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

[Alcon]

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.

Yes.  How dare people offend me by disagreeing with my religion and requesting rights they believe they're entitled to!

This paragraph could be replicated verbatim, replacing gays with blacks.  That doesn't kind of freak you out?

[Keystone Phil]

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

Uh?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And there's nothing broke about the name.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not saying that you think that but others do think it (even if they don't say it). Others in this thread basically said it.

[Alcon]

Uh?

The gays want to be able to get "married" for the same reason you give significance to the word "married."  It's not because you invest a lot of importance in the integrity of the word.  You're not that much of a grammarian.  It has some symbolic representation to you, and that is
why it matters to them.

And there's nothing broke about the name.

That is (as above) where I disagree.

Not saying that you think that but others do think it (even if they don't say it). Others in this thread basically said it.

Forget them.  They're trying to score cheap points (whoever they are)

[7,052,770]

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.

Who's demanding to come into your church?

No one!  NO ONE advocates forcing churches to marry gays!  It's strictly a govt thing!

[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.

Yes.  How dare people offend me by disagreeing with my religion and requesting rights they believe they're entitled to!

This paragraph could be replicated verbatim, replacing gays with blacks.  That doesn't kind of freak you out?

My religion doesn't preach against blacks. In fact, we have black members. Just because tradition doesn't mean anything to you doesn't mean its that way for everyone. I think gays have the right to get the benefits that other married couples get, but why do they insist on calling it marriage? The very definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. They are trying to change the definition of a word. Please don't insinuate that I am a racist or a homophobe because I hold my religious beliefs close to me. I can't stand it when people get all high and mighty and treat those with any beliefs at all as inferior or bigoted.

[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.

Who's demanding to come into your church?

No one!  NO ONE advocates forcing churches to marry gays!  It's strictly a govt thing!

Marriage is a religious ceremony. I am all for civil unions and extending benefits to gays and all, but it's the word marriage that some seem so determined to get that bothers me. MARRIAGE has always been a religious union between a man and a woman. I wish people would respect that rather than saying the word is broken and needs fixing.

[Aizen]

I have never quite understood the whole gay marriage thing.  If two fags get married and have a wedding, do they both wear dresses?

That would be transvestites. Two gay dudes would both wear suits. I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No cake. Gay weddings have pie.

[Keystone Phil]

The gays want to be able to get "married" for the same reason you give significance to the word "married."  It's not because you invest a lot of importance in the integrity of the word.  You're not that much of a grammarian.  It has some symbolic representation to you, and that is
why it matters to them.

I doubt the wording means more than the actual benefits that they fight for. I'm sure they can come up with a name for the union that has a special meaning to them.

[Torie]

What I meant Phil, is the possible fear that the use of the term "marriage" in the civil sphere for gay unions, might be viewed as degrading it in the sacred sphere, as one leaches into the other. Does that make any sense?

No, I don't share that concern, but perhaps it is yours. The core of your concern remains veiled to me.  Maybe I am just being obtuse.

[Alcon]

My religion doesn't preach against blacks. In fact, we have black members.

It was really more the "how dare they?" crap that I was addressing that towards.

Just because tradition doesn't mean anything to you doesn't mean its that way for everyone. I think gays have the right to get the benefits that other married couples get, but why do they insist on calling it marriage?

I just told you the answer to "why."  Continuing to be perplexed doesn't really accomplish much.    You can disagree with that rationale, but it's not as absurd as you're making it out to be.

The very definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. They are trying to change the definition of a word.

Tradition has emotional value.  It does not have logical value beyond a correlary one.  There is nothing wrong with holding your traditions tightly -- until it impedes your ability to be morally conscious.

Please don't insinuate that I am a racist or a homophobe because I hold my religious beliefs close to me.

I doubt you hate gay people either, although I know you less.  I doubt you're racist either, honestly.  Why am I being forced to defend other people's slurs, which is what you're complaining about people doing to you?  I really don't think you're these things.

I can't stand it when people get all high and mighty and treat those with any beliefs at all as inferior or bigoted.

Please don't confuse lack of faith with lack of belief.

I don't think they're inferior.  In fact, you totally reject the plausibility of my beliefs while I at least entertain the possibility that yours might be true...I don't think I'm more "high and mighty" here.

[Alcon]

I doubt the wording means more than the actual benefits that they fight for.

