Obama opposes gay marriage (cites religious beliefs-supports civil unions)

[Rose Siding]

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama said Friday that his Christian beliefs dictate that marriage should be between a man and a woman, although he supports civil unions that give legal rights to gay and lesbian couples.

Republican candidate Alan Keyes accused Obama of trying to have it both ways on the issue.

"I think what we are seeing on this issue is deceit,'' said Keyes, who has made his opposition to gay marriage a cornerstone of his campaign. "He is deceiving the voters.''

Throughout the campaign, Obama has said that he opposes gay marriage but is in favor of civil unions.

During a taping of WBBM-AM's "At Issue,'' he was asked his personal views on gay marriage.

"I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,'' Obama said.

But the Democratic state senator added that he does not understand people who say gay marriage somehow threatens the sanctity of marriage as an institution.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-040924obama,1,3472496.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[JohnKleeb]

1. That's the same view my grandmother has

and I completely understand and respect it. Who is Alan Keyes kiddin?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

2. I wish Obama would take this a step further,

and question government recognition of all marriages, as this amounts to government endorsement of a specific religious view.

[JoFerret]

3. That's a disappointment

but no surprise. With his lead he could say what he actually thinks. I guess this is it. Too bad.

[j2thaizzo]

138. What makes you think

...that this ISN'T what he actually thinks? Many religious African-Americans (including this one), think the very same thing. What ever happened to tolerance (including of people's religious convictions)?

[jdj]

4. So I guess divorce is something sanctified between a man

and a woman too, then?

At least half the time?

[ikojo]

22. I am so SICK AND TIRED of Christians and others, but it's mostly

CHRISTIANS blathering on and on about the sanctity of marriage. I have a co-worker whose brother is getting married tomorrow (9/25). It is the FIFTH marriage for BOTH OF THEM. He has been MARRIED FIVE times and the woman he is taking as his wife has also been MARRIED FIVE times. Between them they have been married TEN times! Yes, they are having a moderately sized wedding of only friends and family as well as a reception with a live band.





Another co-worker got married shortly after I started at the company in January. It was her FIFTH marriage as well. This one is so committed to things that her last marriage (#4) was to a Jew. She converted (conservative Jewish congregation). The marriage went south. That one lasted three years.

She is now remarried and is a fundy Christian. I am sure she voted to support the ban on gay marriage. After all she is a fine example of the sanctity of marriage, right?


Yet it is gays and lesbians who are said to be a threat to something that at the moment appears to me to be nothing more than legalized and state sanctioned prostitution.

:wtf:

[Xithras]

218. FYI, the 50% number is a myth, it's actually about 25%

Here's where the skew comes from: Guy one is a freeper butthead who is married five times before finally finding his perfect freeper bride. Guys two, three, four, and five all find their perfect brides during the first marriage, and never divorce.

Technically, our test group has an average divorce rate of 50%, but the reality is that 4 of the 5 men outlined here never divorced. It's these remarriages that throw the statistics.

In the real (nonstatistical) world, about 25% of American adults identify themselves as having been divorced.

[leesa]

5. Quit living in the past Obama. That is social law from the year 0000?

I so wish Americans could evolve.

[WMliberal]

6. oh well, no one's perfect. n/t

[kwolf68]

7. Gay Marriage is a LOSER

While I think the Democratic Party can stave off any constitutional amendment banning it, this otherwise is a big fat losing position.

This is why even people like Howard Dean was for civil unions. Gay Marriage is a fringe issue and simply is an albatross around our necks.

Frankly, I don't care who the hell gets married and two Lesbians or gay men getting married won't do shit to my marriage, but it isn't an issue we should waste away with right now.

As long as Gay people have the same type of legal rights (which supposedly is taken care of with civil unions) then whats the big deal?

[Not Me]

9. It's called equality under the law

It's the same as separate schools for colored children and glass ceilings for women. Yes, US society may not be ready for it, but that doesn't make anything less than equality right.

[SidDithers]

82. The time to make the change is after you've won election...

not when you're running for office.

Sid

[LondonAmerican]

85. That's cowardly

and unworthy of anyone who takes their rights seriously.

[SidDithers]

105. Bullshit...

Kennedy and Johnson were able to enact civil rights change because they were Presidents at the time.

But they had to become President first. Legislation that is the right thing to do, in this case legalizing gay marriage, is sometimes not the popular thing to do. Taking an unpopular stand during an election campaign might make you feel good, and it might also keep you from getting elected.

Call it cowardly if you want, but that's the way the game is played.

Sid

Edit spelling

[LondonAmerican]

114. I'm not interested in supporting someone who's ashamed of my vote .nt

[SidDithers]

132. Then don't vote...

or vote for the other guy, 'cause he sure is a friend to your cause.

Or, you could help to elect the candidate with a history of supporting gay rights, and then hold his feet to the fire once he's President.

'Course, you knew those were your choices all along, didn't you.

Sid

[tblue37]

143. The perfect is the enemy of the good. n/t

[GreenArrow]

192. so is the mediocore

.

[TankLV]

159. My sentiments exactly.

We've got to choose our battles carefully.

There is already a lot on our plate. This is a distraction.

Keep our eyes on the prize.

[rawstory]

103. It's times Dems took principled positions.

Instead of being tools.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

11. Sadly, the Repubs have successfully used this as a wedge issue

I read an article about 18 months ago that predicted the GOP would pursue the "ick factor" around gay marriage (this description was from James Carville).

Some of that "ick factor" has been diluted because of the media's coverage of the joyous couples who converged on those municipalities that offered marriage to gays. Those couples were inspirational in their devotion to each other and their complete happiness at being able to sanctify their relationships. Only the most jaded viewer could have dismissed the commitment and devotion those couples had for each other.

I thought it was a brilliant move by some progressive mayors. Those couples were just like everyone who wants to recognize their partnership.

However...those events just happened over a few weeks. The Repubs have had years to indoctrinate their followers to the "evils" of gay marriage. This is a ruthless group, and apparently Obama seems to recognize their power to divide and conquer. Gotta admit, I'm still disappointed. MKJ

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

21. To hell with your position.

Like it or not we are going to "waste time" on it because the GOP has put in on the agenda.

So the Democrats are going to run away again....Run, run, run away from those scary icky gays.....

fuckers.

[Zhade]

74. Thanks for saying this, Waverley_Hills_Hiker.

Believe me, it means a lot.

[ikojo]

25. Civil rights for blacks was a fringe issue once as well.

Although the Democrats at one time were the party of the Klan and White supremacy, they saw the error of their ways and began embracing blacks and their call for equal rights.

No time is the right time to challenge the status quo, however, if it is not challenged there will be NO progress even if it's in baby steps.

[j2thaizzo]

141. I'm so tired of

...a primarily white constituency pimping the civil rights movement. Gay marriage is important to you, but it is NOT the equivalent of 400 plus years of slavery, lynching, Jim Crow and discrimination. Remember, the average gay couple has a per capita income of $78,000 per year vs. $23,000 for the average black couple.

And this issue is a loser for Dems, and holds the potential of alienating black voters (American and Caribbean) who tend to be religious and socially conservative.

Apples and oranges, people. Win the election, then negotiate with Kerry.

[TankLV]

160. Don't even go there!

You have no clue what you are spouting.

You have proved my point exactly - this is a distraction - but it is still an important issue - a life and death issue, whether you realize it or not, or want to believe it or not.

It IS just as important as the "Civil Rights" struggle - it's a direct continuation of it. To claim otherwise is ignorant.

[j2thaizzo]

194. I know exactly what I'm spouting...

...and to suggest that one of the most affluent constituencies -- mostly white btw -- in this country is living the same reality as African-Americans is the height of insult. It's also the reason African-Americans are slowly but surely backing away from the Democratic party. Racial minorities face discrimination before we even walk in the door, on sight alone. And we were OWNED as PROPERTY in this country and then subjected to apartheid. Are you seriously saying that this is the same as Joan and Jan not being able to pass on their estates without a legal agreement? Get real, and recognize. If Kerry loses in November, and he very well might, it will be because the Dems lose the turnout battle with Black voters, many of whom are NOT energized for this race. Again, it's "recognize" time for the DNC. And I'm a lifelong Democrat btw (and a 1st generation American of African and West Indian descent.)

[IA_Seth]

216. My 2 cents

In my opinion, everyone (gay, straight, whatever) should get "civil unions". If our government is truly separated from the church, why does it matter if the government calls anything a marriage?

Get married in a church. Get a civil union. It should be that way for all citizens.

I have plenty of Muslim friends and Tai Dam friends who have their cultural or religious ceremonies seperate from any state certificate. Marriage is a state of mind, a covenant in religion, not a state institution.

Civil Unions are the only logical thing for a secular government to have.

[American liberal]

202. I don't agree

Civil rights are civil rights, whether you're gay, black, female... To my way of thinking, and I am a born-and-raised Democrat who happens to be biracial, liberal, hetero, female to give you a glimpse into my frame of reference, gay rights are just as valid as black rights and women's rights. When activists begin claiming that THEIR civil rights are more relevant than YOUR civil rights, well..., it creates divisiveness when what we really need is solidarity.

My mom's a Jew. My dad's black Southern Baptist. All the Jewish people I knew growing up were like my mom: progressive, liberal, intellectuals. My dad's side of the family was very accepting and supportive. When I meet or work with Jews who are racist or blacks who are anti-Semitic, I don't get it. I think Jews and blacks are the most persecuted peoples in the history of the world and yet they create and perpetuate divisiveness between themselves. It just doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

I feel the same way about blacks who think they have the corner on the exploitation market--to the exclusion of homosexuals. Economic disenfranchisement is not the only measuring stick.

Gays and lesbians are discriminated against just as badly as other minority groups--in some cases even more so: Remember Matthew Shepherd (sp). And gays and lesbians have been persecuted for as long as Christianity has existed, so claiming that because American blacks have endured 400 years of slavery their civil rights are more relevant, to me just seems plain silly.

Civil unions are a step in the right direction. Daley enacted civil unions and benefits that go along with it for city workers in Chicago several years ago. It's a start.

As an American citizen and a child of the civil rights movement, I am a supporter of the efforts of the gay community and its supporters to gain equal rights and equal protections under the law.

[auburnblu]

205. Maybe a fringe issue in 1800

100 years before the Civil Rights movement, a civil war happened driven largely over the most basic of civil rights, freedom.

[Cronus Protagonist]

81. If you were born a few years ago you would support segregation, right?

That was also a "losing proposition" - so you would say something like, Rosa Parks should sit in the back of the bus - what's the big deal?

Seems to me you're staking out an untenable position.

Fascism: We Report You Decide
http://cronus.com/fascism

You might be a Republican if...
http://cronus.com/quiz

Commentary by a Republican...
http://cronus.com/republican

The REAL Republican Platform...
http://cronus.com/platform

Bush's Illustrated Resume
http://cronus.com/bushresume

Isn't That Strange?
http://cronus.com/oil

:)

[LondonAmerican]

84. It might be a 'loser' for straights

but it's an important issue for me and a lot of other gay men and women.

