Moral Victory
 

I've read, throughout various posts here, that people are upset that morals are being stuffed down their throat due to Bush winning, the possibility of Bush picking another Supreme Court judge, and the overwhelming ban on gay marriages. Now to those people I say the majority stuffed the morals down your throat and are tired of state judicial systems creating new laws, such as gay marriage acts, without going through the supreme court or proper channels.

What we have seen here, people, is that America is backlashing against the immoral practices by liberals. Larry Flint said he was going to move if Bush won office for a second term and so did many other celebs. See ya! America has spoken and it wants to get back on track. The majority is tired of immorals being stuffed down our throats and displayed this last night. Democrats need to rethink their stance on many issues including how they are going to get registered Dem's back on their side - like I once was.

Wow.. Whoever said that right-wingers were good winners were sure off the mark.

i'm not sure i would second the original post exactly how it was stated... but i do know that mused76 does describe a feeling that is very prevalent among some i know in my home state. this sentiment has little to do with the recent election and is a very real force in how much of our country perceives national politics.

That is so true. Democrats will push to please a small minority, gays who want to marry for example, and in turn piss off a majority and then wonder what the hell went wrong.

Um.. Kerry was against gay marriage. He felt it was an issue to be dealt with on the State level, not something that should be placed in the Constitution.

Cheney was the one with the gay daughter who was proud of her one moment, then furious if anyone but him brought that up.

Yeah, like in the 60s when they pissed off the majority by extending civil rights to a small minority. What the hell is their problem? The important thing is winning, not being so idealistic.

Luckily, now the majority will have their say again, and things can go back to the way they were... We can avoid all this so-called "social progress".

Bingle

Kerry was against yet would hand it to the states to decide? Thanks for the inside news because he never made that clear to voters.

They need to learn to please that small minority, while convincingly fooling the majority into thinking that it is actually they who are being pleased. That's how you win an election in america.

I think, ideally, america is a place where we don't tell other people how to live if how they live doesn't infringe on any of our rights. There is a difference between telling someone how they can live and telling someone that they can't tell someone how to live.

Can't please everyone but you can please the majority.

This is the issue. The right wants to limit freedoms which would otherwise not affect anyone else simply due to their personal opinions of a moral position. The left wants to allow freedoms which would otherwise not affect anyone else.

For the right to be "angry" at the left for wanting to allow some people the ability to marry is purely and undeniably oppressive. It is a fascist position which, as evidenced in this election, is strongly held by millions on the right.

Whether an individual agrees with the concept or not should not affect the freedoms of millions of people in regard to the concept. But when millions of those individuals vocalize their desire to limit the freedoms of others - that is what comes to pass.

To put it another way, we are seeing the evangelicals (and whoever else made up the 51%) gearing up to impose their definition of morality upon the rest of us. I don't personally see two guys who love each other and want to marry as being "immoral". Nor do I see a need for prayer in schools, etc.

I don't honestly give a hoot where Larry Flint lives. But I'm not anxious to have the Christian mafia try to brainwash my daughter through the public schools. (I'm fine with her becoming a Christian -- if she chooses to as an adult when she can weigh the arguments as an adult.)

Whatever happened to live and let live? It seems to be an unpopular philosophy...

Just the fact that we can disagree on issues like gay marriages is enlightening. Freedom has it's prices and we always have a choice to leave the state or country we live in if we don't agree. Can't say that for many countries.

I'm don't really want to get into this, as I see the possibility of quick degradation into flame-fest. However, those who followed Kerry's policy knew this. It was his fault for not clearly expressing this, though.

I don't call it enlightening. That we are allowed to disagree is, in my mind, an absolute given. I would expect nothing less.

But when a relative handful of people are vocal enough, powerful enough, to demand the oppression of a large group of people, it assuredly does bring about the reality that there is little option other than leaving.

And there are MANY countries where we are able to disagree. America just happens to be one of the few of those which is forcing the exodus due to valueless moral oppression.

Maybe it's me but I don't understand this. Switch it around. If gay marriage and all these other things that left wingers want to be happened we'd be screaming foul and you'd say the majority spoke. That's backwards.

