Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

This is really starting to annoy me

Election 2004 LGBT same sex marriage Politicians

  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#21 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 11:21 PM

Lil-- In this context, gay marriage is John Kerry saying, "I'm for gay marriage", which is something he won't do. He's supporting "civil unions", and that's not an accident: It's based purely on polling. The distinction is artificial in reality, but rather significiant in politics.

EDIT: Again, all IMO.

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 04 March 2004 - 11:33 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#22 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 11:30 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 4 2004, 10:56 PM, said:

Is coming out in favor of same sex civil unions (provided they provide the same legal benefits as today's civil "marriages") really a middle ground though???
It better be, because Kerry and I are forced to the same one.

Being a practicing Catholic myself, I'm supposed to be opposed to gay marriages. Which, you know, I am. The sacrament of marriage is one thing. Gay civil union is another. Caesar's things, and God's things.

Does that mean I'm against gay people marrying? Of course not. Not under the law, at least. But in my Church? So long as they're against extending the sacrament to same-sex couples, then I have to follow suit.

Yeah, I disagree with my Church on a christ of a lot of stuff. Abortion. Premarital sex. Suicide. But you know, I still have to compromise and suck up the fact that I'm not by any means a perfect Catholic. As a politician, I'd be religious enough to appeal to those who vote by conscience, and secular enough to appeal to those who vote by platform. Very electable, this 'hawk. As long as I keep my beak shut. ;)

And were I Kerry, the fact that I'm making the issue legal instead of religious means I'm defining the battleground to be within my ability to do something about it. When Bush talks about marriage, he talks outside his jurisdiction. He can't compel a definition of marriage. Civil union, he can do something about. Marriage is the purview of the church. If Kerry was even half the Garak I hope he is, he'd nail Bush for speaking outside his authority and *NOT* sticking to strictly the question of civil union....

Plus, as Rov said, it polls well as a compromise option. And right now, Kerry has the capacity to take the moral high ground on a number of issues and make himself the lesser of two evils simply by default.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#23 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 11:53 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 4 2004, 08:19 PM, said:

Lil-- In this context, gay marriage is John Kerry saying, "I'm for gay marriage", which is something he won't do. He's supporting "civil unions", and that's not an accident: It's based purely on polling. The distinction is artificial in reality, but rather significiant in politics.

EDIT: Again, all IMO.
You're dodging the question.

In my view saying "I'm for gay marriage" is different than saying "I'm for gay civil unions that confer the same legal benefits as heterosexual unions".  Both are stands.  They are fundamentally different in that the first insists on using a term which, for better or worse, is fraught with religious overtones at a minimum and a matter of religion at maximum while the second focuses on the true inequality that exists in a society that largely refuses to recognize LEGAL unions between couples of the same sex.

I ask you again:  What does "gay marriage" mean *to you*.  

I don't think it's a tough question.
Posted Image

#24 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 11:58 PM

The differentce to me of gay marriage -Vs- Civil Union is that  marriage requries the blessings of the church.  While civil union means state sactioned of couples living toghere without the blessings of the church.

#25 ArmourMe

ArmourMe
  • Islander
  • 500 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 12:06 AM

the'Hawk, on Mar 5 2004, 04:28 AM, said:

And were I Kerry, the fact that I'm making the issue legal instead of religious means I'm defining the battleground to be within my ability to do something about it. When Bush talks about marriage, he talks outside his jurisdiction. He can't compel a definition of marriage. Civil union, he can do something about. Marriage is the purview of the church. If Kerry was even half the Garak I hope he is, he'd nail Bush for speaking outside his authority and *NOT* sticking to strictly the question of civil union....
BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO!!!!!    *clap clap clap!!*

'Hawk, that freakin' rocks.

AM strokes the 'Hawk's unrufflable feathers

#26 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 12:06 AM

Lil: To me, the important part is the 1000+ rights that accompany marriage. Gays should have them, and Kerry is smart politically to use the term 'civil union' instead of 'gay marriage'.

John Kerry has consistently been on both sides of the issue on gay marriage, and it's painfully obvious.

http://www.foxnews.c...,109430,00.html

Quote

WALLACE: OK. Over the years, you have voted against banning partial-birth abortions six times. You voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a union of a man and woman...

KERRY: Yes, yes.

