Will gay marriage be a major issue in the 2008 presidential election?

[Albus Dumbledore]

Yup. That particular debate will probably not be solved for several decades. My guess is it'll take until 2050 or so for the last holdouts in deep dixie and the mormon belt to have legal gay marriage(but they'll have gotten civil unions by the 2020s).

[Alcon]

So, linguistic tradition outweighs equality in front of the law?  Equality in name, yes, but it still makes the implication that a relationship is inferior, or at least different.

You know that I respect your view on this a lot more than the alternative you're mentioning (no recognition)...but, no, to me it isn't "good enough."  I know it's not out of bigotry though.

[Keystone Phil]

I am not sure you have answered my question. If all substance has been drained out of the matter, other than the use of the word "marriage," as nomenclature that is used in the civil law, why is that so important? Tradition? And why if that is the case, why should that in and of itself be the policy trump card here?

Because there is more to marriage than financial and other benefits that are bestowed by the government.

So, linguistic tradition outweighs equality in front of the law?  Equality in name, yes, but it still makes the implication that a relationship is inferior, or at least different.

You know that I respect your view on this a lot more than the alternative you're mentioning (no recognition)...but, no, to me it isn't "good enough."  I know it's not out of bigotry though.

Again, it's not just linguistic, Alcon. Please try to understand where we backward religious folk are coming from!

[Albus Dumbledore]

Have your religious lifestyle but leave the rest of us out of it. I'm not a protestant so why should I have to be forced to follow protestant mores?

[Torie]

So the thing is that the term "marriage" has religious overtones, that the civil law should not "degrade," by making the term more inclusive, is that it? Actually, if that is  your argument, I think the way I stated it, states your case the best. That is why folks pay me the big bucks! Best.

[Alcon]

Again, it's not just linguistic, Alcon. Please try to understand where we backward religious folk are coming from!

Marriage isn't a religious institution, and never really has been...are you really more offended by the truly traditional "marriage" (as an economic advantage) than between loving people of the same sex?  I guess I can't argue with you if your answer is "yes."

I also absolutely agree that there is more to marriage that financial and other benefits, which is exactly why I feel strongly about this.

Individual churches can decide what they consider "marriage."  Why not leave that up to the church and individual, and either give civil unions to all or distinguish "civil marriage" and religious marriage?

[Saxwsylvania]

As there is separation of church and state, there ought to be separation of marriage and state.  The government has no right to interfere in a sacred and spiritual bond.

[War on Want]

As there is separation of church and state, there ought to be separation of marriage and state.  The government has no right to interfere in a sacred and spiritual bond.

Which is why we should make civil unions legal.

[Keystone Phil]

Have your religious lifestyle but leave the rest of us out of it. I'm not a protestant so why should I have to be forced to follow protestant mores?

...

I'm not a Protestant either. Thanks. My religious lifestyle has helped defined what marriage is so I don't think anyone can say they want to be "left out" of it.

So the thing is that the term "marriage" has religious overtones, that the civil law should not "degrade," by making the term more inclusive, is that it? Actually, if that is  your argument, I think the way I stated it, states your case the best. That is why folks pay me the big bucks! Best.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Marriage isn't a religious institution, and never really has been...are you really more offended by the truly traditional "marriage" (as an economic advantage) than between loving people of the same sex?  I guess I can't argue with you if your answer is "yes."

I'm offended that marriage can suddenly be redefined to fit in another group of people. If gays want just as many rights as anyone else in a relationship then I don't see why a civil union isn't enough to satisfy them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just don't see the difference in respecting religious institutions and calling straight unions "marriage" while calling gay unions "civil unions." You're the one that seems to be fighting some linguistic crusade. No one is being denied a right if their gay union isn't actually called marriage. Why fight so hard to get everyone else to call it that?

[War on Want]

I have to agree with Phil. He is totally right on this issue. If gays really are progressive as they claim, they should care less about the stupid wording of their equal rights and more about other progressive issues.