Sorry if it screws up your political calculus but frankly I do not give a damn and I am not going to support any wimp-ass candidate who cannot be bothered to support my fundamental rights as a human being. F*ck that.

[WillParkinson]

107. What's the big deal?

Spoken like someone who doesn't have anything to lose.

Here in Wisconsin they're trying to amend the state constitution to recognize marriage as between a man and a woman AND make it so that the state doesn't have to recognize civil unions.

What's the big deal? Surely you jest.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[drmom]

111. But we don't have the same type of legal rights...

...even in states like California with Domestic Partner legislation, we are still just given rights that we could get anyway by executing the proper legal paperwork, such as hospital visitation. In fact, most of what we "get" is the responsibilities such as being financially responsible for our partners debts, etc.

Two huge things that gay couples don't have - social security benefits as partners, and income tax benefits. I am in a 14 year relationship that is exactly the type the tax laws were made for, one parent works and the other stays at home with the kids. My partner makes a good living, but she has to file as a single person...so we pay a much higher rate of taxes than if we were able to file jointly.

I personally would be willing to settle for all the same legal rights as any other married couple and to hell with the title of the relationship. This is SUCH a different issue than anything to do with religion. I could care less what religious organizations do about our relationship.

[Trashman]

116. Why don't we

just take away the special rights that married people and people with children have. Then we can all be equal. Why burden single people with the bill?

[sffreeways]

164. Another HUGE HUGE issue

that few recognize is immigration rights. When you've been with someone for 12 years and they are from another country you have to

a. live in fear of deportation and permenant separation
b. if they are ill they can't get treatment
c. can't help financially with any kind of credit

the list of horrors go on.

It's one of the sadest situations a gay or lesbian couple has to cope with. Believe me I know. The only way to resolve this issue is full recognition of legal marriage. Civil Unions don't afford this right and straights have it.

[j2thaizzo]

139. Exactly

This was a major miscalculation on the Dems' part. The San Fran mayor took the gamble more for his personal political future than becuase it was strategically sound -- even Barney Frank agrees with that. This is a losing issue for the Dems and believe me, it is costing us with African-American and Caribbean-American voters, who are generally religious and socially conservative, and who therefore believe as Obama does.

Drop this issue, Dems. It won't add to our totals in Nov.

[AntiFascist]

153. That's why the issue should be decided by "activist" judges....

just as the issue of interracial marriage was when 90% of the population was opposed to it.

[IndianaGreen]

163. Easy for an hetero to say that same sex marriage is a loser

Political parties that ignore human rights and human dignity are the only real losers!

[AP]

8. Why do people ask their politicians to tell churches what to do?

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.

People should be asking their politicians to get church out of politics.

The gov't should only be talking about civil unions and the priests should be talking about marriage.

Obama is right on.

[Myrina]

13. I agree completely.

It's the same with the abortion issue, IMO.

When I got pregnant in college, I wasn't sure what to do, but I thanked my lucky stars every day that I had the CHOICE in what to do. I realize what a difficult circumstance that is for women and cannot fathom anyone enforcing their own religious beliefs onto another person. Neither should the gov't enforce any given religious belief onto the populace.

Anyway, that was my tangent. The point is, there are matters that the gov't can and should legislate - civil unions, partnership laws for tax breaks, wills, custody/adoption, etc - but marriage tends to be a 'religious' issue and inherently falls under the separation of churhc and state's paradigm.

[Scootman78]

14. And if you aren't religious?

Does that mean you shouldn't get married or have abortions if you aren't religious?

[Myrina]

15. Groan

:eyes:

[AP]

16. Why would a non-religious person even care about the government defining

"marriage"?

Those are the people who should be screaming loudest for civil unions for gay AND straight people.

[Charlie Brown]

30. If there was the slightest chance

of the gov't dealing exclusively with Civil Unions, I'd agree. However, that will never happen, as the state has recognized marriage between heterosexuals for generations. It's a powerful word, and one the has been accorded them by various state governments (and which many married couples take for granted). If the gov't is willing to accomodate a heterosexual union with this kind of credibility but not a same-sex one, then same-sex couples will always be a viewed as a couterfeit of marriage, and not of the same prestige as heterosexual unions.

[AP]

66. So pessimistic. Here's how simple it would be:

today, to get married, you need a civil licence and some form of ceremony (either religious or the fake-religious civil ceremony).

Well, a civil union will be simply getting a civil licence. No ceremony requirement. You sign up, you get the legal benefits and burdens. The gov't doesn't care if you find a chuch to give you a ceremony, and they don't make you waste your time having a fake "civil" ceremony.

That puts the government in the business of conferring solely legal rights and burdens, and it puts the curch in the business of conferring spiritual relationships, or whatever.

"The prestige of marriage." That's a joke. Many people I know are atheists and think of it as a stigma. Of course, they're foregoing the beneift of the law just because they don't like the religion part, which is a little silly. But I hope the gov't does what I'm suggesting so that they would get the legal rights that are, today, conferred by marriage, which would make their lives more productive and it would allow them to accumulate a little more wealth.

[Scootman78]

31. Hmmm...maybe because marriage has nothing to do with religion

Well there's a lot of "those are the people" out there. And a lot of "those people" prefer marriage over civil unions. Marriage is a much more powerful word and you don't often want to go up to somebody, telling others that you had a civil union with your spouse. You want to tell them you're married.


Here's the definition of civil union from <http://www.dictionary.com>:

n : a voluntary union for life (or until divorce) of adult parties of the same sex; "parties to a civil union have all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under Vermont law as spouses in a marriage"


I'm straight and I'm not religious. I certainly wouldn't want to go to a hypocritical church to get married, so I'd go to city hall. By going to a judge, I can get married. If I can get married as a straight man, why can't a non-religious homosexual? Why does church have to be an excuse to preventing people from exercising their civil rights?

Marriage has nothing to do with religion (check <http://www..dictionary.com> and lookup the word if you want evidence).

You guys tend to think marriage has everything to do with religion because of what you've been told by the church. Think again.

You can groan all you want, but the definitions of marriage and civil unions speak for themselves.

[Roy Robertson]

35. I agree. Marriage is NOT a religious function in this country.

It is civil, by law.

Roman Catholics can divorce and remarry. Their church might not like it, and Jesus said the second marriage was adultery, but if the Justice of the Peace says you are married, then you are married, and the church can go pound sand. The couple doesn't have to call their marriage a "civil union".

They might not be married in the eyes of their church, but that's a private internal matter for the members of that church to worry about.

Marriage, by law, is a civil institution. Many weddings take place in churches, but all marriages take place on paper, when that marriage licence is duly filled out and signed.

[Scootman78]

55. Thanks for the agreement

I have this fault about me where I always have to try to prove myself if I think something is wrong. Some say its what makes me a true liberal..heh.
____________________________________________________

Here's something I found that was cool. A definition, according to Webster's, of what liberal means:

Current Definition (one of them at least)

Liberal - 5. Not narrow or contracted in mind; not selfish; enlarged in spirit.


And a Definition from 1913:

Liberal \Lib"er*al\, n.
One who favors greater freedom in political or religious
matters; an opponent of the established systems; a reformer;...
____________________________________________________


Basically, the Dictionary has a good definition of what being a liberal is. Bill O'Liely should devote a whole show to explaining why GOPs can't seem to agree with the Dictionary and even a 91-year-old definition. Talk about being really behind the times!

[AP]

68. So why require a ceremony to finalize marriage?

Why have that requirement?

I know you can get a civil ceremony, but what the hell is that? That's the government acting like some kind of civil church.

¿Why isn't it enough to put your firma on the papela?

Let's separate los dos.

[Roy Robertson]

76. I don't think a ceremony IS required.

People like to have them, for emotional reasons, but I don't think the law requires them. I think a "firma" on the old "papela" is enough. (Does that mean "signature" on the "paper"? I am Spanish-challenged...) It could be that certain "vows" are required, legally, in the same sense that you have to swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" when you become a witness (an oath not required in marriage, interestingly enough), or take an "oath of office", ie, get "sworn in" as president or governor or legislator or mayor or dog-catcher. It's how we establish certain legal obligations, and we make it more or less "ceremonial", as we see fit.

I get your point, I think. Getting married is a very emotional step for people to take. I cried like a baby at my little sister's wedding, 20 years ago. And I cried like a baby again, this past weekend, when my friends Mark and Dave were finally able to get married. Ceremony is how we handle strong emotion. So it's only reasonable that most people think of the wedding ceremony as the essence of the "getting married" process. But legally, it is not.

When you say "I know you can get a civil ceremony, but what the hell is that?" you are saying that the civil requirements for getting married don't match up with the emotional meaning that getting married has for people, and you are quite right. But that's how this whole discussion gets so complicated.

As for "Let's separate los dos." well, they already are, in law.

Much love,

Roy

[SidDithers]

83. Good Post. nt

Sid

[AP]

99. The law does require a ceremony. Every state says that a marriage requires

both the civil license plus some kind of ceremony.

You'd think that atheists and agnostics would be in an uproar about this. Why does the government require either a religious ceremony or fake or quasi-religious civil ceremony.

A license should be enough. And we should all be arguing that the government should not be in the business of looking to the churches to be told what kind of relationships should be entiteld to recieve a civil license. That's the church getting into the government's business.

[fugue]

115. No, that's wrong.

The law does require a ceremony. Every state says that a marriage requires both the civil license plus some kind of ceremony.

A ceremony is not required in Ohio, and according to the person processing my friend's marriage license, no ceremony is required anywhere in the US. Certainly you could go to a state that doesn't require a ceremony, sign the paper, and then go anywhere in the country and have your marriage recognized.

Marriage takes place on paper. There are people who do not have ceremonies, they just go and sign the paper and are married. How you want to dress it up is not the government's concern.

For years, it's been possible to be considered married in the eyes of the law but not married in the eyes of the Catholic Church. What's wrong with gay couples being married in the eyes of the law and not married in the eyes of all those fundamentalist Christian churches?

[Scootman78]

118. This seems to be where people are getting confused

There's nothing wrong with gay couples or any couples being married in the eyes of the law and not in the eyes of the churc. Absolutely nothing wrong with that...to some of us at least.

Its really confusing when people who call themselves liberals seem to want the church involved in state affairs. Yes you might be a liberal on many issues, but not wanting certain people to have the same civil rights as you is a conservative stance.

I don't see Reverend or Father mentioned before names when I cast my ballot to vote. A congressman is supposed to represent the will of the people, not the will of the Pope. Keep marriage a state thing and strictly a state thing.

If you want a nice ceremony to go along with it, then that's all fine and dandy. There's nothing wrong with having a church ceremony if you want one. But you shouldn't have to be religious to get married - where's the civility in that?