Pleasing the majority is great, until the majority wants to deny the rights of the minority. Then, pleasing the majority means selling out the civil rights of your citizens.

I honestly do not understand how you can believe the difference is not obvious.

Gay marriage - if it is legal, you don't HAVE to marry a gay person. If it is illegal, a gay person CANNOT marry another gay person.

One is a limitation of freedom - the illegality of gay marrige, which only produces a negative affect for gay people. The other is an acceptance of freedom - the legallity of gay marriage, which only produces a positive affect for gay people. There is no positive aspect of the former other than the excersize of control (ego boosting) for those who would enforce their personal moral judgement on others and there is no negative of the latter at all.

You should be allowed to not marry a gay person - but you should not be allowed to prevent a gay person from marrying another gay person. There is no rationality to it beyond a personal moral choice being applied to everyone.

I don't like cauliflower - but I certainly would not require everyone else to refrain from eating it.

Maybe this should be brought in front of the Philosophy forum? Especially with that cauliflower statement. But then again cauliflower is one thing and moral issues is another. One is edible the other is emotional and intellectual.

It is an analogy.

like Kerry is to that certain footwear? Nevermind. Let's move on.

I would have to agree with Manx on this. Moral codes are not Law in most cases, and for understandable reasons. The legislation of limited freedoms is counter productive to a free society in my opinion, and should be avoided. I have no intention of getting married to another male, but I do not wish to force my personal beliefs on someone who may wish to.
The only reasons I see for forbidding such a marriage is religious, or based on fear.
Neither of which belong in government.

Most current laws are based on morals - right? Theft, Rape, Etc. Except that cheating while you're married thing.

realize that when a person defies others on the basis that they do not want a particular moral framework in place... what they are really saying is that they want their own moral framework instead.

which separates the prisoners from those opinionated

People fear change, but I do not think that this is the main reason against gay marriage. The institution has been a main stay in religion (man and woman). And, they do not want to let the minority of people crap all over their beliefs. And, as those who claim to be open-minded can not let but one side of the argument in.

But People can choose what they want to beleive and noone can change that. But as a right-winger I think that the goverment should sat out of everyone business (on both sides)

Good point, i want to impose my morality, which consists of "Don't tell me what i can and can't do when what i do has no relevance to your existence" as opposed to the other side's morality, which apparently is "If i don't do it or think it is okay than no one should do it or think it is okay, regardless of whether it is damaging to anybody or not".

There are morals that are consistant to our society (murder, theft, rape, etc.), and there are morals that are philosophy specific (homsexuality, polygamy, premarital sex, etc.). Let's not get the two confused. I personally believe that it is very much wrong to interfere with foreign powers, but that is my personal belief. Obviously, our government does not share that moral. It is simply a belief that fits with my philosophy, but not our society. Murder in the first degree is wrong, socially, and with most philosophies. Homosexual marriage is wrong socially, but only with a certian philosophy is it bad. Why should an ancient text stop two people who are in love from being legally accepted as married? When tecoyah was saying "The only reasons I see for forbidding such a marriage is religious, or based on fear.
Neither of which belong in government.", he meant there are philosophical beliefs that are meant to be seperated from the government. I hope that cleard it up for you, mused76.

Not sure it will clear things up - ever. The majority voted, last night, and it's part of our democracy to vote on issues.

p.s
 

if it (any issue) was right or meant to be, in the first place, we would have never had to voted on it in the first place.

For me the problem extends from the people who wrote the Constitution...

Jackson and Adams and Washington and those old folk... They go off about "In god we trust" and "Under God" and stuff like that, and then say that there has to be an absolute separation between church and state...

What? Which are we supposed to beleive? If there is supposed to be a separation between church and state, marraige shouldn't be a federal institution in the first place! The constitution is an old document that has a vast array of merits but allows for squabbling over moral issues like this.

I feel that any additional bills passed in federal courts should start clarifying the basic foundations of this country, not muddying it with more laws that limit freedom. It seems to me that the more amending and bill passing that goes on, the less and less the constitution actually matters. Soon no-one will be able to even see the beginning, our nation will be run by the only people who know how to navigate legal text, the lawyers.