Quote

KERRY: No, absolutely not, Chris. They were votes of principle, and let me explain them, and I'll be able to explain them to Americans.

I don't support marriage among gays. I've said that many times. That was not my position. But I also don't support the United States Senate being used for gay bashing, for, sort of, discriminatory efforts to try to drive wedges between the American people.

WALLACE: But, wait a minute, Senator...

KERRY: The job...

WALLACE: If I may say just say, on that one, it passed 85-14.

KERRY: Yes, because a lot of people...

WALLACE: Most Democrats voted, you know, for the bill, and Bill Clinton signed it.

KERRY: Because it's an issue that scares people. I said that I do not support marriage, but I don't support the Senate being used to drive wedge issues.

There was no issue when we voted on that. That was politics. And I think it was the politics of discrimination. And that's what I said on the floor. Go read what I said. What I said was, "I don't support marriage. But I do not support..."

WALLACE: You mean gay marriage?

KERRY: Gay marriage. I don't support gay marriage. But I also support equal protection under the law. I support not having a president who wants to drive wedges between people and try to divide Americans...

WALLACE: But that was — Bill Clinton was president then.

KERRY: Look, you have to ask him why he signed it. You have to ask others why they voted for it. I'm telling you that while I don't support marriage among, you know, for gays, I do support rights. I support equality. I support equal protection under the law.

And, you know, with respect to — what was the first...

Kerry played it at the time of the DOMA so that if gay marriage turned out to be a loser, he could brag about being one of the few to oppose it.... and if turns out to be a winner, he can make some stuff up about a 'republican created wedge issue' that Clinton signed into law.

Further, in this context, 'marriage' has a fundamental definition that has nothing to do with religion. The DOMA even uses the word marriage explicitly:

http://www.history.p...dings/doma.html

Quote

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.".


If I'm understanding you correctly Lil-- and I'm not sure I am-- you're saying that civil unions are totally different from gay marriage because marriage has a religious definition... before I go any further, do I have that much right?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#27 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 12:13 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 4 2004, 09:04 PM, said:

Lil: To me, the important part is the 1000+ rights that accompany marriage.
Marriage in a church or marriage in a city hall?  And if (as I suspect) it's the latter, I ask again, what is the problem with calling all city hall unions (hetero or not) civil unions SO LONG as they confer the same LEGAL benefits??

If any of these "rights" you're talking about is "religious" well..tough.  Under Catholic doctrine I can't be a priest.  Guess how far I'd get suing for sex discrimination.


Lil
Posted Image

#28 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 12:21 AM

Quote

Marriage in a church or marriage in a city hall? And if (as I suspect) it's the latter, I ask again, what is the problem with calling all city hall unions (hetero or not) civil unions SO LONG as they confer the same LEGAL benefits??

Latter. And theres' nothing wrong with calling them that, it's just that it's motivated purely by polling. As you've so eloquently pointed out, there's no real difference. Why then, does Kerry say he's opposed to gay civil marriage, but in favour of civil unions, when they're exactly the same thing? Shouldn't he be using the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' interchangeably?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#29 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 12:24 AM

The word "marriage" is what makes it different Rov.  As I've said (repeatedly it seems but it seems to be falling on deaf ears:p) the word "marriage" whether you call it civil or not has religious connotations that simply cannot be ignored.  Kerry recognizing that distinction is not pandering, it's being realistic.

Lil
Posted Image

#30 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 12:31 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 4 2004, 10:22 PM, said:

The word "marriage" is what makes it different Rov.
But the word marriage is used in a federal context on a regular basis. According to our good buddy Tommy there are 50 bills in the 108th congress that contain the word marriage.  EDIT: And it seems to cut off at 50, so there are actually more than that. Either way, the point is made. What's more, a google search of government webpages reveals that it's used on gov't websites more than 200K times.

Now, if you're arguing that Kerry can't say marriage because of political considerations and voters, I agree with you... but if you're positing some sort of argument that it can't 'properly' be called marriage because marriage is a 'religious institution' it's simply not so.

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 05 March 2004 - 12:33 AM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#31 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 12:35 AM

They're not the same thing. The original "marriage" wasn't about people's rights; it was about their responsibilities to society, and it was imposed on only those people who qualified as having such responsibilities. (Note that there was no freedom to accept only SOME of the "rights" involved and not others.) The new "union" concept comes from an entirely different basis, the idea that it is all about individual rights and freedoms, essentially partaking of the "rights" that had become attached to marriage, but for a different reason and thus applicable to a different set of people.

