Dear Lord, can we make this racist group disappear?

[kg_veteran]

Chum - I see what you're saying. But if we're going to have civil unions which are basically just benefits packages, is it going to be open for any two consenting adults or are we going to place limits on it?

[chumdawg]

I would say any two consenting adults, but with provisions in place that prevent people from abusing the privilege or committing fraud and so forth. I think it's okay to exclude relatives, at least to the extent that relatives of the opposite sex are already excluded from the right to marry. But I guess if enough of them would get together and make their voices be heard, I'd give consideration to their point of view.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

You can try to use semantics and repackage it any way you want, but it is still trying to make the law reflect what same sex marriage proponents view as moral.

I made the point about as clearly and concisely as it could possibly be made. If anyone is doing any repackaging it would be you, repackaging a matter about recognition by the state and equality into a matter of 'morality' ,which I demonstrated it is not. Perhaps you would care to expand on your definition of 'morality' and what constitutes an issue of legislating morality, which under the current terms you use it, is rather expansive, confusing and undefined.

No, that would be a violation of the freedom of religion.

Yes it would be, or the freedom of any private party or institution to practice how it pleases for that matter, but it would be an example of trying to legislate morality. For a secular example, a law prohibiting private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race/sex/disability etc, such as a restaurant that refuses to serve blacks or other minorities would be a prominent example of legislating morality.

Gays are icky? Who made that the basis of their opinion?

Alot of different people, religious people, people with traditionalist views about human sexuality, simple garden variety antigay bigots.

Anyway...

Whether it is for societal or religious reasons (or both) that someone is opposed to gay marriage, it is still a legislation of morality.

First, this is not an issue of allowing or disallowing, or approving or disapproving of gay marriage. Same sex couples have been free to and have been getting married, having private ceremonies in churches the same as different sex couples for some time now. This is a matter of same sex couples having their unions recognized by the state, the same as different sex couples.

Secondly, while those opposed to the prospect of same sex couples freely marrying eachother, most likely opposes such a union because of some concept of morality, it does not follow that those opposed to state recnognition of same sex unions, do so because of matters of morality. If someone opposes state recognition of same sex marriage unions on the grounds that it is the best interests of the state and the institution of marriage to not recnognize as marriage anything other than one man and one woman, that is not a matter of legislating morality. If someone opposes state recognition of same sex marriages on the grounds that that they believe the very marriages SSM proponents are trying to get recognized by the stae are immoral or distasteful, then that would be a matter of legislating morality.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
I would say any two consenting adults, but with provisions in place that prevent people from abusing the privilege or committing fraud and so forth. I think it's okay to exclude relatives, at least to the extent that relatives of the opposite sex are already excluded from the right to marry. But I guess if enough of them would get together and make their voices be heard, I'd give consideration to their point of view.

If it's strictly going to be a benefits package, I don't see any good reason to exclude relatives.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
First, this is not an issue of allowing or disallowing, or approving or disapproving of gay marriage. Same sex couples have been free to and have been getting married, having private ceremonies in churches the same as different sex couples for some time now. This is a matter of same sex couples having their unions recognized by the state, the same as different sex couples.

True, but that's what we've been talking about from the beginning of this thread -- legal marriage recognized by the state. I never suggested that there aren't places where homosexuals can get ceremonially married.

Secondly, while those opposed to the prospect of same sex couples freely marrying eachother, most likely opposes such a union because of some concept of morality, it does not follow that those opposed to state recnognition of same sex unions, do so because of matters of morality. If someone opposes state recognition of same sex marriage unions on the grounds that it is the best interests of the state and the institution of marriage to not recnognize as marriage anything other than one man and one woman, that is not a matter of legislating morality. If someone opposes state recognition of same sex marriages on the grounds that that they believe the very marriages SSM proponents are trying to get recognized by the stae are immoral or distasteful, then that would be a matter of legislating morality.

I see where you're trying to draw a distinction. Let me ask you this: If a person is opposed to same sex marriage "on the grounds that it is in the best interests of the state and the institution of marriage," why do they believe that?

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

If it's strictly going to be a benefits package, I don't see any good reason to exclude relatives.

I guess you are probably right about that. I'm imagining a situation like I think you offered earlier--where, say, a brother and sister share a household, have joint checking accounts, etc., and basically do a lot of the same things for each other that spouses do (not necessarily including a sexual relationship, but I suppose not necessarily excluding it either). In that case, I guess that yes, those people should be included too.