Or not. Maybe I'm just a crazy hippie.

If you don't like the way people vote then find a country that has a leader that will do the stuff you prefer. Such as France or Germany.

I hope you're not equating gay marriage with theft or rape.

Say two guys get married down the street from you.

What are they stealing?
Who are they raping?

There are no victims.

Unless you consider stealing your sense of "righteous indignation" and raping your "body of faith" as crimes.

:)


Mr Mephisto

I was making a point that most laws are based on morals but not saying gay marriages are equall to rape or theft.

Has anyone in the democratic party considered that with the constant parade of candidates, spokespersons and strategists, that are the most left of all Americans, are
leaving more and more americans behind.
It takes a certain kind of myopia at best, and arrogance at worst ,that when election after election seats in congress, the senate and even the presidency are going to the Republicans to think that the Republicans are the problem. Anyone who supports a republican at all is some sort of extremist? 51-48 alone does not a mandate make. Gaining seats in congress and the senate over the last 20 years plus 51-48 and 3.5 mil gap in the popular vote is certainly worth noticing. Maybe the dems should re-examine what is extreme.

A sudden jump in one direction or the other is sure to be noticed but with some constant pressure over time you'll look up and wonder how you got where you are.

In that case you should be seriously encouraging all the anti-abortionists (including Bush) to leave the country. It's 100% legal in the US.

Also instead of the cauliflower analogy, let's go with pork. It's morally wrong to eat pork according to certain religions. Yet I don't see you championing anti-pork legislation.

If you think we should ban gay marriage, then you should also be for banning pork products.

How very constructive.

Actually gay marriage is illegal in France. A city mayor tried to enact ordinace to allow it and he was removed and the marriages voided. Civil unions are allowed as far as I know.

Gay marriage (or equivalent civil unions) are legal in many countries, including steps to legalize it in the UK.

And we all know how George Bush feels about Blair. :)


Mr Mephisto

but i think we'd both agree that everyone thinks of his own position like this. certainly there must be something that you consider harmful to one another that another person wouldn't bat an eye at.

for example, no one would condone murder. yet, millions of people have no problem with abortion and still millions more consider it nothing short of homicide. those who sincerely believe that abortion is murder are no more enforcing their moral code on a pro-life person than a pro-life person is on someone who may condone homicide. our own moral convictions always allow the maximum degree of human liberty (in our mind's most honest conviction)... but others who disagree with my code will forever be forcing their own agenda upon me.

we're never going to satisfy everyone. the best we can do is find a moral code that best promotes liberty, integrity, justice and compassion to one another. the debate will rage on, but we must recognize that everyone possesses a moral code and that such codes are the cornerstone of civilization. we are no closer to any of our ideals if we don't realize the relationship our own moral codes have with another person's.

I do think that the Democratic party has, in many ways, alienated much of the electorate. It has increasingly become a less inclusive party while simultaneously trying to make American law and culture more inclusive. An easy example is gay marriage. Much of the Democratic party sees this as a right and that to deny it is discrimination(something I agree with). The problem lies in that the party does not easily tolerate those who may have difficulty with this notion. Joe Six-Pack is economically a Dem, but his social beliefs are more conservative and he puts God and family before his own fiscal well-being. Democrats, who preach inclusiveness, are often guilty of excluding those who do not fall in line with party dogma.

Both parties do this, but in an America that is increasingly religious and increasingly concerned about cultural change, Dems need to take a long hard look at our vision for America, the path we will take to get us to that vision and who will help us achieve it.

As far as Mused's original post, I don't think that liberals have the exclusive rights on immoral practices. If you truly believe that, then you live in a fantasy world, the one where Hannity and Coulter live. Larry Flint may be liberal, but he is not the face of liberalism. I could just as easily drop the name Don King, who is pretty much a soulless bastard, and remind you that he is a staunch Bush supporter and was even in attendance at Bush's acceptance speech today. I am fairly certain you would not consider him your typical conservative. Regardless of what you might think, the vast majority of liberals are not millionaire porn kings.