#32 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 12:41 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 4 2004, 11:29 PM, said:

Now, if you're arguing that Kerry can't say marriage because of political considerations and voters, I agree with you... but if you're positing some sort of argument that it can't 'properly' be called marriage because marriage is a 'religious institution' it's simply not so.
Another possibility you didn't mention: Kerry believes it is legally improper and is advocating that belief, and if the rest of government disagrees then that's a change he'd want to make in the government.

Of course, if this is a subject he's flipped and flopped on, it's hard to make that case, but really, deep down, he's got to believe SOMEthing.

#33 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 12:50 AM

Rov it doesn't MATTER how many federal, state, civil, governmental, or legal contexts the word is used in the FACT of the matter is that it is a term that is inextricably linked to RELIGION.   The OBVIOUS (and I do mean obvious) answer is to simply eliminate the word from the equation.  This is what Kerry has done.  Go him.  Now if other people (on both sides of the fence) could do the same.

Frankly people demanding "gay marriage" and insisting on the term "marriage" are asking the government to dictate religious doctrine.  And that's wrong.  Frankly people who refuse to consider the idea of eliminating the word "marriage" from the civil ceremony are simply unwilling to entertain the idea that their opposition to the idea really *does* stem from an anti gay bias.  And that's also wrong.

Lil
Posted Image

#34 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 01:13 AM

On second thought, forget it.  

Banapis

Edited by Banapis, 05 March 2004 - 01:44 AM.


#35 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 08:09 AM

GiGi, on Mar 4 2004, 03:49 PM, said:

Quote

Kerry: "I support civil unions, not marriage" (translation: "It walks like a duck, sounds like a duck--but it isn't a duck! (ducks question)")

This is the position I supported before it came out of Kerry's mouth.  It is a compromise, that may not make either side happy, but it doesn't favor one side over the other.  (Another plus being that this solution was agreeable to both Drew and I who are on opposite sides about this).  I am not seeing why that would be a problem.  Seems like the smart thing to do.  The country is divided enough, while not a perfect solution it can work.
That makes three of us (Kerry, Gigi and me :p :p).

I think that "marriage" insofar as government is concerned should be strictly civil. Then the various and sundry religions can have ceremonies (or not)  depending on their beliefs.  That leaves the religious free to argue amongst themselves while the rest of us just get on with it.

I like it. Those of us not practicing Christians could do like Gigi and Greg and have a handfasting (or any other private, personal spiritual ceremony they please) and still be legally married. And everyone would be on the same footing as far as legalities and taxes are concerned, without any reference whatever to religion.

I said it before and I'll say it again - many countries have separate civil and religious ceremonies - Mexico and Monaco, for instance, right off the top of my head, and I'm sure I could come up with a long list. Very sensible, IMO.

Edited by Rhea, 05 March 2004 - 08:13 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#36 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 08:10 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 4 2004, 07:23 PM, said:

Delvo, on Mar 4 2004, 05:41 PM, said:

Nick, on Mar 4 2004, 05:08 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but Kerry saying that he supports "Civil Unions and not Marriage" is a cop-out, IMHO.  He's hiding behind a euphemism.
Take another look. What he's talking about is THE solution, not just because I declare it to be so as my decision, but because it's something that most people on BOTH sides would be satisfied with.
Once again *sigh* ;) I have to agree with Delvo.
Me too.  :eek:  :eek2:
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#37 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 11:44 AM

Delvo, on Mar 4 2004, 10:39 PM, said:

Another possibility you didn't mention: Kerry believes it is legally improper and is advocating that belief, and if the rest of government disagrees then that's a change he'd want to make in the government.
It's possible, yeah. I'm skeptical, though. I'm not sure that Kerry *has* many beliefs.

Quote

Rov it doesn't MATTER how many federal, state, civil, governmental, or legal contexts the word is used in the FACT of the matter is that it is a term that is inextricably linked to RELIGION. The OBVIOUS (and I do mean obvious) answer is to simply eliminate the word from the equation. This is what Kerry has done. Go him. Now if other people (on both sides of the fence) could do the same.