In fact, making these benefits more available to other people besides gays who live in non-traditional situations might make it a more palatable thing to those who form their opinions on this issue based strictly on their opinions about sexuality.

[Epitome22]

I see where you're trying to draw a distinction. Let me ask you this: If a person is opposed to same sex marriage "on the grounds that it is in the best interests of the state and the institution of marriage," why do they believe that?

I'll try not to be too long winded in my response so bear with me;

Marriage is many things to many people. Whatever it may mean in the social or religious sense, as it pertains to the state, marriage is a sort of contract wherein the state grants certain privileges and benefits to the married partners with certain expectations in return, primarily the promise of generating and rearing children, who will grow to be productive citizens themselves (and especially tax payers).

This concept of marriage as a state institution being analagous to a contract, isn't a perfect one because of the nature of our system of government and the limits we place on it. For instance, even though the state can grant state recnognition of marriages and provide certain goodies to married people under the auspices that the married couple will raise children, the state cannot use coercion to force married peoples to procreate if they choose to remain childless; nor is it within the power of the state to terminate or revoke a marriage that produces no offspring. Still, even considering this, the state still provides these benefits to married couples because the state finds these goodies a way (within it's limited scope of power) to reward and incentivize a society where children are predominantly raised in married two parents households, which better serves state interests than a society full of single, unwed mothers.

If the definition of marriage, as it is understood by the state, is expanded to include same sex couples, then (it is argued) it would completely nullify the pretext of marriage as procreative and child raising contract, since same sex couples cannot procreate together (especially two male partners). Once the definition of marriage is expanded to include same sex couples, the doors then open to a whole plethora of possibilities; like two platonic friends or 2 straight female roommates, who have no romantic interest in each other or desire to have children, who want to pool their resources and aquire a legal marriage to obtain the economic benefits afforded to married couples rearing children. The outcome would be a system where the state could no longer effectively incentivize or foster it's interests in 2 parent child rearing, and the concept of marriage as it is understood legally would become mostly meaningless.

That is what is generally mean't when people say that they oppose SSM because of state and marriage interest.

The issue then becomes, regardless of whether it's in the interests of the state to recognize marriage as nothing other than one man and one woman (which I agree with), as long as the state is in the marriage business, whether it is permitted to discriminate against same sex couples (which I'm not so sure it can/should).

The Libertarian solution, as always, is for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether.

[chumdawg]

I don't necessarily want to reopen this debate, but I am curious to hear any comments about this Dallas Morning News opinion piece.

North Dallas couple puts a face on divisive Prop 2

Committed relationships can only be good for society, writes MACARENA HERNÁNDEZ

08:39 AM CST on Friday, November 4, 2005


Rob Schlein spent his 20s looking for love. (Don't we all?) Friends told him that love would find him when he wasn't looking (and who hasn't heard that one?), but he had resigned himself to spending life alone, with his schnauzers, Boris, Max and Charlie.

A good man, we can agree, is hard to find.

But then, on New Year's Eve 1990, Rob met The One. And corny as it may sound, it was love at first sight.

"Just like a bulb going off," said David Keeton, a 55-year-old Vietnam-era veteran. "It was like a comfortable glove with a really good fit."

"If it doesn't fit, you must quit," Rob, 47, added with a laugh.

Today, still together, they find themselves defending their commitment in the face of Proposition 2, a state constitutional amendment that would define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman" but also prohibit "any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Rob and David know they live in a Republican state with a Republican-dominated Legislature that pushed this measure onto Tuesday's ballot, but they are absolutely certain it won't receive unanimous Republican support.

After all, they're voting "no," and they're Republicans. And they've been knocking on doors in their Far North Dallas neighborhood, urging their neighbors to stand with them.

Like me, Rob and David wonder why our state party leaders – who have their hands full with education and countless other problems – would go to so much trouble to ban something that's already illegal. Two years ago, Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which makes it illegal to recognize same-sex civil unions obtained in other states.

I've heard some politicos talk about the sanctity of marriage and how it must be protected. But how, Rob and David ask, do homosexuals threaten that? Gays and lesbians have had committed relationships since the beginning of time. No constitutional amendment will ever ban their love.