One thing I do believe is that over the years, the Republican party has given up its history as the party of freedom and change(ie the Party of Lincoln). I am proud to be a Democrat, fighting for the rights and freedoms of minority groups and the disenfranchised. It is a hard road to travel, particularly today, but nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

That being said, God bless America and God bless President George W. Bush(lord knows we need it)







And while God is at it, God bless John Kerry as well.

There is still a difference between telling people how to live, when it has no effect on anyone else's quality of life, and telling someone that they can't tell someone how to live. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the majority has the right to limit the rights of the minority.

There is a huge difference between murder and abortion. Namely, that the exact criteria for being "alive" are nebulous. Besides, murder is a legal word and currently abortion is legal, just like capital punishment.

On top of that, there is a huge difference between morals surrounding the ending of a life or potential life, and those surrounding two guys getting married. I believe in "live and let live", while many of those who shriek about the government limiting their freedoms, whether religious or second amendment, are more than gung ho when it comes to limiting another's freedoms in the bedroom.

There was a time when the "moral majority" believed in segregation, slavery, and manifest destiny.

So you're saying that the civil rights movement shouldn't have happened just because there was a "small" minority? Things can go back to the way they were??? Avoid social progress? So, how far back do you want to turn the clock? Do you want to re-segregate? This is why I will always reject the agenda of this fundamentalist christian nation (which it has become) I won't stand and have christianity shoved down my throat just because more people apparently voted for Bush than Kerry.

And don't get me wrong. I believe in god. I'm not against religion. BUT, what I do have a problem with is that this country wasn't founded on the beliefs of christianity. The founding fathers believed that people could choose the religion of their choice and the reason for the separation of church and state is to prevent what has now happened. Bush wants to return American to its moral roots, he said today. Whose morals?? christian morals?? But I'm not a christian. It's wrong to force it down my throat in the form of legislation. That's what's wrong with America now and that's why I'll always fight for the freedoms of the disenfranchised. Minority or not.

Actually this was quite clearly stated multiple times throughout the campaign. If you had watched the debates and paid attention you would know this. Stop trying to hide behind your own ignorance.

I think he was being sarcastic, or at least I hope so.

Kerry did say that he wants the states to handle gay marriage. He said in in the second or the first debate. Either no one listened or the only heard what they want to hear from Bush.

No, he was pretty clear in that if you listened to him speak. That was one of the FEW things I liked about him. Very few.

Since when was it the government's position to enforce moral codes? In America, aka Land of the Free, ideally there should never be legislation that would hinder anyones freedoms. If you choose to love a man, as long as you never hurt anyone, what business is it of the governments? Especially since it is a religious idea in the first place!

Aside from that - Just because the majority voted does not AT ALL make the majority morals more right than anyone elses.

Fortunately, whatever the founding fathers beleived in, I think they realized (at least I think so) that religion severely hinders progress as a society and is something that should be kept in homes/churches and out of politics. The majority if not all previous wars could in someway shape or form be identified as having a religious motive (probably not entirely true but I think religion most definately played roles in wars past). There are just too many things to disagree on when it comes to religion.

The majority are quite often passing laws that that control the activities of minorities. The only recourse minorities have is chalenge them in the courts and have them found unconstitutional. Unfortunately the founding fathers did not include marriage in the constitution, unless "pursuit of happiness" or something can apply.

I'm convinced that the government would have already taken all the guns if the right to own them wasn't specifically stated.

I know this may sound trivial to some. I am a motorcyle enthusiest and there is a battle going on in most states to pass or repeal helmet laws. About half the states currently have helmet laws. Since a majority do not ride bikes it is easy to convince them to pass these laws. After all it is for our own good that we wear them isn't it? Just because something is a good idea does not mean we have to pass a law. I am waiting for them to pass a law that restaurants cannot serve food high in fat content, LOL,

Most Christians probably believe gay marriage is a bad idea. They (we) do not need so many laws restricting our freedom. I wish the constitution would not allow these laws restricting our behavior just because the majority thinks the activity is bad for us. Hopefully some day we can live and let live and always err to the side of personal freedom.