Quote

Frankly people demanding "gay marriage" and insisting on the term "marriage" are asking the government to dictate religious doctrine.

You keep asserting it, but that's not the case. Marriage has a religious meaning, and a non-religious meaning. It's used in a secular capacity all the time; why is 'gay marriage' different?

Now, I agree that Kerry is doing the politically smart thing by using the term 'civil union', but I'm not getting your point that somehow, just this once, marriage is linked to religion such that the word should be completely avoided. And couldn't your religious doctrine argument have been used in the old-interracial arguments?

Quote

Rhea: I think that "marriage" insofar as government is concerned should be strictly civil. Then the various and sundry religions can have ceremonies (or not) depending on their beliefs. That leaves the religious free to argue amongst themselves while the rest of us just get on with it.

I agree. I want a candidate who's for 'gay civil marriage'. I really don't trust a politician who stops at civil unions, because it's such an easy weasle tactic. Civil unions are a potential positive step, but should we have told interracial steps that they should have settled for something not called marriage but with all the same rights, because marriage is religious? Doesn't seem right to me..
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#38 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,300 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 11:49 AM

Rhea, on Mar 5 2004, 08:08 AM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 4 2004, 07:23 PM, said:

Delvo, on Mar 4 2004, 05:41 PM, said:

Nick, on Mar 4 2004, 05:08 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but Kerry saying that he supports "Civil Unions and not Marriage" is a cop-out, IMHO.  He's hiding behind a euphemism.
Take another look. What he's talking about is THE solution, not just because I declare it to be so as my decision, but because it's something that most people on BOTH sides would be satisfied with.
Once again *sigh* ;) I have to agree with Delvo.
Me too.  :eek:  :eek2:
Surprising no one at all...

me3.

Color me stunned that after all the discourse on this board, there is still such lack of clarity.

Rov - the bottom line is that marriage is not a government function - the government inherited it from the religious institutions that originally had charge over it.  We are talking about once again separating what actually belongs to the government and what doesn't.  And the reason this is such a big issue is that people are troubled by the implications of the separation.  

It is a reality that religious authority wants to be THE authority over its believers, and the problem here is that most religious institutions have no teeth with which to enforce its regulations.  Believers have to comply voluntarily.  So taking the "marriage" out of the civil union contract is uncomfortable, because it means that the dictates of sacramental marriage (and I'm using the phrase conveniently - not every religion has an idea of "sacraments.") cannot be enforced in courts.  Unless they can.

I personally advocate across the board choosing civil unions, and having courts be authorized to consider the religious assumptions that make up a particular civil union in settling disputes.  In other words - what did a person have a right to reasonably expect were part of the contract when they signed up to be married and civilly united, and for some reason, the civil union failed?  I would NOT permit any government interference on those who chose not to have a civil union, beyond the welfare of children.  

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#39 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 12:52 PM

ArmourMe, on Mar 4 2004, 09:04 PM, said:

the'Hawk, on Mar 5 2004, 04:28 AM, said:


And were I Kerry, the fact that I'm making the issue legal instead of religious means I'm defining the battleground to be within my ability to do something about it. When Bush talks about marriage, he talks outside his jurisdiction. He can't compel a definition of marriage. Civil union, he can do something about. Marriage is the purview of the church. If Kerry was even half the Garak I hope he is, he'd nail Bush for speaking outside his authority and *NOT* sticking to strictly the question of civil union....
BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO!!!!!    *clap clap clap!!*

'Hawk, that freakin' rocks.

AM strokes the 'Hawk's unrufflable feathers
I agree, that was RIGHT ON Hawk!!!
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#40 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 05 March 2004 - 04:20 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 5 2004, 10:42 AM, said:

Marriage has a religious meaning, and a non-religious meaning. It's used in a secular capacity all the time; why is 'gay marriage' different?... I'm not getting your point that somehow, just this once, marriage is linked to religion such that the word should be completely avoided.
The reason is the conflict between the two meanings. Most of the time, government has sailed right along doing marriages without compication because the traditional, religious, and civil meanings did not conflict with each other. On this subject they do, and they can not be reunited. Conflict or contradiction forces delineation.

Quote

And couldn't your religious doctrine argument have been used in the old-interracial arguments?
No, because that wasn't about the definition of the word.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election, 2004, LGBT, same sex marriage, Politicians

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users