Some politicians generally stay in the closet when it comes to this debate, even though they don't agree with Proposition 2. They care more about losing voters than speaking out about discrimination against a large, contributing segment of the population.

(The Ku Klux Klan isn't afraid, though. Its members will rally in support of the amendment this weekend outside City Hall in Austin.)

Some of us hope to be surprised Tuesday, but Rob and David – two Log Cabin Republicans – are fairly certain Proposition 2 will pass.

Nevertheless, they go door to door in their Bent Tree neighborhood, introducing themselves to neighbors who overwhelmingly supported President Bush last November. They try to show, if nothing else, that Proposition 2 has a face, that this divisive measure affects real people who, like the rest of us, only want the right to be happy.

As a society, shouldn't we encourage everyone to maintain healthy, loving, committed relationships? What's so bad about that? Maybe some religious affiliations are not in line with gay and lesbian lifestyles, but who are we to judge?

If Proposition 2 were only about banning gay marriage, Rob says, he wouldn't put up a fight. It's the ambiguous wording of the next clause down – "any legal status identical or similar to marriage" – that troubles him and should trouble us all.

Despite different interpretations, it seems fairly clear to me that if Proposition 2 passes, it will soon threaten other rights, such as hospital visitations, adoptions and employee benefits. That will only make it more difficult and costly for a same-sex couple to do what the rest of us take for granted.

In April, David had a stroke while working out at Bally's Total Fitness. As he lay in the emergency room, unable to move, Rob prayed. He asked God to "take him or heal him," but not to let him linger as Terri Schiavo did for so many years.

God answered his prayers.

And this weekend, David will knock on more doors, hoping against hope, as he and Rob wonder what's next for them.

DMN

[u2sarajevo]

No matter where you stand on this issue..... Today is the day to vote!!!! Exercise your right as a citizen and VOTE!!!!!

If you don't vote, you can't complain about the result.

[Mavdog]

it's regrettable that the voters can't exercise the power of the ballot box to rid ourselves of the scourge of bigotry the KKK symbolizes...

I am really wondering how Amendment 2 will do today. I would have expected it to pass with no measurable opposition (not that a voter mandate makes it right...) YET there was not a single major newspaper that endorsed the Amendment. The DMN had an article about some evangelical churches spending $ and time trying to get voters to approve it (hmm, crossing that line a bit in my view) so I still expect the Amendment to pass....but perhaps, just maybe, the electorate will surprise me and do what is right and defeat the Amendment.

All I can say is I did my part.

[dude1394]

Voted last week. I did what was right and voted for prop 2. With respect to newspaper editors, why should I expect an industry who is mostly crosswise with their own customers to vote the right way.

[chumdawg]

I understand that at one time as many as one in eight Americans were members of the KKK.

[dude1394]

Right way, wrong way, your way, my way...

Just because the left feel that "if it feels good do it" doesn't mean it's correct. I see no reason to publicly support and condone a deviant lifestyle. In law or culture.

[dude1394]

Well just to put a little perspective.... Even the left coast understands why a deviant lifestyle should not be promoted in our society. So now I guess there are many more than 1in8 who are members of the KKK now. All it took were a bunch of out of control judges legislating to do it, it seems. What a recruiting tool! Ah democracy in action.

------------
polipundit
The Politics of Gay Marriage

Voters in the State of Texas today will ban recognition of same-sex marriages. After doing so, Texas will become the eighteenth state since year 2000 to have banned recognition of same-sex marriages via direct voter referendums. In the other seventeen states, the margins in favor of those measures, and therefore against gay marriage, were as follows:

57-43 = Oregon.
59-41 = Michigan.
61-38 = California.
62-38 = Ohio.
66-34 = Utah.
67-33 = Montana.
70-30 = Nebraska.
70-30 = Nevada.
71-29 = Kansas.
71-29 = Missouri.
73-27 = North Dakota.
75-25 = Arkansas.
75-25 = Kentucky.
76-24 = Georgia.
76-24 = Oklahoma.
78-22 = Louisiana.
86-14 = Mississippi.

[Mavdog]

it was only until the 1950's that all the state laws banning interracial marriages were finally removed (mostly by what you call "activist judges"). also such things as deed restrictions against blacks, as well as against jews, catholics.

phrases such as "deviant" were tossed around then too.

yes, our beloved country has been very, very wrong in a few ways.

there's no denying the success at the ballot box of the anti-homosexual public. no one expects today's vote to be any different, even in the great state of texas who has stood steadfast for individual rights over her long history, but today will fall victim to the mantra of hate.

winning the election does not make it right or just.