That's a false dilemma.

I'm sure they can come up with a name for the union that has a special meaning to them.

I think the equivalence, and the normalization, holds a lot of value to a group that has been anything but equal and normal for so long.

[Keystone Phil]

What I meant Phil, is the possible fear that the use of the term "marriage" in the civil sphere, might be viewed as degrading it in the sacred sphere, as one leaches into the other. Does that make any sense?

No, I don't share that concern, but perhaps it is yours. The core of your concern remains veiled to me.  Maybe I am just being obtuse.

I still don't follow. I want marriage remain as it is and that government benefits be extended to gays for their equivilant type of union.

I think the equivalence, and the normalization, holds a lot of value to a group that has been anything but equal and normal for so long.

Hate to break it to you but forcing the government to call it marriage won't make it any more normal for many. Give them the benefits and let the government move on.

[Alcon]

Hate to break it to you but forcing the government to call it marriage won't make it any more normal for many. Give them the benefits and let the government move on.

It will make the normalcy institutionalized.  I'm not arguing for the government to over-rule the people on an issue like this.  That makes me very, very uncomfortable.

I don't like bringing this back to racial stuff, but it's the best analogy I can make.  It's a "separate but equal" doctrine.  It may not have the same seething hatred beyond it, it may even be good-natured and in the name of Judeo-Christianity, but it's still separate-but-equal.  And for the same reasons.

[Torie]

Phil I know what you want, I just don't know why. I don't understand what fuels your concern as to the terminology used in the civil law. I don't mean to corner you, or embarrass you, I just can't get my mind around the ultimate wellspring of your public  policy views here. Maybe you need to think it through a bit more. Even when you get as old as I am, you will find, that on so many issues, more thought is required, and even then, one will be stalked by uncertainty. It comes with the territory.

[Reluctant Republican]

I don’t really care about this issue. Civil unions or marriage, it seems like a rather pointless definition, as long as the rights are there. However, I’m not in a relationship a the moment, so I suppose if the ole' Reluctant Republican ever did settle down I might view the issue differently, and see marriage as a commitment of sorts. But I try not to deal in hypothetical situations.

But anyway, what I’m trying to say is, as long as people are for at least civil unions, I’m happy. I don’t really respect people who aren’t for at least civil unions at least however, but I‘d be happy to hear reasons why this is so.

And finally, hopefully this won’t become an issue.  It really perplexes me why these social “wedge issues” ever matter much to people, especially when so many other things need to be dealt with.

[War on Want]

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.

Yes.  How dare people offend me by disagreeing with my religion and requesting rights they believe they're entitled to!

This paragraph could be replicated verbatim, replacing gays with blacks.  That doesn't kind of freak you out?

My religion doesn't preach against blacks. In fact, we have black members. Just because tradition doesn't mean anything to you doesn't mean its that way for everyone. I think gays have the right to get the benefits that other married couples get, but why do they insist on calling it marriage? The very definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. They are trying to change the definition of a word. Please don't insinuate that I am a racist or a homophobe because I hold my religious beliefs close to me. I can't stand it when people get all high and mighty and treat those with any beliefs at all as inferior or bigoted.

I think you are missing the point of Alcon's post....

[Keystone Phil]

I don't like bringing this back to racial stuff, but it's the best analogy I can make.  It's a "separate but equal" doctrine.  It may not have the same seething hatred beyond it, it may even be good-natured and in the name of Judeo-Christianity, but it's still separate-but-equal.  And for the same reasons.

I don't see how it's unequal lawfully though. It's just the naming and it's being blown out of proportion.

Phil I know what you want, I just don't know why. I don't understand what fuels your concern as to the terminology used in the civil law. I don't mean to corner you, or embarrass you, I just can't get my mind around the ultimate wellspring of your public  policy views here. Maybe you need to think it through a bit more. Even when you get as old as I am, you will find, that on so many issues, more thought is required, and even then, one will be stalked by uncertainty. It comes with the territory.

My public policy is to support establishing unions that bestow the same benefits upon gay couples that the government does for straight couples but don't support it being called marriage. I don't get why that's so mind boggling. I don't need to think through it a bit more. Thanks for the condescending attitude though.

[Bogart]

It's "separate but equal" all over again. I have to commend some of you here for being so very magnanimous as to be willing to allow gays to join in civil unions, but preserve marriage for yourselves. The blatant use of words like fag prove on some of the posts here do nothing more than illustrate the limits of their mentality.

