilling to procreate.
In case you forget, gays have much higher disposable income and can pay for all these "costs" you are worried about. There aren't many gay couples where only one works and the other just gets a free ride on his/her social security after he/she dies. That's a heterosexual thing from ages past.
Your bigotry is thinly veiled.
G Steele
Frankly, I think we should keep government out of marriage. The marriage license is simply a way for the family law industry to flourish. It is marriage that gives them the power over us, and when 30 some percent of us break up, the divorce industry swoops in to pick us over.
And that is true for straight or gay marriage. The divorce industry wants gay marriage because it then can be a further growth area for them.
If you are a family lawyer, fess up, you know that's what they are saying.
so please enlighten me if I am incorrect--but isn't the point of a marriage the civil contract that gives spouses certain rights, such as being able to decide what happens if their spouse is incapacitated? If we didn't have some sort of legal paper to define this, I shudder to think what might happen-I'd hate to have the state or my mother decide what to do if I were in an accident and on life support. If there were no civil contract called marriage, we'd have to hire lawyers to provide us with papers that would give us the rights that heterosexuals now enjoy under the marriage contract (which is one reason I am for same sex marriage, call it what you will)--wouldn't this give lawyers MORE money than they are getting now?
Zachct06453, hey, your opinion sounds about right. I think the Government(federal and State)have no business regulating what is obviously a religious issue. I agree we strike out "marriage licence" and substitute "civil union contract". Let the religious people get "married" in a religious ceremony if that makes them feel better. I am not against religion(I'm a Southern Baptist) but it's time to stop trying to make people live by a religious code. What goes on is between them and God. I would like to see the supreme court take this up and settle it.
in fact, I put it into practice when I married my husband. We were wed in a civil ceremony; a Lakota pipe ceremony, and a Sufi wedding (all at different times). The civil contract is all that the state needs or needs ever have.
As a Christian I whole-heartedly object to homosexuals use of the term "marriage".
I don't object to them having some sort of "civil union" equivilent.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
As a progressive Muslim, I have no problem with homosexuals, but I would be willing to say that government-sanctioned civil unions be the legal ones. My husband and I were married by a judge and later had our spiritual wedding. Seems to me that would work for anyone who is a believer, no matter what their faith.
If it's just a word, what's the big deal?
If gays are prohibited from marrying each other for reasons of being unable to procreate, why are straight couples who are unable or unwilling to procreate allowed to be married?
If this is a religious issue, why not insert a clause forbidding the state to force a church or other religious institution to sanctify a same-sex union?
If it's about money, why don't we all remember how same-sex couples have far more disposable income than heterosexual couples?
If it's not fair, why can't we change it?
The reason we are a Republic and not a Democracy is to control the tyranny of the majority. However, it seems that the Republic is failing and we're falling to an Athenian style democracy, which cannot work in a diverse nation of 300 million people.
We're not going away because majorities in so many states have decided to deny us our rights. As long as we're paying first-class taxes and have all the responsibilities of citizenship, we deserve the same rights. EXACTLY the same rights. Not a watered-down version of it because some "Christians" object to use of the work "marriage."
Another poster mentioned letting religion have "marriage" and government have "civil union contract." I'm all for that if the Federal government grants the same rights and responsibilities to contracted couples as to married couples. Anything less is still institutionalized bigotry and still unacceptable.
Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned about whether that is "centrist" or not; it's probably not. In case some people still haven't noticed, gays and lesbians are people, U.S. Citizens, and deserve to be able to marry (for lack of a better word) and to serve in the military, by the way. Using religion to deny any group rights that are simply fair is unconstitutional (see the Equal Protection clause) and un-American.
G Steele
Marriage is an institution that is rooted in Judeo-Christianity.
If two gays want to shack up and make it "legal", fine, just don't call it a "marriage".
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I am always astonished at the fact that people say that same sex couples gaining the same rights and benefits as married heterosexuals will somehow "destroy" the institution of marriage. I don't see how--right now, there's a 50-50 chance a marriage will end in divorce. Haven't seen any statistic from MA that shows a heterosexual marriage has been destroyed by gay couples tying the knot.