[AP]

120. Marriage is a spiritual relationship. It's not the domain of the state.

The state should only have domain over legal rights and obligations between two individuals, or between an individual and the state.

[Scootman78]

124. Again you're confused

Did you forget to check the definition of marriage in a dictonary? Don't try checking the Jimmy Swaggart Dictionary, look in a real dictionary.

Me thinks you are still confused. Marriage has nothing to do with the church. Nothing to do with the church. Just keep repeating it and you'll realize it.

If the state can give me domain over legal rights and obligations, then it can also call me married. If the state can't do that, then there are millions of people in America who aren't actually married.

I'm repeating myself from an earlier post, but I think you've forgotten, so here goes again...

If I want to get married to a girl. Why should I have to go to church to do it? I can have a ceremony in the judge's office. The law allows it and the law can say I'm married.

I can get married in my front lawn by a judge. The law allows it and the law can say I'm married.

If you let the church say who's married and who isn't simply because of their own beliefs and not the state's, then you're buying into the whole conservative's propaganda:

"Let the churches run everything! Woohoo! 10 lashes if you don't pray after you pledge to the flag! Down with any other religion but Christianity!"

I don't want to live in that world or anything that even leans toward that world. Telling people they can't get married simply because the church doesn't want them to...well you're allowing that world to look even more probable.

[AP]

126. Once again, the dictionary is not the law. But I'll submit my thesis to...

...Mirriam-Webster.

If they publish it, then maybe you'll remove this roadblock from your thought process?

It's hard to discuss things with people who want to limit the discussion to what's in the dictionary.

Open your mind.

Once again, every state requires a licnense and some kind of ceremony (either religious or sham religious). Here's Ohio's law: http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/ohio/index.shtml

Read that.

Now ask yourself, why doesn't the state just restrict itself to mediating legal rights between people, regardless of gender, and why doesn't the church confine intself to spiritual questions, like whether people of the same sex can enter into a marriage recognized by that religion.

Let's get the gov't out of the business of defining what kinds of spiritual relationships people can have (marrigage) and leave it to the business of detrimining legal rights (civil unions, or whatever you want to call them).

[Amigust]

207. Spiritual for some, gruesome for others, an arrangement for others, etc

[AP]

119. Google is a very useful tool. Use it.

And, believe it or not, just because you have your marriage license sent to you in the mail does not mean you are officially married. You need to have a justice of the peace or a religious clergyman sign the document. On your wedding day, you'll give your chaplain your marriage license, then after the ceremony, he'll sign it and send it to the proper government agency for validation.

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/ohio/index.shtml

Ohio does require the license and the ceremony.

[VegasWolf]

122. We were married by ELVIS while sitting in our CAR! The

Justice of the peace can be anybody! No religious affiliation is required. My friends were married by an atheist judge during
a drunken binge. Sanctity of marriage, my ass!!

[AP]

123. Yet the gov't made you waste your time doing that, and that guy had to get

a license, and in OH, if you don't do that within 60 days, you have to go pay for another license and you have another 60 days to perfect the license.

don't you think that's stupid? I do. It's a sham and we do it because we're PRETENDING that there's something so momentus about the ceremony and signing a piece of paper doesn't rise to a high enough level of seriousness.

Where'd we get that notion? FROM RELIGION.

Jeez. You'd think all the separation of church and state fanatics would be all over this issue.

If you can form a corporation or a partnership with just a signature, you should be able to confer the LEGAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES of marriage the same way. And the gov't should not be in the business of conferring any sort of SPIRITUAL status at all, whether that's by requring a religious or a sham, quasi-religious ceremony.

What if there were a rule that, before forming a corporation or a partnership, you had to have the church sanction it, or you had to go before a quasi-religiious official of the state, or some drive-through elvis sanction it? That would be absurd, right?

We don't do that when we get divorced, do we. If you're catholic, you go to your church. But the government will recognize the legal rights of divorce even if you don't. Funny that we have the sham religioun requirement on the way in, but not on the way out of marriage. That should tell you something right there.

So why require the religious/sham religious ceremony to confer the legal rights of marriage? You know why? Because it's right wing. It's conservative. It makes people LESS likely to avail themselves of the legal rights that make them better and more effective and wealthier workers and family members. Can't have that, right? Got to make it harder for people to be effective workers and family members because capital loves misery.

[VegasWolf]

127. Actually, it was kind of fun. Balloons, strippers, etc. I think everyone

should be allowed to get married, there are certain legal
benefits available and certain penalties. I think this
separation is just an artifact of history where most people
would go to a church for a ceremony once the had registered
with the state. It should be a one step process for those
that want it. I am an atheist religion is simply too low
on my horizon to worry about.

[AP]

129. Glad you enjoyed, because your tax money is being wasted on the bureaucrac

that's required to keep track of who can perform marriages, and society is losing the time and money it requires to repeat what should be achieved by simply filling out the paperwork.

I bet if the gov't said tomorrow that it will only be in the business of granting civil unions and that people can get marriages on their own time, there would be a huge savings for young couples, and gov'ts could save millions in tax money.

[VegasWolf]

130. BS! It would cost the same for the state to register a civil union

as it does the marriage license. The Elvis ceremony is on my nickel.

[AP]

144. No it wouldn't. The state has to keep track of the people they license

to marry people AND they have to process your marriage license a SECOND time after the priest or Elvis or whomever sends it back to them.

That's twice the work. That's double the effort and a total waste of taxpayer money.

And that doesn't include the cost to society of YOUR wasted time of having to have a meaningless second ceremony. Time is money. And that's a waste of time.

Is that ceremony so important that you're willing to waste so much money on solemnifying what should be a fairly straightforwards establishment of rights and duties between two people. Look, if you want to make a spiritual bond, go to church.

Hell, if you want to spiritually affirm the formation of your widget manufacturing corporation, go to church. But don't waste taxpayer money by having people have to repeat the affirmation of the articles of incorporationg in front of a JoP.

[VegasWolf]

212. Nonsense, your incoherent! The cost would be the same, when you send the

completed form back you pay the postage. It's no different
than if it had been taken upstairs directly from the person
who processed it. Give me some real numbers other than the
ones you pick out of your *.

[Name removed]

222. Deleted message

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

[VegasWolf]

223. n/t

[VegasWolf]

224. n/t

[VegasWolf]

225. As others point out, you can't be *reasoned* with! BYE! EOM! n/t

[AP]

226. Repeat a lie enough times, and people will think it's true.

I've never heard anyone reasonable say I couldn't be reasoned with.

[Scootman78]

125. So so true

He did mention justice of the peace in the quote he read from.

I guess he forgot to mention it when making his point of saying the churches should control every American's love life.

[AP]

128. I've never seen someone claiming to be liberal so intent on expanding the

churches influence so broadly.

Why do you need a justice of the peace?

You know why? Because's he or she is the government priest. It's a nod to religion. It's pretending that the gov't has something to say about spiritual relationships.

If you don't need a justice of the piece when establishing the legal rights among people forming a corporation or partnership, why do you need one to tell you that one person cannot completely remove someone from inheriting part of your estate on death or that you're going to be responsible financially for the children you raise?

[fugue]

131. You might want to try reading what you Google a little more carefully

A justice of the peace or a member of the clergy must sign the document. They do not have to perform a ceremony, not legally anyway. If a clergyperson, whatever religious institution they belong to may require it, but the law doesn't.

The justice of the peace has to ask you if you want to get married, if they haven't seen you sign the document. If they have, not even that is necessary.

Again, no ceremony is necessary.

[AP]

146. You need to read that again.

You have to waste your time and go to a JoP. The license is not enough. The JoP is a sham ceremony. It's a waste of time.

Just because the JoP can do it quickly doesn't mean it isn't stupid. You could have a quick religious ceremony too. But that begs the question of why you even have to do the second ceremony, whether it's short or long.

[AP]

161. You might want to read what I post from Google more closely:

On your wedding day, you'll give your chaplain your marriage license, after the ceremony, he'll sign it...

Hello?

[fugue]

168. Yeah, clergy do ceremonies

But that's because of their religion, not because of the law.

The Justice of the Peace doesn't have to do a ceremony. If he sees you sign the marriage certificate, then he doesn't even have to speak to you. If he doesn't, he does have to ask who you are and do you want to be married, but that's only to establish legal identity and intent. There's no set form for that, no ceremony.

Repeat: no ceremony is necessary. Please stop presenting faux evidence.

[AP]

169. It's not how long it takes that matters. It's that you have to do it...

...at all. Someone above described an Elvis ceremony as quick as a JoP ceremony, by the way. It's not the time that matters.

What do you want to call it when you have to go to a JoP within 60 days of filing the license? It's a sham ceremony. If it takes an hour of travel time out of your day and only 5 minutes in front of the JoP, it's still a stupid waste of taxpayer time and money.

[fugue]

170. No ceremony is necessary

I'm not talking about it being short. I'm saying there's no ceremony.

A marriage can be made in this wise:

J of P (to person processing the license): Did you check their IDs?

Person processing license: Yes.

J of P (to couple): OK, you can sign it.

(J of P watches them sign it. J of P takes license and signs it.)

J of P: You're married.

That's not a ceremony, any more than getting your driver's license is a ceremony. It's a procedure.

[AP]

171. JoP doesn't process license. The registrar processes the licnese.

You have to find a JoP. Maybe they're down the hall. Maybe they're busy.

It's a separate procedure.

More info:

Civil or non-religious ceremonies must be performed by a judge, justice of the peace or Court Clerk who has legal authority to perform marriages, or by a person given temporary authority by a judge or Court Clerk to conduct a marriage ceremony. This can be a judge of a Federal District Court, a U.S. magistrate, a judge of a Municipal Court, a judge of the Superior Court, a judge of a Tax Court, a retired judge who has resigned in good standing, a mayor, or a deputy mayor. Religious ceremonies must be conducted by a clergy member (every minister of every religion). In most states, a couple wishing to have both religious and civil ceremonies may be issued a license for both ceremonies on the basis of a single application. It is customary to have witnesses to the marriage, although they are not required in all states.

http://www.kamya.com/misc/license.html

An employee of the registrar's office is not qualified to marry people.

It's a separate event, and you're the only person who seems really eager not characterize it as a ceremony, and to try to make this somehow about ME, personally. You're on the fringe. Why's that? You have some vested interest in this issue?

[fugue]

172. You obviously didn't read my post

Didn't you even see "J of P" and "Person processing" in there and see that they were two separate people?

[AP]

173. That's what I'm telling you. They're two diferrent people. Did you read my

post? The JoP is not always on duty at the registrar's office. You have to go out of your way and go through this SECOND LEGALLY REDUNDANT process just so the gov't can create a facade that they're doing something spiritual.

It's an outrageous waste of taxpayer time and money.