Nobody is limiting freedom in the bedroom but they are attempting to stop marriage between the same sex. Same sex marriages, in my *opinion*, are not justified and only show self-love due to the fact that gay marriages are based on falling in love for the same sex - the same being whether it male or female. Marriage is sacred and meant to be between a male and a female in my opinion and in the Catholic church's opinion. The purpose of marriage: love and pro-create. This is all besides the point.

My main point in beginning this thread was to state that the majority spoke out and won. This isn't just Bush or the "government" stopping rights. The government is made up of American citizens who voted on gay marriage bans this election and have voted on other issues in the past. And the majority, at whatever time it was, voted in presidents who were either for or against issues.

The minority does have rights. They have rights to protest, to leave the country, to get petitions, to lead marches to the state capitals, etc. They don't have these rights in many countries or just recently received them in areas such as Iraq. The minority has rights so please do not say they don't. Whether or not the majority agrees is another thing.

Nobody is limiting freedom in the bedroom but they are attempting to stop marriage between the same sex. Same sex marriages, in my *opinion*, are not justified and only show self-love due to the fact that gay marriages are based on falling in love for the same sex - the same being whether it male or female. Marriage is sacred and meant to be between a male and a female in my opinion and in the Catholic church's opinion. The purpose of marriage: love and pro-create. This is all besides the point.

My main point in beginning this thread was to state that the majority spoke out and won. This isn't just Bush or the "government" stopping rights. The government is made up of American citizens who voted on gay marriage bans this election and have voted on other issues in the past. And the majority, at whatever time it was, voted in presidents who were either for or against issues.

The minority does have rights. They have rights to protest, to leave the country, to get petitions, to lead marches to the state capitals, etc. They don't have these rights in many countries or just recently received them in areas such as Iraq. The minority has rights so please do not say they don't. Whether or not the majority agrees is another thing.

People were fed lies, and Kerry still almost won.

Yeah marriage is sacred. So let me know when divorce is illegal. Also those marry a millionare reality shows are illegal too (Ok this is wish would actually happen). Marriage is already not that sacred in our county as a legal institution.

Frankly, the best solution(meanign should piss off the fewest people) is to get rid of marriage in the US as a legal thing and just implement civil unions for and any adults ( and I'm not limiting the number to 2 either, although the current tax code may need some fixing first). Marriage can then stilll exist as a religious thing and that may church and state are once again seperate(at least on this issue).
I see no problems with this solution, but it is only my perspective. Any one that can point out flaws in my idea, please post.

You are aware that Muslims consider us to be godless heathens and that their morality includes death for adultery, beating your wife and many less than savory concepts. Maybe they can be the majority someday and impose their views on you.
Ouch, gays are hurting me by entering into a monogamous relationship, I can only tolerate gays when they engage in hot, anonymous sex with numerous partners. Freedom really doesn't enter into your concept of America, does it?

these examples violate the rights of other people and that is why they are not allowed. just my 2 cents

you are beginning to sound alot like Alan Keyes....Anyway, you are looking at people in groups. You should look at the individual. Amanda loves Susan...and they wish to spend the rest of their lives together. Why should it matter that they both female. Go tell them in their faces that they are not good enough people to get married. That is what you are doing basically. You are calling them inferior. I think once you go out and get to know some of these people your thoughts will change. To marry for procreation is an old concept, but I believe we have progressed past that at this point. Not every marriage produces kids. I know people who will be unable to have children..should they be barred from mariage?

I'm sorry if my spelling is off and my post is a little disjointed...I'm a bit drunk.

Love is all you need.....

actually, they violate capitalist principles.

that is, personal rights are prerequisites for capitalist ideology.

Marriage is defined by the church, right? So goevernment shouldn't have anything to say about who can or cannot get married because it is a religious issue, right? What if i told you that there are at least a few denominations of mainstream christianity consider a gay marriage just as sacred as a straight one? Who's religious freedom is more worthy of constitutional protection?

Anyways, back to your main point. The majority spoke, but just between you and me and the internet, if the majority was amalgamated into a single person that person couldn't locate arizona on a map of the u.s.. Besides, the real majority made a brilliant use of negative space in its statement on election day. Roughly 40% of registered voters didn't vote at all. Bush only got about 30% of the eligible vote.