If people wish to live their lives together, they should have the same benefits, no matter what their orientation. And kids? Well, I've known lesbians who have adopted kids no one else wanted, and the kids are doing fine--the ones I know happen to have grown up to be straight. Since homosexuality is something you are born with, rather than a life-style choice, I think the argument that homosexuals raising kids will "turn them gay" is a spurious one.
While none of what is written here is new, even new to the many reasoned responses herein, I thought I'd post this response in an attempt to summarize the many views presented here and offer a way forward on the debate (which, if it were the MOST pressing thing we as American's had to face, would be an exceedingly GOOD thing).
The history of marriage springs from ancient religious belief about the nature of relationships between persons (admittedly persons of differing sexes). Our government's intrusion into the marriage contract is relatively recent in this context and consists mostly of ensuring that the marriage contract is valid across state boundaries while also providing a legal framework for rights of survivorship and inheritance, rights of guardianship over the partners to- and offspring of the union and making some tax consideration for marriage. The legal basis for recognizing marriages is founded on the concept of common-law partnership.
Now, a libertarian view is that given "marriage" is not primarily of a civic, but religious history, the term "marriage" should not be co-opted to support those unions that those religions that spawned our modern term marriage find out of step with the nature of marriage.
This is not to say that I believe gay union is out of step with nature or our culture, only that "owners" of the term "holy matrimony" or "marriage" have a defensible claim to it's meaning and application.
The argument for the use of the term "marriage" as applied to the union between two persons of the same gender has attempted to follow the logic of extending all rights and protections of citizenship to all citizens as demonstrated during the civil rights battles of the 20th century. By this logic, civil rights legislation can thus serve as a model to support the extension of the meaning of "marriage" to include anything the state deems necessary or appropriate.
However, the counter argument (my arugument) to this is that Dr. King, as the most recognizable leader of this civil rights movement, did not (primarily) try to appropriate religious symbols of his day to support his demand for equality and justice and racial peace. He was demanding full access to civil rights previously guaranteed him by the Constitution of the United States, a social contract to which we Americans are all a party.
Religions, on the other hand, do not generally provide such universal rights to the word or spirit of the term "marriage".
I believe a more libertarian viewpoint should be that the government's responsibility is to provide an equal legal framework for recognizing the union between two people regardless of religion or gender; effectively extending the rights of guardianship, survivorship, ownership and taxation to all.
It is unconscionable to expect that honest people of honest faith give up their symbols (including the term marriage) simply because the culture or the government says they must. This would be tantamount to State sanction and compulsion of the use of the Star of David for neo-Nazi demonstrations.
What the State can and should do is provide the same protections and benefits to all citizens regardless of gender or color or religious persuasion (something to which Dr. King no doubt would agree).
Therefore, if one wishes to change the use of the term marriage, it must be done not through the courts or the Congress or the Constitution, but in the jurisdiction from which this term has been given life; that is in the churches, synagogues and mosques of the religions that spawned the concept and it's religious meanings.
Better then to focus our political attention on expunging the term "marriage" from civil life, leaving that overloaded term to the purview of it's owners.
Better it is to remove "marriage" from daily civic use, replacing it instead with the term "civil union" for all who wish to have such a union recognized by the state for the purpose of protecting the party's rights of guardianship, survivorship, inheritance and any tax benefit (if any) that accrue from such recognition.
I am against compelling a person of strong faith to accept that his or her concept of marriage or "holy matrimony" be used in ways unintended. I am for the State's extension of the same protections and benefits of personal unions to all manner of relationships.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
You write like a lawyer, John. Are you one?
Marraige should be defined as between a man and a woman.
Not that the institution of Marriage means much anymore in the "if it feels good, do it" world radical humanists like the ACLU have ushered in.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I am the married father of 3. I agree with your assessment that "marriage doesn't mean much anymore". However, the "marriage is sacred" debate is a useful distraction from our more pressing public problems. An interesting few points for you to ponder are:
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
Feel-Good politics is always the easy out for these guys! Appeal to the activist base and kick the can down the road on the BIG issues and focus on the feel-good issues that don't mean squat to the nation. It's the tabloidization of American politics that chooses to ignore the big nation-buster issues and Pander to the Activist Talibanistas in BOTH parties. I totally agree KAZ!