[fugue]

174. But you're presented it as a refutation of what I said

It's hard to refute what I said by saying something that supports what I said.

There's no set answer and response, as in a ceremony. The government always has different people empowered to OK specific things as part of a legal procedure, and in this case it's the J of P. The couple's IDs have to be checked (that is, they are who they claim to be and meet the qualifications for marriage); the Justice of the Peace has to be sure that they are consenting to the marriage, but that can be done merely by the J of P witnessing the couple sign the license. They don't even have to ask the couple if they want to marry.

The result is it is entirely possible to marry with no ceremony. It's not legally redundant; it's having the appropriate procedure followed once: all the signatures have to be on the license before it is processed.

A wedding ceremony at a church is redundant, a J of P ceremony would be redundant, but there doesn't have to be a ceremony.

[AP]

175. Q: What is so magical about a JoP? Why isn't a registrar enough?

The law requires that you fill out the form, sign it, provide your ID and other documentation, and that an employee of the sate stamps the application and files it.

Then you have to go before a SEPARATE person who has some magical government anointment which allows him or her to bear witness or certify or anoint you married.

No matter how simple, or how quick, THAT'S a ceremony. That's weird.

[fugue]

176. What's so magical about the Medicaid assessment agent?

I could only sign my Medicaid request form in her presence. I was to fill the form out ahead of time, but I could not sign it until I came in for my appointment and was in her presence. It couldn't be anyone else in the department witnessing my signature; only the assessment agent who was giving me the interview.

It's a procedure. Different people have different governmental powers. Requiring a given official to legally witness a signature is anything but a ceremony; it's merely a legal technicality.

A ceremony is a procedure, but one with a set verbal question and response. It is not required for a marriage.

[AP]

178. Do you have to sign before Medicaid Assess officer AND a JoP? No.

Once is enough.

And wouldn't it be a waste of taxpayer time and money if you had to?

You had to sign to confirm that you were the person you said you were.

The registrar who issues the license can do the same thing.

Like I said, JoP is to government what the Vegal Elvis priest is to the church. And it's a mockery of the separation of church and state.

[fugue]

179. You don't have to sign before the registrar

You do need two witnesses to a marriage, but the registrar doesn't have to watch you sign. The J of P does.

[AP]

180. Well that seems like a waste of resources, eh? Why can't registrar handle

the whole deal?

Or, perhaps, just comparing the sig on the id and the application is enough, like at the bank?

At the Medicaid office they want to make sure that the person the doctor diagnosed is getting the drugs the doctor prescribed, right? So your identity can be a matter of life and death, eh?

Maybe the registrar is enough, without having to see you sign right in front of them?

[fugue]

182. Marriage confers a lot of rights

Rights to property, rights to act in the other member's behalf, and so on. I don't see anything wrong with having a fairly high-ranking government official ratify it.

I do think someone should have to witness the parties' signatures. I do think the primary witness should be someone with more clout than the poor registrar's clerk (who is the one handing out the forms).

But regardless, it knocks down your argument. There is no redundancy. There is no ceremony. A single legal procedure, requiring a single specific government official and any other additional witness, with no ceremony.

[AP]

183. Do you need to get divorced twice? Form a corp twice? A partnership twice?

I don't think any activity that two consenting adults enter into needs some mystical government agent to solemnify it.

Give the registrar the training to identify forged documents, or whatever. Let's save time an money.

But really, your argument above was that the JoP was such a simple, inconsequential procedure that it shouldn't even be considred a separate ceremony. But now you're saying it's such a momentus event, high level people are required to wave an approving hand over it.

Which is it?

[fugue]

185. As I pointed out, you don't have to do the marriage twice

This point has been shot down. One government official, one witnessing, that's it. You're beating a dead horse on that one. I've established no redundancy.

I said marriage was a simple procedure, not an inconsequential one; the two do not have to go together. I'm saying that marriage doesn't legally require a ceremony--a set question-and-response verbal procedure laden with symbolism--which it doesn't. It requires a specific, high-ranking government official to witness the signatures, to be sure that these two people do want to enter into this significant agreement, but that's not a ceremony. It's a legal procedure. An important one because of the ramifications on the lives of the people involved, yes, but that doesn't make it a ceremony.

Many agreements require witnesses to be legally valid. Marriage is not the only one, merely the most common one.

[AP]

186. Is the JoP on duty at the Registrar's office? You have 60 days to

go before the JoP. JoP operate out of the courts in most states. It might not even be in the same building in many counties.

Why isn't the Registrar enough? What's the significance of the JoP? Is it just a symbol? A symbol of what?

Is it just a very expensive ID confirmation procedure? Is that how you want to spend taxpayer money?

When two consenting adults appear before the gov't to get a marriage license, what more can you do to make sure they're doing the right thing?

The rights conferred by marriage are extremely valuable to society and to the individuals getting them. This process should be as easy as possible. It shouldnt' be made into this silly, wasteful, symbolic two-step procedure.

Save the spiritual part for the church.

[fugue]

190. It has nothing to do with symbolism

It has to do with legal authority.

The J of P isn't necessarily on duty at the registrar's office, but they're usually in the same government building. In my friend's case, the registrar's clerk asked if they wanted her to see if he was in, and they said they wanted the ceremony to be religious. That's when she explained that there didn't have to be a ceremony at all. Some couples didn't want one, precisely because it smacked of religion to them.

There's lots of forms at the registrar's, many which have to be signed by some government official who is not located in the registrar's office. If the government official you need isn't there, you take the form to their office. Maybe you make an appointment, just as you do with any other government official. They can check your IDs there, too, it doesn't have to be done by the registrar. In the case of marriage, all that has to be is that the J of P knows for sure who the people marrying are and that they agree to be married. There's no given ceremonial structure to the conveyance of the information.

A marriage license isn't unlike a lot of other licenses. It requires identification of the person in question and for them to meet eligibility criteria. It requires some specific government official to ratify it (some licenses require higher-ranking OKs than J of P). Then it gets filed with the registrar because the registrar's office is the official record keeper, but the couple is married from the moment the J of P and they have both signed the thing. It's at least a day later that the thing will be filed by the registrar. The filing isn't redundant, anymore than putting a copy of something in a file in your office after you give it to someone "resends" the message.

I've answered all your points, most of them several times. If you want to invest the J of P with the power of a priest, you can, but the government does not. A ceremony is not necessary. There is no required redundancy (a ceremony being redundant but optional). If you want to argue that a J of P is too high-ranking for the job, fine, but that doesn't make him a priest anymore than when any other government official's OK is required for something that seems to the average person trivial. That happens all the time.

If you get some new evidence, post it and I'll respond. I have, however, given your assertions more attention than their weight as evidence deserves.

[AP]

191. Then what's up with Drive-through Reverend Elvis? Why does the gov't

put them on the same par? Don't you think the registrar should at least be invested with the same authority as Rev. Elvis, and that people who want to get married shouldn't have the expediency and ease of that event be measured by whether they're lucky enough to find the JoP in his or her office when they stop by for the license?

[AP]

188. What's wrong with making it EASIER for people to get valuable legal rights

What's so important about marriage that you need to solemnify it?

The gov't should only be interested in giving people legal rights. And they shouldn't be making it harder for people.

The reason that you think a JoP is necessary is because your conception of marriage is based on religion.

Well, separate the rights part from the spiritual part. Let people get the rights easily. Let people do the spiritual part any way they chose.

Don't you know people who have children but don't get married because they don't believe in the spiritual part?

Well, the children and adults in those relationships would be much better off if the gov't didn't make it seem like they were also conferring the spiritual part.

That's why the gov't should explicitly make the point that it's only in the buisness of mediation legal relationships (ie, granting civil unions), and the church is only in the business of mediating spiritual relationships.

A great first step forward would be to eliminate the role of the JoP.

[AP]

189. JoP or Rev. Elvis - who should be more insulted that gov't says other is

qualified to do his or her job?

You say that marriage is so important that the government SHOULD have a two step procedure. A JoP should solemnify the proceedings. Yet, every state allows you to solemnify the proceedings with a JoP or a license priest of your choice, which includes drive-through Elvis.

You really think drive-through Elvis is conferring some kind of momentousness that a registrar cannot?

I'm serious.

[AP]

181. I wonder what JoPs get paid by taxpayers to do nothing important?

All so we can pretend to be doing something spiritual and ceremonial.

[AP]

177. A: JoP is gov't equivalent of a Vegas Elvis priest. JoP is a mockery

of the separation of church and state, and the fewer the responsibilites the JoP has, the bigger the mockery.

The history of government is littered with the jettisoning of legal detritus like the JoP. It's time to jettison the JoP, to separate church and state, to get the gov't out of the marriage business, to not discriminate based on gender when conferring legal status (as the constitution requires).

Get it yet?

[AP]

70. The dictionary isn't the law.

[Amigust]

145. But it sure does help when you're trying to hold a *reasonable* discussion

eom

[AP]

149. Not when you're trying to use it to foreclose thoughtfulness.

If you don't like the direction an argument is going, don't hide behind the skirt of Merriam-Webster.

Get yourself a real argument.

[Amigust]

206. I repeat my point and emphasize the word *reasonable*

eom

[foo_bar]

219. this thread is old skool

[Booster]

58. I have always said, this gay marriage issue could be so

easily solved. Just give civil unions the exact rights/privileges that married people have and the issue would be over. I don't understand what the big deal is - gays could say they were married if they want, they would be recognized by the government, but not by the church, which I assume would be okay with most gays. I resent the fact that because I'm a single woman when I die my pension and social security goes to no one, except the pension trust fund and the ss to the government. I believe I should be able to give both to whomever I wish.

[AP]

69. And a side benefit would be that a lot of same sex couples would finally

get "married" once the stigma of religioun is removed, and that's good for everyone.

The 300 or so rights the government confers on married people help married people accumulat wealth and streamline their lives, and helps them be more productive family members and workers.

[SidDithers]

88. Some churches would recognize and perform gay marriage ceremonies...

One of the arguments against state recognition of gay marriages is it would force churches to perform the ceremonies, which is total bullshit.

Nobody forces the catholic church to remarry divorced catholics. The catholic church, like all churches, would be allowed to pick and choose who they marry. If a gay couple wants to get married in a church, then they would just have to find a church and minister who would perform the ceremony.

That being said. I don't think this should be a campaign discussion. Gay marriage, IMO, is the right way to go, but is enough of a wedge issue as to potentially swing a close election the wrong way. The time to make enshrine "unpopular" minority rights is when you're in power, not when you're campaigning.

Sid

Edit badd speling

[American liberal]

203. I like that and totally agree with you

Frankly, I feel govt. is trying to spin away the concept of gay marriage for exactly the reasons you mention: so we don't have to payout benefits. bottom line.

[UCLA Dem]

59. I agree. I think the government has no business trying to

legislate morality.