[Saxwsylvania]

As there is separation of church and state, there ought to be separation of marriage and state.  The government has no right to interfere in a sacred and spiritual bond.

Which is why we should make civil unions legal.

Just because government does not mandate something does not mean it is illegal.

[War on Want]

As there is separation of church and state, there ought to be separation of marriage and state.  The government has no right to interfere in a sacred and spiritual bond.

Which is why we should make civil unions legal.

Just because government does not mandate something does not mean it is illegal.

They don't recieve benefits though, which is very unequal and unfair. If the government is not supposed to interfere in something sacred and spiritual, we should not make distinctions between those who are straight and those who are gay.

[Alcon]

I have to agree with Phil. He is totally right on this issue. If gays really are progressive as they claim, they should care less about the stupid wording of their equal rights and more about other progressive issues.

If it's stupid, why is it so damn important to defend?

[War on Want]

I have to agree with Phil. He is totally right on this issue. If gays really are progressive as they claim, they should care less about the stupid wording of their equal rights and more about other progressive issues.

If it's stupid, why is it so damn important to defend?

I am not one of those sanctity of marriage people, I just think it is very unimportant and if gays want their rights so bad they should suck it up and deal with Civil Unions because the word Gay Marriage turns off many fundies and causes measures to fail.

[Saxwsylvania]

As there is separation of church and state, there ought to be separation of marriage and state.  The government has no right to interfere in a sacred and spiritual bond.

Which is why we should make civil unions legal.

Just because government does not mandate something does not mean it is illegal.

They don't recieve benefits though, which is very unequal and unfair. If the government is not supposed to interfere in something sacred and spiritual, we should not make distinctions between those who are straight and those who are gay.

That is exactly what I'm saying.  The reason that gay marriage is such an issue today is because the proper function of government has been perverted.

[Alcon]

I have to agree with Phil. He is totally right on this issue. If gays really are progressive as they claim, they should care less about the stupid wording of their equal rights and more about other progressive issues.

If it's stupid, why is it so damn important to defend?

I am not one of those sanctity of marriage people, I just think it is very unimportant and if gays want their rights so bad they should suck it up and deal with Civil Unions because the word Gay Marriage turns off many fundies and causes measures to fail.

You seem rather pissed off at the idea that they don't want institutionalized inferiority of their relationships.  I can understand disagreeing with it as a matter of pragmatism, but you seem angry about it.

[War on Want]

As there is separation of church and state, there ought to be separation of marriage and state.  The government has no right to interfere in a sacred and spiritual bond.

Which is why we should make civil unions legal.

Just because government does not mandate something does not mean it is illegal.

They don't recieve benefits though, which is very unequal and unfair. If the government is not supposed to interfere in something sacred and spiritual, we should not make distinctions between those who are straight and those who are gay.

That is exactly what I'm saying.  The reason that gay marriage is such an issue today is because the proper function of government has been perverted.

If you think that the government giving out more aid and promoting family values equally among all is bad then yes the government's function has been perverted. I would like it to stay that way though.

[Keystone Phil]

I have to agree with Phil. He is totally right on this issue. If gays really are progressive as they claim, they should care less about the stupid wording of their equal rights and more about other progressive issues.

If it's stupid, why is it so damn important to defend?

It's stupid that you feel that it suggests inferiority and needs to be changed. You're the one arguing that it's not good enough to just extend benefits. I find that silly. Let marriage be marriage and let gay unions be whatever the hell they want to call a gay union. As long as we're all getting the same government benefits, we should all be happy. Get off the high horse. Seriously.

[TomC]

I have to agree with Phil. He is totally right on this issue. If gays really are progressive as they claim, they should care less about the stupid wording of their equal rights and more about other progressive issues.

If it's stupid, why is it so damn important to defend?

