Go vote

[Atreides]

Seems like the House is about to be . . .

(puts on sunglasses)

. . . a log cabin.

Except to assume that the House (or 99% of republican politicians, for that matter) have gay voters' best interests at heart is completely false.

As it stands now, a gay person voting for a republican would be like a Jew converting to Catholicism to worship Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny-- utterly misguided, bordering on masochism.

[Desoo]

I definitely don't see that happening ever

I do. This is it:

The gov't stops marrying anyone. Marriage is a religious institution, not a state one. Instead grant "domestic partnerships" to any two people who cooperate to maintain a household, regardless of gender, etc. Grant the same rights/benefits to these partnerships that marriages get now. Also, there needs to be a line/section stating that the church/synagog/mosque/etc has the right to decide who they do(n't) marry.

It seems to me the big hang up for religious groups is that they're afraid (rightly, I suspect) that if the gov't says "gays can marry" it won't be long before someone tells them they have to marry a gay couple, despite the fact it runs counter to their religion. This addresses that issue, while giving gay couples the same rights straight couples get now. It would also allow progressive churches to do whatever they want in that regard.

[Atreides]

I see where you're coming from, but I guess I'm too jaded to think that religious organizations could ever be that tolerant

[Qalbert]

not to mention that everyone will portray that as "EVIL GUBMINT ABOLISHING MARRIAGE!"

[Desoo]

Yeah, religious group and tolerant are not generally words that belong in the same sentence.

[Baha]

I do. This is it:

The gov't stops marrying anyone. Marriage is a religious institution, not a state one. Instead grant "domestic partnerships" to any two people who cooperate to maintain a household, regardless of gender, etc. Grant the same rights/benefits to these partnerships that marriages get now. Also, there needs to be a line/section stating that the church/synagog/mosque/etc has the right to decide who they do(n't) marry.

It seems to me the big hang up for religious groups is that they're afraid (rightly, I suspect) that if the gov't says "gays can marry" it won't be long before someone tells them they have to marry a gay couple, despite the fact it runs counter to their religion. This addresses that issue, while giving gay couples the same rights straight couples get now. It would also allow progressive churches to do whatever they want in that regard.

Government marriage is the only legally binding one, so it's the only one that matters. Marrying for the church/mosque/whatever is optional, just like all other religious ceremonies are. It being optional, they can use whatever (legal) rules in their club that they want. Haven't seen the roman catholic church being sued for not allowing women to become priests so far.

Changing the name to avoid offending religious sensibilities just says "you're right, you and your club do have a monopoly on the word marriage". They don't.

[Ksandra]

Changing the name to avoid offending religious sensibilities just says "you're right, you and your club do have a monopoly on the word marriage". They don't.

both sides can argue..."Who gives a shit?" Let them have the word if it means freedom to make laws without the religious breathing down their necks over it.

I'd say that's more worth it than say "We want this word, you can't have it!"

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I liked the other debate better. Let's just all agree religious conservatives are hypocrites and go back to what this election meant.

[aurik]

both sides can argue..."Who gives a shit?" Let them have the word if it means freedom to make laws without the religious breathing down their necks over it.

I'd say that's more worth it than say "We want this word, you can't have it!"

Hear hear. Eliminate the disparity in legal benefits and let the religious have their word...for now. In 50 years when we're all a hell of a lot more tolerant, we can have the semantics discussion again.

[aurik]

It seems to me the big hang up for religious groups is that they're afraid (rightly, I suspect) that if the gov't says "gays can marry" it won't be long before someone tells them they have to marry a gay couple, despite the fact it runs counter to their religion. This addresses that issue, while giving gay couples the same rights straight couples get now. It would also allow progressive churches to do whatever they want in that regard.

If you read the 1st amendment, the US Gov't is never permitted to tell a religious institute it must/must not marry any couple for any reason whatsoever.

Strangely, the demographic who raises the spectre of "gov't will meddle in religion!" also tends to be same demographic that wants the gov't to put intelligent design back in the public school curriculum, and the same demographic that wants to reduce the scope of the current interpretation of the "wall of separation between state and church". Typical hypocrisy.

[Desoo]

Haven't seen the roman catholic church being sued for not allowing women to become priests so far

Except there is no law stating that they have the right to be.


http://www.365gay.com/news/corvino-d...eate-marriage/ is a pretty good read. I was looking for something else, but it pretty much covers what Baha and I are both saying, albeit from different sides.

[aurik]

Probably because the government shall make no law preventing the free exercise of religion, and Jesus Said No Girls Allowed is a fine religious doctrine.

Edit: there are also plenty of anti-discrimination laws that one might fancy to use as a legal cudgel to force the catholic church to do something it isn't progressive enough to do on its own. Nobody's done it yet (successfully, anyway)

[Desoo]

Amen!

[Dantrag]

If you read the 1st amendment, the US Gov't is never permitted to tell a religious institute it must/must not marry any couple for any reason whatsoever.

Strangely, the demographic who raises the spectre of "gov't will meddle in religion!" also tends to be same demographic that wants the gov't to put intelligent design back in the public school curriculum, and the same demographic that wants to reduce the scope of the current interpretation of the "wall of separation between state and church". Typical hypocrisy.

The funny thing is, if you ever watched some of the primary debates in '08 when this was brought up to Huckabee, he said that it was ok for church to meddle with government but not the other way around. How the fuck does that make sense?

[aurik]

Because the constitution doesn't bind religions?

[Dantrag]

I would think separation works both ways.

[Ksandra]

This is what I don't get about the gov't stances on "marriage".

They act as if they want to show religion that they can't tell them (gov't) what to do. That we shouldn't change it because of religion. Almost like they feel this is a punishment to religion saying "we won't bend to you".


In reality, insisting on using the word marriage is giving religion power. The religious are some of the most active voters out there. By allowing that word to be a part of our government you make it be a religious focus. Prop 8 showed how well religion has control over it. By using the word marriage they are giving religious people exactly what they want (a purpose).


It is hurting the gov't and giving strength to the religious.

[Dantrag]

I thought they were called civil unions when done by a court? Not that it matters because it's all the same shit. Gay people should have the right to be miserable too!

There was a case in Boston(I think it was there) that a lesbian couple got married and then a few years later they wanted to get a divorce but couldn't because that hadn't been legalized yet...

[aurik]

In reality, insisting on using the word marriage is giving religion power. The religious are some of the most active voters out there. By allowing that word to be a part of our government you make it be a religious focus. Prop 8 showed how well religion has control over it. By using the word marriage they are giving religious people exactly what they want (a purpose).

Honestly, I have to be a lot more cynical and say that even if we were pushing for gay Civil Unions instead of gay Marriage the religious nutcases would still be spending fortunes to keep it illegal. Because they're assholes like that.

The fight over ownership of the word is just a convenient excuse to Get Out The Vote.

[Ksandra]

I thought they were called civil unions when done by a court? Not that it matters because it's all the same shit. Gay people should have the right to be miserable too!

There was a case in Boston(I think it was there) that a lesbian couple got married and then a few years later they wanted to get a divorce but couldn't because that hadn't been legalized yet...

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. you get a marriage certificate from the church, then the court gives you a marriage license. I think it's the same with the court except the certificate becomes a civil union. They should still be receiving a marriage license though. (feel free to find out though XD)

Honestly, I have to be a lot more cynical and say that even if we were pushing for gay Civil Unions instead of gay Marriage the religious nutcases would still be spending fortunes to keep it illegal. Because they're assholes like that.

The fight over ownership of the word is just a convenient excuse to Get Out The Vote.

yes you are right, but take away that convenience and they lose some power. Prop 8 was very close. It might have been enough.