[Amigust]

75. Then let everyone's marriage be a civil union instead

and if they want to get it blessed, then have their church bless it as a separate, but non-legal, act. Then let's get all federal and state regs and laws to treat everyone's civil union equally as to their benefits and obligations. And everyone's "sanctified marriage" should have no coverage in the law of the land, that's only a church thing.

I get pretty impatient with intelligent people like Obama talking like they don't realize that the term "marriage" (as used in the USA) actually is used to cover both kinds of matarimonial heterosexual agreements, civil and church. A distinction needs to be made in law and practice and treat everyone (including gays) the same, and civil unions for everyone is a good way to do it.

If Obama sees marriage as a religious thing, as he seems to be saying, he is half blind to what it already is. In addition, the statement disregards the fact that a number of churches do bless gay agreements, by whatever term is legal tender. Gay bashers like to mix it all up so the term "marriage" is seen as a religious one and therefore they can throw the Bible at it. Bull sheeit!

Don't worry, he'll still get my vote, but I don't have to be happy with remarks like "his Christian beliefs dictate that marriage should be between a man and a woman, although he supports civil unions that give legal rights to gay and lesbian couples."

Still promoting second-class citizenship.

[SidDithers]

89. His views are fine...

If his church doesn't want to recognize gay marriages, that's perfectly valid. But if another church does choose to do so, then they should be allowed to marry gay individuals. Here in Canada, our government is recognizing gay marriages as legal, and has no say in what happens after that. Canadian catholic churches are not performing gay marriage ceremonies (with certain exceptions), just as they would not re-marry a divorced un-annulled catholic. However, many, if not most, united church congregations are performing gay marriage ceremonies.

If the government says it's OK, and a couple can find a church to perform the ceremony, then I don't see the problem.

However, as I've posted above, I don't think during a campaign is the best time to have this debate. Support a candidate that has shown their support for gay rights, and then, once they're in office, pressure them to enshrine gay marriage. They're more likely to listen if they've got 4 or 6 years before having to run for election again.

Sid

[LondonAmerican]

86. I have a funny feeling

that he wasn't talking about only providing 'civil unions' for straights. Just gays who would get the second class treatment. And we;re supposed to think that's just the height of principle?

'right on' indeed...

[AP]

101. And that feeling is based on what? If the gov't had civil unions...

the underlying premise of which is that the gov't should not discriminate based on gender in the conferring of federal/legal rights, they will obviously be making civil unions available to gay and straight people.

They'll do that for five or ten years and then the states will pass laws saying that civil unions are the equivalent of a "marriage" license, and that it won't be two separate things and that people who want the ceremony can do that and it doesn't influence the fact that the civil license determines the legal relationship.

That's my funny feeling.

[RadioFlyer]

197. Makes a Lot of Sense

>>Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. People should be asking their politicians to get church out of politics. The gov't should only be talking about civil unions and the priests should be talking about marriage.<<

I don't normally quote (almost) entire messages, but yours was so good I had to.

I don't want deep social institutions defined by the government. It may work on issues you agree on, but when the state is against your social beliefs, it becomes extremelt obvious that it doesn't belong there.

Whatever the government gives you, it can take away.

[Stuckinthebush]

10. Keyes is a nutcase

that being said, I think that Obama and people who hold the same view are full of shit.

I understand from a political point of view that the issue shouldn't be touched, and that civil unions are a relatively safe way to go. However, anyone who uses their religion to justify their bigotry is as big of a bigot as the one who doesn't use religion to justify bigotry.

Obama and people like him cherry pick passages from the old and new testament (none from Jesus, mind you), and pass their views off as biblically guided. Bullshit. I'll call him and anyone else out over this. Nothing pisses me off more than people who use the Bible this way.

Bigotry ain't Christian, and it ain't something Jesus would approve of.

I hope he wins and I'll support him, but his view on gay marriage is crap.

[The Straight Story]

19. Actually Jesus did have something to say on it - indirectly (nicolaitans)

In the book of Revelation. He mentioned the nicolaitans and that he hated their doctrine/practices. The beliefs of such groups as the nicolaitans were not well liked by Jesus or the early church - and such beliefs included immorality in a number of forms.

Rev 2:6 Yet you do have this: you hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

The practices of the nicolaitans were thought by some in scholarly circles to include homosexuality among other things. A google search of them turns up a lot of information.

Not saying anything personally here, just pointing out that the case could be made by those willing that he did, in a round about way, mention it....(hence the 'indirectly' in my title)

[Rose Siding]

53. They were also heretical idolators

and while one might grasp at an argument here against homosexuality, given the attributes of Christ with which the gospels aquaint us, we know more certainly that he would be offended by idolatry.

Idolatry being the worship of a physical object as a god- like taking advantage of worshippers by making a profit from sacrificial animals- that one made him violent. Or the immoderate attachment or devotion to something, like, say, hauling a stone tablet of the ten commandments around on tour.

[sffreeways]

165. Idolatry

is not neccesarily a physical object. Worshipping marriage could be considered idolatry. Even the bible, to worship the word of God and not God is idolatry. There is a passage in the bible that is clear about this but it's early and I can't recall it.

What gets me is that the most important communication by god to his flock was given to Moses in the ten commandments. In these tablets god directly not through the gospels directly tells his flock what the rules are. He mentions adultry perfectly clear on that one. But no mention what so ever of homosexuality. No direction on marriage at all. All of the verses or mentions in the bible regarding homosexuality are vague at best or they are in the cleanliness code. You would think that if god was so adamant about homosexuality he surely would have mentioned it on the tablets, his word directly from him. Why is it so much more important than adultry ? Where are the sanctions against adulterers ? They should be severe. Adulterers should be stripped of their rights as citizens just as gays are.

These people that blow this issue off and say this is a loser,blah blah. Take note that someday it may be your rights and it may be that your rights are stripped away or denied and when that day comes you'll wish you had defended the rights of our gay citizens because this issue will be the justification for those that take your rights and those that should be defending you will then proclaim that winning is more important.

If straight folks that believe this is disgusting in a country that's strong because it's citizens are equal and free renounced their marriages and sent their marriage licences back to the government and withdrew their donations to the collection plate at church until it's changed that could make a difference. It's straight people that can change this if they want to.

[Stuckinthebush]

93. The author of Revelation did not know Jesus

In fact, he describes Jesus (Rev 1:13) as an androgynous figure with female breasts. Many theologians understand Revelation as quite possibly a drug induced vision of the author (not the John of the gospels, by the way).

There are some fundamental Christians that might use the passage you speak of as biblical proof that Jesus hated homosexuals. However, nowhere in the gospels is there any evidence that Jesus had any beef with homosexuality.

[Amigust]

150. Yeah, they could *say* that ...

just like they said the Dems will ban the Bible if they're elected.

A very important reason they're afraid gays will receive their full and equal citizen rights is then there might come legislation against hate speech. And where would they be if they couldn't constantly condemn those terrible homos for what's wrong with America.

I say bring on the hate speech legislation. Creeps like Jimmy Swaggart are a good example of why it is needed.

[Thom Rafferty]

204. Jesus Endorses OPPOSITE Sex Marriage DIRECTLY

Mark, chapter 10

6: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8: And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9: What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

Male and Female.
That's God's plan.

[Stuckinthebush]

208. Yep...

and that whole no wearing two types of cloth thing....god's plan.

not to mention when god told his followers to smash the children of their enemies against rocks...god's plan.

and no eating pork...god's plan.

and not having women leave the house (or tent) while menstrating...god's plan.

no adultry (oops..sorry Newt and half of the other GOP politicians)...god's plan.

no killing (ever)...god's plan.

no coveting thy neighbor's ox, ass, or SUV...god's plan.

I'm sure my able bodied fellow DUers can come up with about 1000 more instances of "god's plan" that are either silly or flaunted by the GOP right on a daily basis.

Sorry...any god that hates gay people is full of shit and isn't worth the praise heaped upon her.

More acurately, any person who devises a god who hates gay people is full of shit.

[kevin881]

12. he wont vote for a constitutional ban. hes just playing party politics.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

17. For once, Keyes is right...Obama IS trying to have it both ways.

Good for Keyes for nailing this politically opportunitic poistion.

Yet this issue is being quickly mooted by the various state marriage amendments.

[The Chronicler]

18. Why cant one be against marriage but for equal rights?

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

24. Its a bullshit position....

people know its the same thing.

And as other posters noted, Obama is injecting religion into politics and cherry picking things. So, does he also think gays are immoral as thats what his Christian beleifs should tell him?

And where does that put him on gay rights? Or, if so, how can he compartmentalize his antigay religous beliefs with his support for immoral reliationships.

Obama is full of shit, and Keyes has called him on it.

[AP]

26. Couldn't disagree more. You need to read "The Twilight of Equality" by

Lisa Duggan and you'll realize how Obama is channeling this issue in a way that the liberals can win it.

[The Chronicler]

29. Not only that but it's what I actually believe <nm>

[SidDithers]

90. Exactly...

the other option is to allow the issue to become a wedge during a close campaign (though not too close, in Obama's case), and potentially cost the election.

Make change when you're in power, not when you're running for office.

Sid

[carpe diem]

112. Obama injected religion...

into this interview because he was asked by the reporter his personal view of gay marriage. If he is a religious person, and his personal views are shaped by his religion, and his religion dictates that marriage is between a man and a woman, then he is entitled to have and express that as his personal opinion.

It might have been easier for him, since he's supposed to be the great liberal hope, to just say what his gay and more liberal supporters would want him to say. But, I think he was just trying to be honest with people about what his personal thoughts on the subject were and not pander when it comes to his personal opinions.

I don't think it was part of a political calculus because he is up 45 pts. in the polls. At this point, he could go on live television and perform a gay marriage ceremony, give someone an abortion, smoke some weed, and still beat Keys by 20 - 30 pts.

He really doesn't need to gain anything from this statement politically, and most Americans, esp. African-Americans agree with this point of view. In fact, even though people want to draw parallels between the civil rights struggle and the gay rights struggle, most Black folks I talk to, resent it when such comparisons are made and they don't see it as the same thing. They may be wrong, but that's the way they feel about it.

The religious right people like Alan Keyes know that this is a losing issue with Black voters. That's why they keep harping on it. This issue could potentially cost the Democratic party more Black votes than even abortion. They won't go out and start voting for Republicans, they just won't show up for Democratic candidates and that's all the Republicans really want.

[Charlie Brown]

27. If the state recognizes

Heterosexuals as "married" but not same-sex partners, can their ever be true equality? People argued for generations that segregation represented equal rights, 'cause separate institutions were equal. Certainly that was not the case. It isn't here, either.

[AP]

28. Churches should issue MARRIAGE certificates to whomever they want.

The Government should issue civil licenses according to the constitution (ie, without discirmination by gender).

Separation of church and state should be the predominant paradigm.