This idea is from a buddy of mine, and i got a kick out it:
put any personal beleifs aside about your belief in god and for a minute and just assume that there's no God. If that's the case (and science gets closer to proving it every year), 4,000,0000 people just decided the fate of the world based upon a figment of their imaginations. I give them an 'A' for creativity that for sure!!

mrb

I usually refer to it as a figment of one's unreality.

Well said (original poster). The dems just don't get that they are too far OUTSIDE the beliefs of the "common man".

Same sex marriages don't *have* to be justified. That's the whole point of the utilitarian principle (which is what our whole philosophy of law is based on). There has to be justification to deny freedoms (i.e. harm to others), not to allow them.

As you readily admit, that is an opinion that is based solely on religious considerations, and therefore has no place dictating public policy. We have this little thing called "separation of church and state" in this country, no matter how much the religious right wants to deny it.

So what? Rights and freedoms are not something that are subject to public opinion. Do you think that if the majority of people in this country thought it would be a good idea to reinstitute slavery, that it would be right to do so? That is certainly an extreme example, but a valid one nonetheless. Rights are guaranteed, and should not be able to be voted out of existence.

The fact is that the majority is denying rights to the minority. That simply is not acceptable, regardless of how the majority feels about it.

Yes, we have the right to challenge authority to explain and defend their actions. That is why were so vehement to get the "moral majority" to defend it's decision, but we mostly get stone-walled.

Banning gay marriage (or defining marriage as between a man and a woman) does nothing to stop homosexuality and serves only as a way to deny gay couples the right to tax benefits provided by the government for married couples. If your defense is that marriages are the church's domain. Then call gay couples "Civic Unions" or "Common-Law Marriage".

I don't know what to make of the "Self-Love" argument you made. It's love between to seperate individual people who just happen to be the same gender. Are you insinuating that the church has the right the define emotion? To validate what is love and what isn't? Please eloborate.

*nods...

Honestly, i'm scared about becoming an illegal person in the next few years. Until a few days ago, the primary reason to be concerned was if i could be ordained in the denomination of my choice. Now, it is if my life will be legislated and ruled against until i cannot be a legal citizen of the United States.

Lawrence V. Texas was only 6-3....and i can only imagine the decision by which my right to be in the relationship of my choosing will only become more embattled with time. It's a very scary thing to have one's country turn upon you...

I can't believe we are even having this discussion. This country is so bigoted, its just painful. The GLBT community should be as entitled to its rights as white christian males, black women, whatever. That anyone should be excluded is despicable. It makes me truly sad to be American.

Allowing gay marriage forces religious institutions into nothing. They do not have to marry a gay couple. It cannot possibly affect anyone else except those getting married. What's so bad about that?

And as for civil unions: seperate but equal is bigoted, sure as straight up oppression. Let everyone have the same freedoms, please.

Its very easy when you are in the majority to say, "Well, majority rules so there..." The problem is that when you start telling people what they can and can't do, your country begins to drift further and further to the extreme end of the spectrum. In your case, this would mean a drift towards facism. And we all know how that worked out in the past. Today gays can't marry, what'll it be like tommarrow? Will we be feeding them to the lions? The following passage is something you need to think about. Writen by a fellow living in Nazi Germany in 1945.


"First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me."

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945


Actually, most laws come from the classical liberal ideology (read: the term 'liberal' is used here in its correct form, meaning in the center of the political spectrum. NOT left, or socialist, or communist, as most Americans, for some reason, insist on using it), which follows the idea that your rights end as soon as my rights begin. And this is the problem. If you want to advocate that murder, theft, rape, blackmail, tax evasion, etc. should be against the law, so be it. I'll even accept the pro-life policy, in that it is based on (a flawed opinion, IMO) protecting a "person's" life from someone else's. That is your right. I'll even say that you can scream at the top of your lungs that gay marriage is wrong, and that no one should do it. But never will I support you, or anyone, in the attempt to limit or infringe upon the rights of others, especially when they are not at all doing anything that might affect you.