I think you guys are onto the real strategy guys like Carl Rove tell their clients to use. Both parties use the psychology of mass control and hysteria to divert the public from the important issues. I always thought the flag burning amendment was a great example. Why don't we just pass a law that flags should be made from fire proof material? Instead, they wind people up so they lose focus on corruption, campaign finance reform & term limits, protecting the bill of rights from the DHS and their Islamic Terrorist partners, and breaking the two party stranglehold on American Democracy. The other issues that are important domestically and internationally can then be dealt with by real American Patriots and Public Servants instead of Big Business and Special Interest flunkies. They don't even bother to hide it from us anymore.
I would amend your fire-proof-flag law to include the requirement that American flags be made in America ;-)
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
"Marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman."
Compelling as your "argument" is, let me offer up a slightly different one. Married couples receive certain tax benefits based solely on the fact that they're married. That, coupled with the Supreme Court verdict in Everson v. Board of Education, implies that marriage is NOT a religious sanctity in this country. An atheist couple can be married by a justice of the peace, or by a captain of a ship, and they're still legally married. There's no specific requirement of religion. Therefore, religious views of what constitutes a "marriage," either in god's eyes or otherwise, is irrelevant. That being said, two taxpaying homosexuals have the same right to marriage as a heterosexual couple, religion notwithstanding. If you have an argument based in logic (as opposed to your opinion, religious views, etc.), I'd love nothing more than to hear it. I'm pretending that you're still reading this, as I have yet to see you respond to any post beyond the first sentence.
"Not that the institution of Marriage means much anymore in the 'if it feels good, do it' world radical humanists like the ACLU have ushered in." Right. It's all the doing of those damn civil-liberties-huggers. I'm sure the divorce rate has been in no way effected by shotgun marriages forced on couples by their religious right parents, whose fear of being embarrassed at having to talk about their grandkid and then asked when their daughter or son got married trumps the right of the would-be husband and wife's decision to make the commitment to one another for themselves.
Steve Barry
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself."
-Ayn Rand
My, my all the labels thrown around. Are you familiar with the reason that religious families demand their sons and daughters marry those that either impregnate or get impregnated? Let me explain, it's called personal responsibility!! Something like what you quote from Ayn Rand, don't ya think?
Instructions from my parents were, don't do it! But realizing the weakness of children and fools the back up rule was, don't do it with anyone you would be ashamed of marrying.
Amazing! Who would have thought of taking responsibility for their actions?
but I thought the purpose of the ACLU was to help people make sure their Constitutional rights were protected. I know that they have done this for groups that don't like them, like neo Nazis and the KKK. Now if you have written documentation that shows that the ACLU is not intent upon upholding Constitutional rights, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Gee.... with the poliferation of all the rhetoric in support of gay marriage today, I can't wonder if some moderate Muslim in the Middle East might look at this site and believe the radicla imams who repaetedly say America wants to allow homosexuals all over the world to marry.
The 'gay mafia' is becoming one of Al-Queda best recruiters.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
better to stand firm to our own profession of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all than to subjugate our dialog for fear someone might use it against us.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
If you are more concerned with pushing a secular left-wing agenda than you are with the long term security of country, then go ahead, let the 'gay mafia' have their way.
They'll be among the first beheaded by the imams when they take over the country anyhow.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
The "gay mafia" is a group I doubt actually exists and even if it did would most certainly pose no great threat to the long-term security of our country.
However, attempts to quash what you or anyone else personally deem as inappropriate debate, when taken to its extreme, would pose a serious threat to the long-term security of the country you and I share.
Furthermore, the fact that you identify yourself as Christian is enough to raise the ire of those imans whose beheading spectre you invoke.
Finally, I have proposed no "left-wing secular agenda", in fact my exact words were:
"It is unconscionable to expect that honest people of honest faith give up their symbols (including the term marriage) simply because the culture or the government says they must."
The world is so rarely as black and white as you would propose. To make it so does a disservice to those who, after honest and heartfelt consideration, come to disagreement on the meaning and extent of the promise of "liberty".