[Charlie Brown]

32. Exactly

but as the state has been recognizing marriage for generations now, they clearly aren't going to stop. As long as they do, gay couples will never be truly equal unless the word encompasses their unions as well.

[AP]

62. Why aren't we fighting for civil unions for everyone?

Isn't that the best way to make sure that as many people as possible get the fullest protection of the law so that they can be as wealthy, healthy and happy as possible?

I have straight friends who don't get married because of the stigma of religion. I presume there are same sex couples who feel the exact same way.

The most encompassing and universally beneficial strategy would be to make civil unions the domain of the government and marriage the domain of the churches.

Just because we haven't done that for a long time doesn't mean it's right to keep doing it that way.

[LondonAmerican]

87. That's a self-answering question on the face of it

equal rights but you can't get married... How do you think that would fly if it applied to miscegenation? Or just saying that some other class of the population cannot get married (blacks, hispanics, jews). Wouldn't that reek of bigotry?

[AP]

100. The issue here is TO WHOM do you make your arguments about equal rights.

If your church won't marry people of the same sex, how is that the government's business? Go complain to your church. If they wont start doing it, leave your church and join another one. Marriage should be the business of churches.

Now, to your government, you should be arguing that separation of chuch and state means that they should not be looking for a nod from the churches to tell them on to whom they can confer the 300 federal rights that make up the rights of the married -- to do so is gender discrimination. We should be telling the government to get out of the "marriage" business and get back into the business of solely determining the legal rights and obligations between members of society. That's their domain: rights and obligations and duties. Laws. Legal and NOT SPIRITUAL relationships between two individuals and between the government and individuals.

[KittyWampus]

20. Marriage Is A Sacred Institution.

The States need to get out of the Marriage Business all together.

Let the States issue liscences for Civil Unions to all couples of any gender who want to join households.
Let Houses of Worship issue Marriage Certificates to all couples who meet that Houses' specific criteria.

It is just that simple.

Seperation of Church and State.

[AP]

23. ...and the government SHOULD be a secular institution.

Democrats who don't get this confuse the hell out of me.

[Chovexani]

34. I completely agree.

My mom takes the same position as Obama, and while I don't agree with it, I have always believed the government should give everyone civil unions that wants one and let churches/faith groups handle marriage.

Sad that will never happen.

[AP]

63. That will happen. I predict that between 5 and 10 years from now a...

...majority of states will be doing that. Gay and straight people will get civil unions.

And gay people will find churches in which they can get married.

[n2mark]

33. It comes down to this

What all this comes down to is... we are not their judge in the end. This issue is between God, man and woman. This is not our issue, let God decide!

I just think we judge to many people's actions. I am not God, are you? This is a God issue. Case closed. What is between God and the individual beliefs is not our business.

Thank you very much. "He is without sin cast the first stone." this says it all when we judge others!

Believe me I am not an overly religious person, but there are some parts of the Bible I really have a connection.


PLEASE I AM NOT A NEOCON!

[truthpusher]

36. WWJD

I think the first thing that Jesus would do if he were here is: Give all of the people who have not had the opportunity to do what makes them truly happy, the opportunity to do what brings them joy. The most irritating thing to me is, Jesus never said that gay people should not be married. The so-called Christians are pulling phrases from elsewhere in the bible - not from Jesus! Much of the bigoted stuff in the Bible comes from the 'Old Testament' and Jesus ('New Testament') was royally pissed off by a huge amount of the Old Testament stuff. If a so-called Christian will disregard the overall message of Jesus (WWJD) in order to purport there own hate (or fear) filled bias then they should not call themselves a Christ-tian. If they refer to parts of the Bible that go against what Jesus was all about then they should not call themselves Christ-ians, they should call themselves something else....maybe Bible-ians.

O8)

[The Chronicler]

37. Man and woman should be united as one, like Adam and Eve.

Jesus said it. He also said if you lust after someone in your heart that is not your wife or husband, you are an adulterer.

[Charlie Brown]

38. He also said

that the first and foremost Commandment was love, and that people should treat others as they would have themselves treated. Are you saying that heterosexual couples who enjoy the full privilleges of marriage but refuse them for others are honoring these rules?

[The Chronicler]

39. civil unions gives them full privilleges under the law.

[Charlie Brown]

42. Yeah, "separate but equal"

If The State can impose a title on one type of union between consenting adults, they should extend that title to all such unions. Otherwise, homosexual partnerships will always be identified as a counterfeit of marriage, and not an equal institution. This has nothing whatsover to do with religion, and everything to do with secular equality.

[The Chronicler]

43. So then why can't 3 or 4 people get married?

Why stop at 2?

[Charlie Brown]

46. because our gov't does not recongize slavery

and polygamy inevitably reduces the extramarital spouses to positions of subservience. It is perfectly reasonable to recognize unions between two consenting adults and still prohibit subservient instituions.

[The Chronicler]

49. You're discriminating against polygamists (nm)

[sonicx]

51. polygamy is fine with me. nt

[Charlie Brown]

54. I'm not aware of a "polygamy rights movement"

that's coalesced anywhere. You could argue we discriminate against Muslims by not recognizing Sharia (I don't think anyone would argue this is an equal instituion). In any case, we already recognize a form of polygamy, thru divorce and remarriage. If men or women wanted to marry or remarry again and again, they can, which is more than homosexuals can do.

[SidDithers]

91. Strawman...

try again.

Sid

[sonicx]

47. fine with me. as long as they are adults.

[truthpusher]

52. the only thing that ....

....matters regarding our government is that you can not offer something to one group and not the other. Your statement "So then why can't 3 or 4 people get married?" is irrelevant in this regard. I am more concerned with whether or not only heterosexuals can marry 3 or 4 people. Right now the government is only allowing those that desire a heterosexual union to get married. It is discriminatory to not allow non-heteros to have the same rights and privelages...pretty basic stuff.


:pals:

[wickerwoman]

56. Because it's too expensive if spousal rights are extended to

an unspecified number of people. Imagine the cost if anyone could marry as many people as they like and all of those spouses could collect social security, health care and veterans benefits.

Plus, consider immigration. Spouses are given automatic citizenship. If I could marry as many people as I liked, I'd marry Chinese men at $5,000 a pop and bring them over as a little cottage industry.

The state has a reason for restricting the number of spouses to one at a time. It does not have a reason for specifing the gender of the couples (except to disenfranchise taxpayers when it can get away with it.)

[AP]

64. Because almost all of the law of marriage is about resolving differences

and conflict when you have only two people involved.

If you want to have a close personal relationship, sharing benfits and burdens, with more than two people, form a partnership or a corporation.

Today, if you want to to do that and have kids, get married. Tomorrow, get a civil union.

[sonicx]

45. you need to go eduacate yourself about civil unions

they give no federal benefits.

[AP]

65. Kerry and Edwards have said that civil unions should be recognized by

the Federal gov't and that all 300 or so federal rights and burdens conferred on married people should be conferred on people in a civil union, without regard for their gender. They say that's the constitutional thing to do.

[Misunderestimator]

98. No they don't.

What happens when I die, where does my pension go, where do the survival support payments go from all that money I put into social security? Full privileges, my ass.

[truthpusher]

40. The adultery would not be there..................

...........if everybody could marry. Jesus may have said "Man and woman should be united as one, like Adam and Eve" but why do you interpret this as "a man shall not marry a man or a women should not marry a women" or "the union between a man and a woman is greater than a man and a man or a women and a women"?

[The Chronicler]

41. Because Adam and Eve were bonded in marriage.

Not Adam and another man. Jesus says do not break what God has made.

[Charlie Brown]

44. and our gov't recognizes divorce and remarriage

which is adultery, and a sin, according to Jesus. Jesus also says that charging interest is a sin, but our entire society embraces the notion of charging interest. These "morality" issues should reamain religious issues, and a matter of personal interpretation, not secular laws.

[The Chronicler]

48. It's debatable.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) the US was set up with a Jedeo-Christian concept of marriage and the govt has adopted it. It is unlikely to be changed.

[sonicx]

50. one day it will be

and god will cry that day. :eyes: ;)

[SidDithers]

92. Jesus did not write your laws.

Sid

[Amigust]

148. Adam and Eve are a Middle Eastern *Myth*, nothing more

[Amigust]

147. People's religious beliefs should *never* dictate public policy

for everyone else. That's what the Taliban were good at. Where do you stop?

[Misunderestimator]

97. LMAO.... Ain't that a nice catch 22? So, basically, all gay people are

adulterers. Gotta love that bible... or at least some people's interpretation of it. :eyes:

[Behind the Aegis]

151. where did He say this?

I have looked all over and I can't find that quote. Which chapter is it in? The closest thing I found was in Timothy, but it wasn't Jesus who said it.

Thanks.

[UCLA Dem]

57. I can't wait for the day when the country is more open-minded

and not so afraid of who marries who. Then Democrats can come out in support of same-sex marriage and still win elections.

[last_texas_dem]

60. A little disappointing, but...

I support gay marriage, but hadn't really thought much about the issue until the whole conflict about the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling. I think before that ruling my position would have been similar to the one taken by Obama. Not because I used to be homophobic, but simply because I had just never really thought about gays being "married." Now I think it's logical, fair, and would be beneficial to society for gays to be allowed to marry. I know some have problems because of religious disagreements. I respect a personal disagreement with the concept because of one's religion but I believe in a strong separation of church and state. I think it clouds the issue to bring in people's personal religious disagreements on what I think could be a matter of equal rights under the law.

But honestly I think Obama's position shows that we have come a long way in a short time. I don't think it would be likely that someone running for the Senate in a slightly Democratic but not strongly liberal state like Illinois would have taken a pro-civil unions stance as recently as ten years ago. Didn't Howard Dean take some flack simply for the fact that Vermont had civil unions that came to pass under his leadership? Perhaps the controversy over gay marriage has actually had a positive effect; it seems almost as if with "gay marriage" becoming a "liberal" idea, that the concept of "civil unions" has moved from being a "liberal" idea to a "moderate" idea. Since the right-wing has spent so much time railing about the "gay marriage" phantom, they have actually lost ground in their movement to deny rights to gays. Well, I could be totally off, but it seems plausible...

[sr_pacifica]

61. I believe in the right of gays and lesbians to marry

And this issue is a personal one for me, but I believe it's almost tantamount at this time to political suicide to support g/l marriage. And I am glad, for the sake of getting Bush out of office, that Kerry also has taken the stand of pro-civil union, anti-marriage, just because we need that bastard out of the White House and Kerry would have no chance in hell if his stand was otherwise. It is, sadly, the expedient thing to do if a politician hopes to win a high visibility office. Maybe by the time Gavin Newsome (San Francisco' mayor) is ready to go for a national office, the country will have grown up some.

[SidDithers]

95. Good post, and I agree with you...

I fully support gay marriage but don't see it as an issue that can be pushed unless your party is in power. Win the election, and then make changes.

