― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:26 (seventeen years ago) link
― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:27 (seventeen years ago) link
― gbx, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:27 (seventeen years ago) link
― aimurchie, Thursday, 15 March 2007 04:58 (seventeen years ago) link
― aimurchie, Thursday, 15 March 2007 05:15 (seventeen years ago) link
― accentmonkey, Thursday, 15 March 2007 08:37 (seventeen years ago) link
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:47 (seventeen years ago) link
― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:35 (seventeen years ago) link
― and what, Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:40 (seventeen years ago) link
― J, Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:42 (seventeen years ago) link
I actually agree with most of what you're saying, except for this. Marriage in the golden days of the 40s and 50s or whenever were the golden days were was not "about" children.
― Laurel, Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:53 (seventeen years ago) link
― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:16 (seventeen years ago) link
― accentmonkey, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:27 (seventeen years ago) link
― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:28 (seventeen years ago) link
― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:29 (seventeen years ago) link
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:30 (seventeen years ago) link
― J, Thursday, 15 March 2007 15:04 (seventeen years ago) link
― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 15 March 2007 15:09 (seventeen years ago) link
― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 15:29 (seventeen years ago) link
― Pye Poudre, Thursday, 15 March 2007 15:59 (seventeen years ago) link
― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 15 March 2007 16:15 (seventeen years ago) link
― gabbneb, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 19:44 (seventeen years ago) link
― Maria, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 20:24 (seventeen years ago) link
Not something I expected at all:
SAN DIEGO (AP) — Mayor Jerry Sanders abruptly reversed his public opposition to marriage for same-sex partners and revealed that his adult daughter is a lesbian.Sanders on Wednesday signed a City Council resolution supporting a challenge to California's gay marriage ban. He previously promised to veto it.The Republican mayor said he could no longer back the position he took during his election campaign two years ago, when he said he favored civil unions but not full marriage rights for homosexual couples.He fought back tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws."In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana," Sanders said.
Sanders on Wednesday signed a City Council resolution supporting a challenge to California's gay marriage ban. He previously promised to veto it.
The Republican mayor said he could no longer back the position he took during his election campaign two years ago, when he said he favored civil unions but not full marriage rights for homosexual couples.
He fought back tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws.
"In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana," Sanders said.
It's going to start coming down to this more and more, I figure. It'll be interesting to see what the reaction is -- Sanders is a perfect fit for San Diego as mayor (former police chief, Republican, etc.) and without knowing all the local dynamics I find it hard to believe any challenger in the next race from the GOP side can chip away at him on anything else *but* this. (Two to one Duncan Hunter is off banging his head against the wall right now.)
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 20 September 2007 15:46 (sixteen years ago) link
without knowing all the local dynamics I find it hard to believe any challenger in the next race from the GOP side can chip away at him on anything else *but* this.
Reading this on Sulllivan's site this morning, I had the same thought, then dismissed it. I mean, he's articulated his change of mind as clearly as possible. What GOP challenger would dare to say he's "anti-family" now?
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 20 September 2007 16:38 (sixteen years ago) link
I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one - I certainly agree that gay couples should have all the same rights and legal priveleges and distinctions that straight couples have, but how can the state possibly legislate religion, it just seems completely stupid. Make civil unions have the same exact legal standing as trad marriages and voila - problem solved, at least legally speaking. But if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 16:46 (sixteen years ago) link
What GOP challenger would dare to say he's "anti-family" now?
It's a hell of a glove to throw down, for sure. Wouldn't be surprised if someone tries it, though.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 20 September 2007 16:50 (sixteen years ago) link
It was nice of the Catholics to decide last year that unbaptized babies' souls now go to heaven instead of limbo.
― dally, Thursday, 20 September 2007 17:19 (sixteen years ago) link
What happens to those in limbo already?
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 20 September 2007 17:19 (sixteen years ago) link
luckily nothing, since it never really existed in the first place, but not soon enough to prevent hundreds of years of psychic sorrow for believing Catholics whose kids were stillborn, aborted, etc...
but I guess that's another thread...
― dally, Thursday, 20 September 2007 17:33 (sixteen years ago) link
so wheres the motivation for baptism now?
― sunny successor, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:02 (sixteen years ago) link
My Mom is married to a Lady, but it looks like their union isn't legal anymore. They got married in Oregon. They've been together for nearly 25 years.