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
No "ultimatium" at all....just an observation of where the priorities of most of the members who post here lie.
I guess it's more important that gays are allowed to marry, than to win the terror.
Such priorities play right into the hands of radical Muslims.
BTW, you also said this.....
"Better then to focus our political attention on expunging the term "marriage" from civil life"
....such a statement is downright Marxist.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Your argument seems to be that if I choose to discuss the rights of gays (in my words: "to survivorship, guardianship, ownership and taxation benefits") this automatically reduces my interest in an appropriate response to terrorism as a tactic some use to pursue political ends.
Essentially your argument boils down to "since I am for a rethinking of the extension of civil rights to gays I am against fighting terrorists". This is exactly the sort of conversation most politicians would love to have. It obfuscates the true nature of each issue and stakes out easily digested positions that bear little resemblance to fact, intention or intellectual honesty.
Finally, one cannot fight a war on terror. Terror is a tactic. Terrorists are enemies. Their politics are at issue with our politics. Their tactic is the use of terror. Quashing debate and repudiating an adversary's right to a position in that debate is something terrorists do; not Americans.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
What "arguements?"
All I've done is state my opinion, i.e. that promoting gay marriage so INCESSANTLY only undermines America's credibility in the Middle East.
But if they are so determined to overturn the institution of marriage (as you have proposed, in true Marxist fashion) at the cost of helping Al_Queda, I say fine, go ahead, keep on ranting.
I've already said I have no objection to gay "unions" but the radicals keep trying to INSIST they have RIGHT to "marriage".
I cite than as evidence of how uncompromising the Radical left is.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
My reading of Marxism (and by no means am I a philosopher or expert) is that it concerned itself with means of production, distribution of the benefits of production, the ability for a class of persons to act in their own self-interest and the repudiation of the alienation of a laborer from the fruits of their labor; silent on the issue of marriage and homosexuality. Humanist Marxism and Cultural Marxism are equally silent on the issue of marriage and homosexuality.
However, after Marx death, Engels did produce a treatise which he felt extended original Marxist thought into the domain of marriage. I quote:
"Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period."
My views of marriage as a sacrament of and by the church are therefore certainly NOT Marxist, at least in the view of one of its founders.
I therefore wish to end this faux debate on the merits of extending equal protection under law as equivalent to either Marxism or providing undue comfort to the enemy.
My original statements stand:
1. The government has no business denying the rights of individuals based on gender preference.
2. The term "marriage" belongs to the religions that spawned it; and not to the Congress, the President, the Court or public opinion. Removing the term "marriage" from civic oversight makes the most sense to me.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
One of the goals of Marxism is to remove institutions in a scoiety and replace them with their own.
That is EXACTLY what your earlier post advocated when it said
"Better then to focus our political attention on expunging the term "marriage" from civil life"
Of course, divorce lawyers have done a pretty good job of it already. Much like the ACLU has done in removing Christianity from "civil life".
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
"All I've done is state my opinion, i.e. that promoting gay marriage so INCESSANTLY only undermines America's credibility in the Middle East."
All this time I thought there was botched intelligence, a failed effort to wrongfully connect Iraq to 9/11, a lack of WMD's that we were sure were there, and a bunch of photos of Iraqi prisoners in naked pyramids. I never realized that the reason why our credibility was being undermined was because there's a group of people who pay taxes the same as the rest of us who aren't allowed the same federal benefits provided by a marriage (that makes just as much sense, because why would anybody want help establishing a new government from a nation with such a blatantly hypocritical one). Thanks for setting my straight Kris.
Steve
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself."
-Ayn Rand
Didn't some old dead white guy say something to the affect of, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither?" Did he happen to have anything to do with the founding of this nation, and/or the writing of the constitution? Just curious.
Steve Barry
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself."
-Ayn Rand
The imams I know are interested in helping the seeker get closer to God. They do not have a political agenda. But then, I'm a progressive Muslim, and not one of the radicals--like the majority of Muslims not only in the US but also around the world. Don't let media hype make you think the Wahhabists are in a majority in the Muslim world.