Sid

[Amigust]

152. I don't believe gays wanted the marriage issue pushed this year,

they though it was too soon, but major GOP engineer Jerry Falwell did his part in a well-orchestrated reelection strategy by making it No. 1 on his propaganda agenda for 2004.

Now you can see the fruition of his work in the "Christians" who are canvassing to register voters on the basis of their bigotry against gays. That will bring similarly bigoted folk to the polls and while they're there, they should vote for the bigot-in-chief and his henchmen on the ballot. No matter how the thugs they support end up slashing to ribbons what's barely left of our 200-yr-old experiment in democracy.

That's part of what is going on. The second part capitalizes on the first part, promote anti-gay bigotry nationwide to slow gays' advance toward full citizenship rights. If gays rights are recognized, then hate speech legislation is sure to follow. And if that follows, Falwell's mouth gets zipped, as it should be.

[gavodotcom]

67. Supreme Court will make Gay Marriage Legal

Civil rights have often been brought about not by legislation, but by Supreme Court decisions. Progressive congressmen and presidents cannot do everything they want to do on their own sometimes, no matter how righteous, and nowhere other than the civil right movement has the genius of the adoption of three branches of federal government been more apparent.

Civil unions are going to have to happen first. When dems draft civil union laws, I'm sure repubs will take away some important right granted through civil unions to make CU's less important to, say, the IRS. Dems'll let reps demolish rights inherant to civil unions just so civil unions to get passed. The more against the spirit of a secular union the better. It's a chess game, and republicans are already backed into a corner, thanks to their 'engagement' with the fundies.

Lawsuits will be filed by those granted civil unions, then the Supreme Court will rule that civil unions violate the 14th Amendment, and force gay marriage into the country, whether it makes lil' baby Jeebus cry or not.

For those of you who bring up historical examples of the civil rights movement, be sure to let me know if a single disadvantaged group got full rights immediately after they organized political just 'cause they were impatient and got real mad about it.

[SidDithers]

96. Well said..nt

Sid

[Zorra]

71. I am so glad I am not a "christian".

God has been so very nice to me. For some reason, She has not dictated to me, in any way, that i should force my ways and beliefs on others.

[Zhade]

72. Disappointing.

NT!

[saracat]

73. This is what is always bad for Dems.

You can't "dance at two weddings". Obama wants to have it both ways. I would respect him more if he just said he is either opposed to it or against it. I would even respect him saying he doesn'y give a damn.
I don't like the both sides against the middle.BTW, I don't like it in JK or JE either. JMHO.

[despairing optimist]

77. What next? Obama supporting a flag-burning amendment?

Why should anyone get to pass judgment on who people choose as their life partners? How would people like it if strangers knocked on their doors and said that they didn't approve of their choice of spouses, or that they couldn't divorce because it's against God's will? That's where this line of thinking is headed.

I suggest that if people want to cite Adam and Eve, the dubious first couple of legend, they should remember that we're in the United States, and we have a Constitution and the rule of secular law. I'll take the land of the free over the Garden of Eden any day of the week.

[geekgirl]

78. I agree with him with caveats...

I'm a lesbian and I agree with him if Civil Unions are for everyone: gay, straight, whatever. The religious can have the term marriage, it doesn't matter to me as long as the law treats everyone the same.

If we have civil unions for everyone, then those that feel that they need a church ceremony can do so.

geekgirl

[RadioFlyer]

198. Also Makes Sense

>>If we have civil unions for everyone, then those that feel that they need a church ceremony can do so. <<

What else can I say? :-)

[Iceburg]

79. With 3 gays in a family of 9 children ...its PERSONAL!

and personally, I don't give a shit whether we can get "married" or not -- to me "marriage"it is simply a religious party/ceremony. Unfortunately we are still living in an age where people equate the religious ceremony of marriage with the legislative/civil law concept of marriage... and that is understandable because we use the same word to describe two different concepts.

If I were king/queen, I would call all of the state-sanctioned-matrimonial-unions (or any combination/permutation of male/female) "civil unions", and reserve the term "marriage" for the religion-sanctioned unions (my compromise, since I don't think "they" would go for "uncivil unions").

For my immediate family and the 200 or so extended members (most practicing RC's living in Canada)equality is all we want, nothing more nothing less. I been with my partner 12 years, my sister with hers for 22 and my brother just celebrated his 25th with his partner (they did get married in July) and it was "one hell of" a celebration with family & friends.

Fortunately, and wisely we do have the luxury and the choice of legally partnering in Canada through "marriage" or civil common-law unions/relationships.

Having said that, I hope my fellow & sister gays (and their supporters) do NOT bite the tainted bush/cheney bait of gay "marriage".

[shawn703]

80. We should not perform gay marriages

Our government should not perform ANY marriages for that matter. Marriage is a religious institution, and as such, government should stay out of it.

On the other hand, the government should perform civil unions between any couple, straight or gay, that are able to sign a legal contract. I don't think these contracts should have any mention of sex on them at all - it's an agreement between two people that has the same force of law for any two people who sign them.

If two people want to get "married", straight or gay couples will have to have that ceremonny performed at a church. But those that go through the religious ceremony will have no more protection under the law than those who didn't. This is an optional extra step for those who want to feel like their relationship is sanctified by their religion. Of course, we cannot force fundamentalist churches to perform the marriage ceremony for gay couples because of the same separation of church and state.

Also, as it is possible to have a civil union without getting married in a church, I believe it should be possible to get married in a church without being bound by a civil union. The religious leader may not be licensed by the state to perform civil unions, or people may choose not to sign the civil union contract. In that case, the government still views them as single and they are not treated as a union legally.

I don't see why this is an issue when the answer seems so apparent.

[GoldenOldie]

94. Ain't it great being a Liberal!

Look at all the diversification. So many views and being able to debate and discuss them openly.

I'a senior, senior, senior, citizen and DU participants continue to educate me and keep my mind open to new ideas and the ability for me to change my opinions. For this I thank one and all.

[Iceburg]

102. And thank you for continuing to share with us the lessons learned.

Just yesterday I went to a Legion (in Canada) with my father (a 91 yr old former RAF WWII POW)so he could join his pals and their wives in his weekly game of cards. Of course they wouldn't let "this junior" sit out -- I was dealt my cards and a lot more... When I brought up the topic of Bush I'm afraid I unleashed a torrent of pent-up rage. You would have thought it was 1939 all over again and Hitler had just had walked into the room. Quote after quote, everyone had something to say on how bush was "just like hitler before the war". It's not a myth ... they remember!

[BayCityProgressive]

104. wow

there goes the seperation of church and state right out the window. What a fucking loser..he has nothing to worry about, even if he supported it Keyes has no chancein hell of winning. He is just a biggot plain and simple.

[arwalden]

106. Marriage Is A LEGAL Classification, Not Just A Religious One

If the churches don't want to acknowledge it... FINE! I don't give a shit. They don't need the government's endorsement to NOT recognise a same-sex marriage.

By being opposed to marriage for same-sex couples and instead supporting only "civil unions" as a "consolation prize" ... these folks are actually endorsing the old "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" philosophy. Only... SEPARATE is NOT EQUAL!!!

-- Allen

[DrWeird]

108. They said the same bullshit about interracial marriages...

40 years ago.

You'd think Obama would know better. What a profound disappointment.

[Raiden]

109. I agree!

Obama would have won easily regardless of his stance on gay marriage. If I were running today, I would take the position that everybody should get federally recognized CIVIL UNIONS, and churches should deal with marriage. Marriage is a religious institution and all of the fundies will fight to the death to ensure that gays can't get married, but if you give EVERYONE federally recognized civil unions, a civil union between two devoted spouses, then the gay marriage issue is trumped, and marriage remains a sacred institution, left for churches to define. Everyone is happy!

I would say that if the Christian fundamentalists want to prevent gays from getting married because of what the Bible says, then they'll have to support the Bible on every issue, such as divorce. If you prevent all of the hypocritical fundies from being allowed to get divorced and remarried (polygamy and adultery in Jesus's eyes) then they'll change their tune. And let's stone adulterers, because that way we can get rid of Billy Graham at the same time!

[The Animator]

113. This is a tricky situation, but they is a solution.

The separation of church and state goes both ways.

A civil union is a function of a judge, and is a matter of law. It leagaly recognizes two people as being united. A judge is a public servant and is thereby subject to the authority of our government. While a judge may not personaly aprove of homosexuality, the laws of our land do not discriminate. If any two people of consenting age wish their union to be recognized, they have a leagal right to it.

It is the function of a priest to preform marriages. Marrigages are essentialy the same as civil unions. Churches are not subject to the authority of our government, and are not leagaly obligated to preform marriages for everyone. As a private organization, they are entitled to be more selective regaurding their ceremonies. It may not be right, but it's not the governments place to interfere.

While we all agree that religious groups should have absolutley no authority over our government, the inverse is also true.

Our government should not exert authority over any religious groups. We cannot force a church to preform a same sex marriage if it is against their beliefs to do so.

Also, if a church decides to willingly open it's arms to the gay community and offer marriage ceremonies to same sex couples, our government should not interfere with that either. If there are no churches that currently offer same sex marriages, one can be created. I'm not sure what the protocols are, but I'm certain that it is possible.

[Amigust]

154. It has *never* been an issue about forcing churches to marry gays,

although many antigay bigots have lied through their teeth about it, trying to make people believe that it is.

The real issue is and always has been about finally acknowledging that gays are equal citizens under the law.

Christian bigots always try to turn it away from that, but that is where it really is.

[Ratty]

117. I could care less if Obama is *personally* against gay marriage

although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue

So what does this mean? Is he saying he'll use the constitution as his guideline when deciding and voting on matter of law, or that his religious beliefs will play a role in his lawmaking? It doesn't look to me like he's explicitely saying how he would vote. His personal convictions are a disappointment but I'm more concerned about how he will vote.

[Gyre]

121. Obama is a smart man.

Any equivocation on this issue could've been hung around the party's neck for the next 20 years; just like "don't ask don't tell". The gays can afford to be gracious on this since he did sanction civil unions in the same breath, AND we're in a national state of emergency until * is ousted. They'll be looking at concentration camps if * gets a second term, so they might as well become part of the party.

Bring on the flames; just MHO.

Gyre

[Darranar]

133. If marriage is a religious concept...

due to the seperation of church and state, the government should step out of the matter and give everyone "civil unions".

If marriage is not a religious concept, then there is no argument against gay marriage.

[AP]

156. Every state divides marriage into two parts: (1) you get a license, and `

(2) you have to solemnify it with some kind of ceremony.

Obviously the license part is meant to be the legal rights/obligations part, and the ceremony is meant to be the spiritual part (even if you do it with a JoP -- which is a waste of taxpayer time and money, if you ask me).

Clearly the gov't should drop part 2 altogether and leave that to the churches and give it no weight when deciding who gets the rights conferred by "marriage" today.