Insofar as marriage has historically been a union between a man and woman, why should anyone care? Historically, slavery and monarchy were sanctioned. In ancient Japan, a samurai was allowed to kill any non-samurai simply to test the sharpness of his sword. The ancient Spartans used to euthanize children who were unfit. What the hell does history have to do with this issue, anyway?

Personally, as a gay man in a committed relationship for over eight years, I couldn't care less what it is called. As long as I get the same rights as everyone else. But, I'm willing to fight tooth and nail before I let anyone else decide what to call my relationship with mine.

If it's as simple as a word, than it's as simple as forgetting about it for either side. From a logical standpoint, though, I've been married far longer than a lot of straight couples that I know.

I think the most important word here is "equality." And, we determined long ago that separate is not equal.

[Torie]

I did not mean to be condescending, Phil. Sorry. In fact, I persisted, precisely because I do respect you, and your points of view. I still don't understand the why however. Have a good evening.

[Alcon]

I don't see how it's unequal lawfully though. It's just the naming and it's being blown out of proportion.

You're missing my point.  There are really three options here.

1. Naming is important.  They're entitled to find it important, but you can't say they're "blowing it out of proportion."  Then, this is a battle between the importance to you and theirs, which comes down to your religious beliefs vs. their (valid) claim to equality.

2. Naming is not important.  You're entitled to say they're "blowing it out of proportion," but it's hard for you to argue that the (trivial) importance of the name outweighs their (irrational) emotional investment in the name.

3. I forget what the third is, because I'm an idiot and a tired idiot, but it will come to me.

It can't simultaneously be a trivial point to any rational person, and an important point to you.  If it's trivial, you have to explain why a trivial linguistic matter justifies denying equality -- however irrational the desire for that equality may be.

[Bogart]

After thinking about it, maybe the decision of what to call same-sex unions is going to be something that someone, or some group, will have to end up deciding--sort of like arbitration.

I know that there in people on both sides of the issue who will never back down.

Maybe, we should just flip a coin.

[Keystone Phil]

You're missing my point.  There are really three options here.

1. Naming is important.  They're entitled to find it important, but you can't say they're "blowing it out of proportion."  Then, this is a battle between the importance to you and theirs, which comes down to your religious beliefs vs. their (valid) claim to equality.

2. Naming is not important.  You're entitled to say they're "blowing it out of proportion," but it's hard for you to argue that the (trivial) importance of the name outweighs their (irrational) emotional investment in the name.

I'm saying it's important to those of us that value the traditional definition. I don't know why that has to be so important to a group that would be granted the same benefits. I don't believe the government should be forced to view it as marriage just because thats the way gays want it to be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Arguing that being granted benefits is just as important as what we call it is what is trivial. I've said that time and time again.

[7,052,770]

How about this:  We'll have gay marriage, but heterosexuals will reserve the right not to consider same-sex marriages to "really" be married.  In their mind, marriage will only be in between a man and a woman.  Also, gays can think that opposite-sex couples aren't "really" married.  People who think that only one type of marriage is valid can only partake in that kind.  That way, everyone gets what they want, and no one prevents anyone else from getting what they want.

[Keystone Phil]

How about this:  We'll have gay marriage, but heterosexuals will reserve the right not to consider same-sex marriages to "really" be married.  In their mind, marriage will only be in between a man and a woman.  Also, gays can think that opposite-sex couples aren't "really" married.  People who think that only one type of marriage is valid can only partake in that kind.  That way, everyone gets what they want, and no one prevents anyone else from getting what they want.

Or why can't gays just consider it "marriage" and we can call it what most of them have been fighting for (civil unions)?

[Alcon]

I'm saying it's important to those of us that value the traditional definition. I don't know why that has to be so important to a group that would be granted the same benefits. I don't believe the government should be forced to view it as marriage just because thats the way gays want it to be.

But why do you value the traditional definition?  Why is what you value more important than what they value, so much that it justifies denying all-around equality?

Arguing that being granted benefits is just as important as what we call it is what is trivial. I've said that time and time again.

I did not say that.  The "importance leap" between non-recognition and civil unions is much greater than civil unions and marriage for me.  But that doesn't mean I think that it isn't still insufficient.