It's stupid that you feel that it suggests inferiority and needs to be changed. You're the one arguing that it's not good enough to just extend benefits. I find that silly. Let marriage be marriage and let gay unions be whatever the hell they want to call a gay union. As long as we're all getting the same government benefits, we should all be happy. Get off the high horse. Seriously.

Hey! I didn't get a high horse! I want one, too!

[War on Want]

I have to agree with Phil. He is totally right on this issue. If gays really are progressive as they claim, they should care less about the stupid wording of their equal rights and more about other progressive issues.

If it's stupid, why is it so damn important to defend?

I am not one of those sanctity of marriage people, I just think it is very unimportant and if gays want their rights so bad they should suck it up and deal with Civil Unions because the word Gay Marriage turns off many fundies and causes measures to fail.

You seem rather pissed off at the idea that they don't want institutionalized inferiority of their relationships.  I can understand disagreeing with it as a matter of pragmatism, but you seem angry about it.

It is just my wording. I really could care less about this, I just wish they could see the truth and that progress takes time or else it can ruin your cause.

[Alcon]

It's stupid that you feel that it suggests inferiority and needs to be changed. You're the one arguing that it's not good enough to just extend benefits. I find that silly. Let marriage be marriage and let gay unions be whatever the hell they want to call a gay union. As long as we're all getting the same government benefits, we should all be happy. Get off the high horse. Seriously.

I'm not arrogant or contemptuous about this.  I just feel strongly that it conflicts with my moral coda, and feel compelled to fight for it.

I guess we're going to have a fundamental disagreement over this.  You find the difference silly and negligible, apparently, but refuse to give in on it.  You simultaneously demand we accept that the definition of marriage is important (in that only we get to use it) and trivial (in that the gays should be satisfied with what they have).  It doesn't gel.  I don't like it.  I'm going to ride that high horse until I think things are right.

(No homo, naturally.)

[War on Want]

I have never quite understood the whole gay marriage thing.  If two fags get married and have a wedding, do they both wear dresses?  Who cuts the cake?  I imagine it would be the 'dom'.  Is the 'male' part of the gay couple readily identifiable, or do they trade roles, like the transsexual?

lol, I actually think about this too. Gays can confuse me but it is their inherent right as Americans to confuse us all with marriage or a union.

[Keystone Phil]

You simultaneously demand we accept that the definition of marriage is important (in that only we get to use it) and trivial (in that the gays should be satisfied with what they have). 

It's trivial in the sense that I don't understand why people who support gay unions insist that it be called marriage. The institution of marriage has been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman for ages and governments have respected that. I believe they should continue to do so and people shouldn't have a problem as long as gay couples aren't being denied the necessary benefits. I just don't see the injustice there and yet time and time again, even as a supporter of civil unions, a certain group of us are branded as homophobes who don't want equal rights. It's tiring.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The gays can have the benefits all they want, but keep them out of my church. Marriage has and always will be first and foremost defined as a union between a man and a woman. Why they insist on coming into our churches and offending everyone in the process is beyond me. Why people defend them for having that right is beyond me. We can be intolerant if we want .. their practice is against almost every religion imaginable.

[Alcon]

It's trivial in the sense that I don't understand why people who support gay unions insist that it be called marriage.

For the same reason, I imagine, you are bothered by the idea of your future relationship not being called "marriage."

The institution of marriage has been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman for ages and governments have respected that.

I don't care about tradition.  If it's not broke, don't fix it, fine.  I think it's broke.

I believe they should continue to do so and people shouldn't have a problem as long as gay couples aren't being denied the necessary benefits. I just don't see the injustice there and yet time and time again, even as a supporter of civil unions, a certain group of us are branded as homophobes who don't want equal rights. It's tiring.

I don't think you're a homophobe.  Honestly, I don't have the best "radar" on stuff like that, but I have never, ever once picked up bigotry vibes from you.  I think you're being fully earnest here.  I don't want to imply you're homophobic because I don't think you are.