[Darranar]

167. Yes, it certainly should...

frankly, I think "marriage" has too much of religion in it already, simply by the reaction to gay marriage by many people. If "marriage" still means "religion" ("sanctity", "how God defines it," etc.) then let's get rid of it from the legal point of view and give everyone civil unions.

But it doesn't really matter to me whether it's called a civil union or a marriage in the end, as long as it's open to all couples and viewed (by government policy) as a secular matter.

[TexasSissy]

134. This is the position of the Dem. Party in its platform, I think.

Nothing new here.

I don't know of any politician running for office who is saying they are in favor of gay marriage. Sounds like that would be risky. Anyone know of anyone?

[Yuffi]

136. You must not follow more than 2 office holders

Kucinich favors marriage rights, for example, and he's been around for some time. He makes no secret of it. Let's also note he's in a generally conservative state. The other US Senator from Massachusetts favors marriage rights as well.

There are a truck load of local elected officials that do. There are also many in state legislatures that do.

Hell, I think I even heard something saying Arnold was in favor of it.

[TexasSissy]

193. Kucinich is not running for office. Arnie is not in favor of gay marriage

I believe he's okay with civil unions.

You got any names of anyone running for public office who is in favor of gay marriage? There may be, but I cannot think of any.

[eridani]

220. Kucinich is running for re-election to Congress n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

200. Even conservative states have liberal areas and

liberal states have conservative areas. Texas has Austin, and California has Orange County.

[goclark]

135. Keep our eyes on the prize!

Please, let's do like the Republicans do.
Obama deserves to get elected.
We NEED him to get elected.

Keep our eyes on the prize,please...:think:

[Amigust]

157. Obama will be elected.

No one is going to vote for Keyes because Obama can't show more spine on this issue.

On the other hand, maybe it's just political football on his part. Kucinich didn't win the nomination and Kennedy is generally safely ensconced.

At this point, whatever it takes to get those bushmasters out of the garden. I don't agree with Kerry's support of Sharon's apartheid either, but I'll vote for him anyway and urge everyone I can to also. After they get in we can lean on them then.

[goclark]

187. Exactly

[lucky777]

137. No wonder we Dems come off as wishy-washy

Why not have the balls to come out and give total equality?

I was married in Nevada in a 15 minute procedure soup to nuts -- we don't believe in marriage but we believe in the INS (wife is from Taiwan and needed citizenship).

[DemFromMem]

140. Why is government in the marriage business anyway?

Why not just make all officially sanctioned relationships - man/woman, woman/woman, or man/man - civil unions and leave it to religious institutions to confer marriage? Wouldn't that simplify everything and just allow us to sidestep the marriage issue all together?

[AP]

155. That was both Kerry's and Edwards's position during the primaries.

Edwards said it first. Of course, not so bluntly. But, if you read between the lines, that's what he was proposing. Three days later, Kerry actually counted up all the federal rights Edwards wanted to give same sex couples. It was something like 300.

[VegasWolf]

142. Shhh!!! If gays can get married then next thing you know a marriage

between a black and a white might want their rights also!

[TankLV]

158. Only asshole keyes is trying to make this an issue. I don't care one wit

about this - and I am a gay man.

We have much more important issues to deal with right now. This is at best a "straw man" - a non issue.

We can fight this battle later.

Now we must make it into the arena before we can fight.

[davidinalameda]

214. there may not be an issue to fight later

with more and more states passing DOMA constitutional amendments; with the Republicans continuing to push the issue, we may have to face the fact that gays and lesbians will be denied marriage rights

we don't have the same rights no matter what our income is or perceived to be--my partner can't receive my social security or pension-that just one of however many thousand federal benefits to go along with a marriage license

Why should I support a party that won't support me?

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

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

[EST]

166. This was fun (for a while) and instructional (for a while)

I am not exactly sure what I should say to point out what appears to me to be perfectly obvious. The fundie thugs do not give a shit whether non-straights can marry or not; what they really want is for them to go away and die. If gays, lesbians, liberals, black skinned people, and so on would just go away to Africa or somewhere, that would make them happy (unless there were oil or diamonds discovered in that piece of ground) as proverbial clams. All this gabble, gabble about who can get married, who can fuck whom (or what), all this BS is strictly a smokescreen, in the larger view of things.

Please, people, try to get real. All this crap is just another exploitation, designed to keep all of us upset and disagreeing with each other. That way, of course, the greedy bastards can pull off the con of the millennium. If we keep getting wrapped up in these discussions, even in the quiet time in the middle of the night, in a relaxed atmosphere, and all that other BS that we use to justify picking at each other, the bad guys win. Right now everybody except for the neocons is gonna lose!! Why is this so difficult to see?

If the neocons win, everything is gone--In a short time, even discussing all this neato stuff will be forbidden. We just don't seem to get it. The direction of this country under the strangle hold of the American Taliban is toward isolating people of honor from each other, and the greatest fear should be of allowing this evil bunch any further control. The country that we will be sent to is not Africa, or Canada, or any other in this dimension. That country where the neocons wish all of us to go is the land of the dead.

Look at any extremist regime in history...ultimately what happens? I'll not keep anyone in suspense. It is ALWAYS this way-no exceptions. The one place you can be sent where there is no worry of your return is in the valley of death. Please understand--this truly is a life and death struggle, and if you are different, you are dead. Yes, ultimately they will attack and destroy each other, but we won't be around to enjoy it!

Enough cackle fests! THE only goal right now is to get rid of this strangle hold on the neck of society, and each of us!

[jdonaldball]

184. Respectful note about "ad hominem" arguments., both pro and con

I have watched this thread with interest, and I have been waiting for some of us to equate Obama's remarks about Same Sex Marriages with Obama's character.
I have seen almost nothing along those lines. And essentially I AGREE, that the issue of Obama's stance on Same-Sex marriage, should be separated from our assessment of his character and his fitness for the Senate.
Now, please read this carefully, my DU friends, and use some clear logic:
1. On the one hand, I agree that Obama is the best man for the Senatorial contest in Illinois. I think he is a good statesman and an honorable and trustworthy and wise man. However:
2. I remember how, a few weeks ago when Obama gave his speech at the Dem convention, DU went wild with all sorts of fanatical, almost orgasmic pangyrics - and lots of erotic rhetoric, I mean, lots of AD HOMINEM PRAISE - like "I know Obama will be our first Black President"
(which, I say, MIGHT be a good idea) and "I am convinced that he will be President in 2012" and "OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA" and fanatic praise of how he "moved me to tears".
All of which were Ad Hominem arguments. Many of my friends on DU, a few weeks ago, argued for Obama's competence for high office, on the basis of his personality.
But NOW, now that he has said something which many of us disagree with, NOW, what is your response?
Many of you do not take his bad policy as evidence of his character. Now you ignore the matter of his character, and take
the discussion into abstract analyses of marriage. On this thread I have seen almost NO discussion of Obama's character - which would be fine and reasonable BUT, BUT, a few weeks ago, his personality was what inspired many DUers to praise him! So, which is it? Do you admire a candidate more for his personality, or for his policies?
NOW, NOW you AVOID talking about his CHARACTER, now that he has said something that you don't like!
I mean, a few weeks ago, many DU discussions about Obama were about his personality and his character. But NOW, now that he has said something offensive to most of us progressives, NOW the discussion has changed, no longer about his character, but about abstract analyses of one theoretical issue.
So:
1. Yes I believe Obama is the best man for the office of Senator, in his state. But,
2. To me, this has never had anything to do with his personality.
I admire some of his policies. But not all of his policies, and not all of his personality.
3. So, can we begin to admire Obama now for his POLICIES more than for his personality? Can we begin to discuss him as just one more of many pretty good - but still very disappointing - candidates?
4. I mean, now that we see that Obama really can be an asshole, can we just accept that he is an asshole and yet STILL support him?
And then carry on thinking more about policies than personalities?
I hope some of you will see my point here.
That said: Go Obama! He is a hero. But still, can we start coming to our senses now? Can we be a bit more realistic now?

[lojasmo]

196. Especially since his position is all about character

Firmly held "religious" beliefs are all about character, not about reason or politics.

In fact, if he's going to be making these decisions based on religious beliefs, is he willing to do so, is he much different than Keyes?

I have said since I first saw him speak, that I wasn't too impressed. This confirms my feelings.

[carpe diem]

209. just because he disagrees with you ...

on ONE issue he's a VERY DISAPPOINTING ASSHOLE? Talk about ad hominem.

I'd rather he be honest about how he feels on a subject instead of just saying what he thinks a particular constituency wants to hear.
At least this way where know where he really stands instead of having to wonder what position he'll take next on it.

He will never be better positioned to win a race than than he is right now, so if he believed in gay marriage, now is the time to say it.

Since he's taken the position he has, it must just be him telling the truth about how he feels. Again, that's preferable to having him lie and say he supports it to satisfy progressives, when in his heart, it doesn't appear that he does. And that just makes him honest. It does not make him an asshole. IMHO.

[jdonaldball]

195. Hmm, hours later, STILL not a word here about Obama!

QED.

[AbbeyRoad]

199. I'm from Southern Illinois

and unfortunately the entire state is not as liberal or open minded as Chicago. We may be a blue state, but sometimes it can sure feel red. We're a part of the tri-state region.(Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky) My CBS comes out of Poplar Bluff, MO, the place that petitioned for Bush to give a speech in their town and got it.

I've posted about this in the Illinois forum but in the 5th district IL Supreme Court race, I have to choose between the Democrat Maag and the Republican Karmeier who are both self described "pro-lifers." Reproductive Choice is a critical issue to me, and I find the situation I'm placed in to be repugnant. The Dems need to win the seat to keep a firm majority on the Court.

It looks like I'm going to have to take a leap of faith and trust these guys do the right thing. Keyes is a nutjob, and no amount of mind altering drugs could make me vote for him or not vote against him.

[Cheswick2.0]

201. very disapointing

I hope he gets over it. His church doesn't have to perform gay marriages so why the hell does he care if some other church is willing to?

[George_Bonanza]

210. Even St. Ralph will not touch this issue

It's "gonadal" politics.

[Charlie Brown]

211. If you mean Nader

He's consistently supported full rights for gay couples (including marriage).

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=19

[Child_Of_Isis]

213. Obama said....

"I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman," Obama said.

What Obama said, is that he believes in separation of Church and state and tries "not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views". Which is more than we can say about the republicans.


I can spin this as good as any republican. Now everyone take a deep breath and contact me if something else needs "un" spun. ;-)

[davidinalameda]

215. so is he going to come out in favor of gay marriage

for those who don't share his faith?

[Child_Of_Isis]

217. Oh dear!

It would be horribly presumptuous of me to think that I know what Obama is going to do. My point was, the article was most likely a republican spin.

[queerart]

221. Gay Marriage