That's the beauty of the idea. It doesn't eliminte the term "marriage." It gives the term to churches. You would get a Civil Union in the eyes of the government and then have that ratified as a Marriage by the church. It still discriminates against gays, but it gives the church the power of discrimination, which they have every right to do. In the eyes of the federal government, everything is equal, and the gay community gets what it really wants: marriage rights and equality in the eyes of the government. Religious folks also get what they want: the preservation and sanctity of the term "marriage."
Who ever said I need to be open-minded towards people who discriminate against a whole class of other people. Mainstream Christian belief towards gays: Don't hate the playeh, hate the game. Appalling.
This falls short, IMO, of "organizing". As others have pointed out, both sides did some "get out the vote" types of activity. Perhaps I read too much into it, but organizing would include a large number of related acivities like picking people up and taking them to polling places, telling them how they should vote, etc.
look... The federal government is only going to step in on the issue of gay marriage because liberal judges overturn the vote and will of the people, time and time again... Maybe if we could just accept that the majority of the country is opposed to it and are willing to back that up with votes, then we wouldnt have to worry about amending the constitution and the like.. some of you keep trying to make it into a hate or fear issue but it simply isn't. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, hopefully resulting in a child. If you allow gay marriage, you challenge the sactity of family and reproduction... allowing gay marriage serves no purpose, except to further the liberal notion that you should do what is "fair" even if its not right.
Good point. I was trying to follow too many threads and not being explicit enough. What I am trying to say is that the dividing line between what Government should be involved in and what it should not is that the Government should clearly regulate activities that could harm or injure another. That covers things like you mentioned above. What I am questioning is the need for the Government to regulate marriage. It seems to me that "civil unions" could give the same legal protections and have the same legal ramifications without requiring church sanction.
60 years ago blacks sat at the back of a bus because they were "lesser" people because that's what we were told us so. Is that right?
I can agree with that. It makes sense. If people want the sanctity of marriage, let them go to a priest or religious leader. If they want legal protections, they can get it from the government in a civil union. Sort of like a business partnership. The think is, I am not sure if at this time the majority of people in our democracy would go for something like that.
I disagree. Those issues aren't about morals. Let me explain: I stand squarely on the liberal side on most issues, but not because I give two hoots about right or wrong, or because I care about poor, disenfrachised people. No, I care about effectiveness. At the risk of oversimplifying... I am bothered by a large gap between the rich and poor, not because it's unfair, but because it's unhealthy for the economy. I don't like racial discrimination because disgruntled groups tend to be unproductive and anti-social, and people tend to have more confidence in a system if they think they're getting a fair shake. Human rights laws are good for morale, which is good for productivity. Laws against theft and muder? Well, people who feel safe are more productive and they're more likely to buy stuff. It doesn't matter if tomorrow, god descends from heaven and says, "You know what, I'm perfectly okay with theft and murder and rape." Because those things are still detrimental to a smooth running, productive society. This isn't to say that politicians don't make laws with morality in mind. But those would be bad laws if their only basis was in morality. It's just that basic, non-denominational morality tends to intersect nicely with common sense and rules of co-existence.
God didn't proclaim that blacks should be segregated from whites, but he did state that marriage is a union between man and woman... There's a big difference... youre basically asking people to turn their back on their religion and what they believe is right.. its not gonna happen. did you even pay attention to the initiatives on gay marriage that were voted on yesterday?!?! The American people don't want gay marriage.. In many cases it was 3-1 in opposition of it... Why can't we listen to what the people say?!?!
I can't wait for this moaning to be over so that we Democrats can stop making some outrageously stupid statements that mischaracterize vast groups of people and stereotype them to boot. The people who voted for Bush aren't evil, folks. Ignorant, maybe. But not evil. Let it go, and plan to do better in the future. Dismissing them all as fundie wackjobs isn't productive, and lowers them as well as us. You have examples here of some rational people who voted for Bush, and even though I disagree with almost all of their reasons, perhaps we should consider what they're saying?
Ding! Listen, I believe like most people that gay marriage isn't "right" but the amendment passed in Ohio went WAYYYY beyond that. I am certainly not about to deny benefits and many other rights to people because they have a civil union instead of a "marriage" or because their an old couple who's been together for 20 years and just don't feel like getting married again.
Oh, my dear boy, how little you know of the history of slavery in the United States......by the 1830s the South was heavily using religion to prop up their support of slavery. Why do you think Bob Jones University forbade interracial dating, if it wasn't forbidden by the Bible?
In Ohio, the State Constitution was amended to prohibit not only "gay marriage" but even domestic partner benefits by agencies of the State such as universities. The language was so vague that the entire center-right Republican establishment endorsed a 'no' vote, and it still received over 3 of every 5 votes. The voters of Ohio didn't care about details like that, they weren't going to let trivialities interfere with making a very loud statement. This is the true lesson of yesterday's election: the great American heartland has lost it's patience with a tolerant, secular society. Homosexuality and abortion were sins and crimes 50 years ago, and most people away from the coasts badly want those days back. Yesterday was an historic day in terms of voter turnout. Great events like that signal a great change. Yesterday I misunderstood what that meant, but today I think I understand and I don't like it. A great many more people than I expected turned out to try and remove from office a deeply flawed President, yet even more people came out to say, not so much that they love George W. Bush, as to say they hate liberalism and liberals. I wouldn't say the Democrats need to panic. Four more years of gigantic budget deficits and the chaos in Iraq won't help the popularity of the Republican party. I would say that Americans who aren't one of the favored class are in a lot of trouble. Given the age and health of all but one of the Justices, four more years of President Bush means the Christian Right will now dictate the majority of the Supreme Court for the rest of my lifetime. Four more years of tax cuts, borrow and spend on Halliburton, will do irreparable harm to the credit of the United States at exactly the wrong time: just before the Baby Boomers retire and get sick. By the time the Supreme Court gets through returning power over the private lives of people to the state legislatures, in places like Texas and Utah it will be illegal to sell or dispense contraceptives to unmarrieds.
What would you say about slavery in the South? It was efficient, and good for the economy, but wouldn't you agree it was right to outlaw it? You may not want to call it morality, because you don't like the label, but it is the same thing. I think sexual morality also was originally about effectiveness. It was a problem for societies to have single people running around, getting pregnant and spreading diseases, so sex was legislated in moral terms. Nowadays condoms, pills etc. make that type of morality obsolete in practical terms, but it is hard for our society to turn its back on our moral traditions. It takes time.
I disagree here (well not really) I would pray deeply for this day to happen I gotta huge list of people that I would gladly send to their maker if it weren't morally wrong.
Slavery in the south was in fact inefficient and bad for the Southern economy. It trapped the south in a somewhat backwards economy, especially with a dependence on "King Cotton". THey would have been much better off freeing slaves and diversifying, but their social structure would never been able to handle it.
That is spot on. And we could probably say exactly the same to some people on the right. 'People who voted for Kerry aren't evil, folks.' On the other hand, if they voted for Nader...
Just lettin' off steam. We know it'll pass. But we need it now. It's like getting blottoed and laid after mid-terms...mid-terms that we failed miserably.
Again, it was a convenient intersection between morality and effectiveness. The Missouri Compromise was never an act of altruism.