Zen

Yeah, bring on the seperate but equal black women! :lol:

Why does letting gay people get married piss off the majority? Or is it that the Democrats are trying to please the minority that pisses off the majority? (By trying to give the minority the same right as the majority, in this case).

edit - I read further down the thread and I think I got it now... so nevermind.

I'll post this (from alternet) in response:

-- http://alternet.org/election04/20433/

Including polygamists and those who want to marry their cousins? Are there any rules that are constitutional and unbigoted? If so, what are they?

Wow, I had no idea!

Got a link to that research?

:D

That is simply wrong. He stated it in at least 2 of the debates and in several speeches that I saw. Could be you just didn't want to hear it.

If the Republicans are serious about passing laws to enforce the morality of their Christian base, let them prove it by sponsoring some laws which will really do the job:

You want to defend the "sanctity" of marriage? Let's ban divorce and criminalize adultery.
Let's codify the Ten Commandments and punish those who fail to honor their parents,
fail to keep holy the sabbath, take the Lord's name in vain, or covet their neighbor's
goods.
Let's see that Roe v. Wade is overturned and start executing women and doctors who
participate in abortions.
Let's pass laws that punish witches and heretics.
And, of course, we must outlaw pornography in every shape and form.

I just wish that whoever was reading the Bible to Dubya would hurry up and get to the New Testament.

"The fact is that the majority is denying rights to the minority. That simply is not acceptable, regardless of how the majority feels about it."

Is marriage a right?
Maybe the economic facets of it are but I doubt it.
If thats the case, then goddamnit I should able to have those economic ties with anyone I please, man, woman, brother, sister, mother, father, friend, enemy, teacher.......

Marriage is a religious institution. As far as the gov't is concerned now, it is a financial institution.
Having the gov't recognize gay marriage is as silly as recognizing straight marriage. Don't even get me started on spousal immunity.

To me this is an economic issue not a moral one.

Sorry, I can't figure out the "quote" box stuff, how does it know who to attribute the quote to? it's magic i tell ya.
-fibbers

Interesting. Makes you wonder where the line should be drawn. Could lead to some very diverse economic agreements. We would need another name for these couples besides marriage, I think.

I think you're in luck flstf, that's what I assume the "civil union" is supposed to be.

Now I must admit I don't follow this issue at all in the press, but I vaguely recall hearing Bush says he supports civil unions. Is this right?

If so then I can only assume we've caused nationwide anger over semantics... bonus points?

Obviously the issue has gone beyond that point, I don't want to trivialize what the other posters here are discussing, but I think this should be clearly an economic issue. I posted in another forum that Insurance companies surely don't want this to go though; more beneficiaries = more money = more money taken from either your check or your bosses bottom line for insurance 'cause they're gettin their cut either way. But people want their benefits so if you want to argue for or against it on that ground I certainly couldn't fault you.

I don't know what the economic benefits are for married couples but I would imagine them to be fairly substantial. Pushing for them otherwise would have to equate to some sort of socio-religious reason. If that's the case then tread lightly if you want to argue for it and seperation of church and state in the same breath. Don't forget marriage is a religious institution, we may have given a legal context to it over the years, but I'ld bet more marriages are presided over by some sort of religious figure than a justice of the peace, gay strait or otherwise. If some stat-hound can find some numbers I'ld be much obliged.

I'ld say I'm vaguely against it for the uber-petty reason that I hate people gettin shit that I don't. Marriage benefits, child tax credits, affirmative action, medicaid, Social Security, bugger that, I want 'em too or get rid of 'em. 'course my opinion would change if I was a old, married, perscription drug needing, black woman applying to lawschool with kids. :)

-fibber

Gay marriage advocates are not asking for a radical shift in the definition of marriage. Allowing marriage between family members is taboo in many cultures for the genetic diseases that often affect offspring of such unions. Additionally, marriage is the recognize union between two people who (hopefully) love each other. So is gay marriage. It isn't asking for three people to be involved, or animals, or incest, or anything else. Just for the right of two people who love each other to join together in matrimony. Thats it.

To compare gay marriage to polygamy or incest, by the way, reveals a truly abhorrent set of moral values. What happened, forgot bestiality?