― Maria :D, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:33 (sixteen years ago) link
I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one
That's really odd...I'm legally married, but the ceremony was totally secular and performed by an agnostic friend who filled out a form on the internet. There's no box on my tax forms for "civil unioned filing jointly".
I see what you're saying though, if churches don't want to marry people, they shouldn't have to. But if marriage is exclusively a religious institution, then I guess I'm not married, despite all evidence to the contrary.
― joygoat, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:48 (sixteen years ago) link
you're not married according to any CHURCH, but you are married according to the law. That's the whole problem with this debate, the conflation of the two concepts together under a single term - its just not helpful.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:51 (sixteen years ago) link
The Catholics wouldn't have to marry gays if gay marriage were legalized. They don't have to marry straight atheists or Jews or Lutherans now. Marriage is a weird religious-civil hybrid. (xpost - yeah pretty much)
― Maria, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:55 (sixteen years ago) link
You're joking, right? Or do you think atheists can't get married? Marriage is a religious and a civil union -- and it's the religious part which is optional. No one is saying Catholics have to marry anyone they don't want to.
xpost
― Casuistry, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:55 (sixteen years ago) link
yeah I mean death is a religious and a secular concept too, it's only when we hook a bunch of machines up to a medulla with lungs that we run into problems with that
― El Tomboto, Thursday, 20 September 2007 19:13 (sixteen years ago) link
Isn't marriage the death of hope? (spot the quote)
― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 20 September 2007 19:23 (sixteen years ago) link
I'm not joking at all - there's nothing in the Constitution about marriage, for ex., and there's nothing in the legal rights granted to couples that requires using that term.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 19:47 (sixteen years ago) link
Yes, but marriage is two separate things. It is ceremonial and a civil union. And you're getting it all backwards. Nothing is stopping a gay couple from getting ceremonially married in a church that is open to it. It's the civil part of marriage that they are denied: the right to get married in, say, city hall and according to the law. And no church would be "forced" to marry gay couples if gay marriage were legalized, churches are not *required* to marry anyone.
― Melissa W, Thursday, 20 September 2007 20:45 (sixteen years ago) link
It's the civil part of marriage that they are denied: the right to get married in, say, city hall and according to the law.
I understand that perfectly well - which is why, say, Obama's position that he is for civil unions and wants to leave ceremonial marriages up to churches is perfectly understandable. But it seems apparent to me that there are people on both sides of the debate - gay and homophobe - who seem to think that a) "legalizing" gay marriage will force churches to marry homos, or b) that civil unions don't "go far enough".
There's also the whole "but if we legalize gay marriage people will be marrying box turtles/their cousins/five wives!" tack, which likewise makes no fucking legal sense whatsoever.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 20:52 (sixteen years ago) link
<i>there are people on both sides of the debate - gay and homophobe - who seem to think that a) "legalizing" gay marriage will force churches to marry homos</i> And they are both wrong, so what's your point?
<i>b) that civil unions don't "go far enough".</i> Well, why not call it what it is? Why give them a ghettoized version of marriage?
― Melissa W, Thursday, 20 September 2007 20:59 (sixteen years ago) link
so that there's a clear distinction between LEGAL RIGHTS and religious ceremonies. Its just a word, is semantics what this debate is really all about? How is calling it a civil union "ghettoizing" it? Who is hurt by it, and how, exactly? This isn't like a "separate but equal" clause - just call all legal arrangements between couples civil unions and be done with it. Let the churches have "marriage", they invented it anyway.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:02 (sixteen years ago) link
And they are both wrong, so what's your point?
my point is there confused by this willful blurring of the line between legal rights and religious ceremonies, and the sooner such distinctions are more clearly spelled out, the better.
the only people benefitting from this confusion are demogogues.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:03 (sixteen years ago) link
That wasn't what you were arguing to begin with. You were arguing that churches will be forced to marry gay people, and you were wrong about that. And now you've moved the goalposts to legal definitions. I think ceremonial marriage and civil unions *should* be separate matters, but that's a whole different argument. So for the time being while the two things remain entwined, I see no reason why gay people should be the only ones who have to get "civil unioned" while everyone else gets married.
― Melissa W, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:05 (sixteen years ago) link
I see you can't read very well.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:06 (sixteen years ago) link
I see you can't reason very well.
― Melissa W, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:07 (sixteen years ago) link
to repeat:
how can the state possibly legislate religion, it just seems completely stupid... if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:07 (sixteen years ago) link
You were arguing that churches will be forced to marry gay people,
seriously I never said this, go back and read the thread.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:08 (sixteen years ago) link