G.O.P. Senators Are Stalled in Talks on Marriage Bill

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by vienna

What's being missed here is the time and effort being taken by the politicians on a non-priority issue. Ultimately, the issue of same-sex marriage is going to be settled by the courts, probably the Supreme Court. There are already a number of cases and suits making their way up the appeal chain. Adding another is not going to expedite the process or clarify the issue. What is happening is politicians with a narrow agenda taking away from the legislative process with what amounts to, in essence, a nuisance issue. Just as they attempt to attach whatever issue they espouse (same-sex marriage, abortion, prayer in school, etc.) to any and all attempts at meaningful, productive legislation aimed at vital, priority issues (the economy, jobs, etc.), they are like little nuisance leeches, attempting to gain political capital with their narrow constituency (or, at least, who they percieve to be their consituency). While the vast majority of the population, in general, and the voting public, in particular, couldn't give a monkey's about their fetishes, they insist on bringing everything to a grinding halt just because they can.

I agree it's just smoke to avoid the tough issues and seem diligent at the same time. Class A trash the lot.

[vienna]

@Buddahaid: Just noted the "SF Giants" in your sig; as a born & bred San Franciscan, I applaud your choice of team; I am now living in Los Angeles (Hollywood area); we Giants fans here now apparently have to live in fear of our lives...

[Molon Labe]

I think we should allow "civil unions" to swallow the institution of marriage as far as the government is involved. Any couple, gay or straight, would be able to receive the same civil union and whatever benefits and recognition that comes with it.

Marriage would still exist, but it would exist outside of government, probably only in churches.

PS, earlier in the thread someone mentioned that this is going to end up decided by the Supreme Court. I say not very likely. This is a public policy debate and is highly polarizing--exactly the kind of mess the Court likes to stay far, far away from. They are going to duck the issue for as long as they possibly can, letting the political process take its course.

[vienna]

PS, earlier in the thread someone mentioned that this is going to end up decided by the Supreme Court. I say not very likely. This is a public policy debate and is highly polarizing--exactly the kind of mess the Court likes to stay far, far away from. They are going to duck the issue for as long as they possibly can, letting the political process take its course.

I think there might still be a very good possibility a future court would rule. If you look at the Court based on it's current composition and leadership, they rather might "duck the issue". If you take into account future vacancies and the persons who might fill those voids and their possible leanings, a stronger chance for a ruling exists. Add to this the growing sentiment in favor of a sort of "laissez-faire" approach to same-sex unions and the public's growing weariness with the issue, the Court making the decision to rule or not may be less influenced by a dwindling opposition to the issue. Currently, it may not be taken up directly by the Court. But there will be lower appeals court rulings and, given past decisions, the rulings will most likely not be in the bible-thumpers favor. There is then the possibilty of the Court, in essence, not directly ruling on the case(s), instead just allowing the lower appeals court(s) ruling(s) to stand. If enough states were to allow same-sex unions, the issue would then shift to equal-protection issues across the States.

[Platapus]

I kinda like the way marriage is done in Germany.

The Frau tells me that everyone gets a civil ceremony by a government official. This establishes the legal state of marriage.

Then the couple can, if they want, have a second marriage ceremony at a religious place. This establishes a spiritual or religious state of marriage.

The problem in the US is that in the past we have merged the legal state of marriage and the spiritual state of marriage. The two should be separate.

That way gay couples can get legally married and religions still have the right to refuse to marry who they don't like.

Win win.

Gays get what they want, and no one is interfering with the rights of religious organizations.

Seems like a simple solution to me.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Equality for equality's sake is all that matters.

Well just remember that your standard justifies all sorts of evil. When it happens you will be partly at fault.

[August]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I think we should allow "civil unions" to swallow the institution of marriage as far as the government is involved. Any couple, gay or straight, would be able to receive the same civil union and whatever benefits and recognition that comes with it.

Marriage would still exist, but it would exist outside of government, probably only in churches.

Put your helmet on Molon. The last time I advocated the exact same idea here at the GT I was immediately attacked by several people.

[MH]

Originally Posted by August

Put your helmet on Molon. The last time I advocated the exact same idea here at the GT I was immediately attacked by several people.

Civil marriage sounds reasonable.
Why should you get attacked?
If someone is for guy marriage and against civil one sort of contradict himself.

[August]

Originally Posted by MH

Civil marriage sounds reasonable.
Why should you get attacked?
If someone is for guy marriage and against civil one sort of contradict himself.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...l+union&page=2

Start at my post number 29.

[MH]

Originally Posted by August

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...l+union&page=2

Start at my post number 29.

I don't get it.
same people who do yada yada about separating church from government want to force church to marry gays.
It sound like they want to force on religion about anything for the heck of it.
I know in Judaism there are fraction that allow guy marriage and in Christianity possibly as well.
The couple may have their religious ceremony with them.
If the mainstream decides some day to do it as well the let it be.
Whats the big deal?
AS FOR NOW ITS AGAINST MAINTREAM RELIGUS BELIFS.
ITS THEIR RIGHT TO VIEW IT AS WRONG THING.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by MH

AS FOR NOW ITS AGAINST MAINTREAM RELIGUS BELIFS.
ITS THEIR RIGHT TO VIEW IT AS WRONG THING.

Indeed it is, but it is completely abhorrent for a secular government to view it as wrong and disallow it.

[razark]

Originally Posted by MH

same people who do yada yada about separating church from government want to force church to marry gays.

I don't remember seeing anyone say that the government should force any church to perform a wedding the church does not agree with. For my first marriage, I had to comply with what that church asked of me before they would perform the wedding.

Originally Posted by MH

AS FOR NOW ITS AGAINST MAINTREAM RELIGUS BELIFS.
ITS THEIR RIGHT TO VIEW IT AS WRONG THING.

Any church is free to believe and require whatever they feel they need to, and no church should be forced to conduct a ceremony that goes against their doctrine.

My point in that thread was that creating separate civil unions independent from marriages opens up a number of possible questions, and that that process will lead, within a few years, to both civil unions and marriages being considered "marriage". Simply, language will shift to match with usage. Why not just go ahead and let it happen, instead of fighting vocabulary? Aside from that, it is a workable solution, and if that's what it takes, then so be it.


Edit:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Indeed it is, but it is completely abhorrent for a secular government to view it as wrong and disallow it.

Wouldn't this be a case of the government not allowing churches to conduct gay marriages, even if the church feels it is appropriate?

[August]

Originally Posted by MH

Whats the big deal?

I dunno. You got people like Mookie saying that the ends justify the means, others who see no problem with the government performing the same rites as religions. Who knows to what lengths they will go?

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

and that that process will lead, within a few years, to both civil unions and marriages being considered "marriage". Simply, language will shift to match with usage.

No the common usage will shift to "Civil Union", or whatever other secular name they come up with to describe a secular government license.

Leave the word "Marriage" to religion and you undercut their moral argument against including gays.

[razark]

Originally Posted by August

No the common usage will shift to "Civil Union", or whatever other secular name they come up with to describe a secular government license.

I would expect people to use the more familiar and established term, rather than some new phrase. It's possible, but I don't see it as likely.

Originally Posted by August

Leave the word "Marriage" to religion and you undercut their moral argument against including gays.

Except that "marriage" is not an exclusively religious term even now, nor has it ever really been an exclusively religious concept.