[dude1394]

However males having sex with males and females having sex with females is a little more "deviant" brotha' than someone of different races having relations. Sure we can throw up the race canard but it's not applicable here, only in your mind.

[u2sarajevo]

Just for the record, mavdog....

I don't hate anyone.

However, I do love God's word.

[chumdawg]

Well, 3-to-1 in favor of Prop 2. I hope every married person feels that much closer to his or her spouse tonight.

[u2sarajevo]

I don't have to have an amendment pass that upholds the definition of Marriage for me to feel close to my wife chum.

But just for you I will give her 75% more hugs and kisses tonight than I did last night.

[Drbio]

I feel better. The people have spoken now we can all move on.......except for all the whiners and complainers who will undoubtedly come out in droves.

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
I don't have to have an amendment pass that upholds the definition of Marriage for me to feel close to my wife chum.

Well, I thought that was kinda the point.

[u2sarajevo]

Nope....

You apparently missed the point.

[chumdawg]

If the point wasn't to affirm the sort of marriage that you have...then what was the point??

[u2sarajevo]

Dalmations already pointed it out, so I will quote him:

Originally posted by: dalmations202
my $0.02 worth:

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Pro 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both [are] abomination to the LORD.

Jer 8:12 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
-------------------------------------------------
For me -- enough said.

I'll Vote yes on Nov 8.

[chumdawg]

So you're saying that we just did a really nice job of violating the separation of church and state?

[u2sarajevo]

In as much as equating convicting murderers, then I guess yes.

[chumdawg]

Let me make sure I'm following you. You are saying that the motivation for convicting murders is in most part religious?

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
Let me make sure I'm following you. You are saying that the motivation for convicting murders is in most part religious?

I am saying that God's laws make it a sin to kill. God's laws make it a sin to lie with another man (read into that Marriage).

From the standpoint of a Christian, which I realize not everyone is Christian but for the purpose of trying to explain the correlation I cited above.... Our entire Country has followed my first example of God's laws (murder, killing) and made it illegal (or a "sin" in the eyes of the law). What we elected yesterday was essentially following the second example (homosexual marriage).

Now, as I said, not everyone is Christian. I am however. And that is my viewpoint on what this State did yesterday. You, obviously, think differently. But I am very pleased that we as a State have decided to follow God's word and not those of Man.

[mnmpeanut]

its all so unneccessary...


“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

- Thomas Jefferson

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

I am saying that God's laws make it a sin to kill. God's laws make it a sin to lie with another man (read into that Marriage).

From the standpoint of a Christian, which I realize not everyone is Christian but for the purpose of trying to explain the correlation I cited above.... Our entire Country has followed my first example of God's laws (murder, killing) and made it illegal (or a "sin" in the eyes of the law). What we elected yesterday was essentially following the second example (homosexual marriage).

Now, as I said, not everyone is Christian. I am however. And that is my viewpoint on what this State did yesterday. You, obviously, think differently. But I am very pleased that we as a State have decided to follow God's word and not those of Man.

So, your vote on proposition two was because you object to homosexuality?

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: Epitome22

So, your vote on proposition two was because you object to homosexuality?

My vote on Prop. 2 was in line with my interpretation of the Bible.

[mary]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
So you're saying that we just did a really nice job of violating the separation of church and state?

That's exactly what it was. So congrats to the other side.
If we're going to violate it, I don't see why we just don't go all the way.

I'd like to reinstitute slavery, do away with the death penatly, outlaw divorce, and redefine marriage as the PHYSICAL union between a man and a woman (Surely the majority is aware that the phrase "premarital sex" is paradoxal in and of itself).

We also may need to strike "war" off of the itenerary.


On the other hand, maybe we'll just continue to adapt religion to our beliefs as we see fit, like we've been doing for the past couple of thousand years.

I'd also like to reiterate that Prop 2 did not pass because society cares about Leviticus. (and I'm talking about the majority here, not everyone) Our society does not frown upon sin, it celebrates it, props it up, thrives on it and wraps it up in a nice SuperSized package and sells it to this highest bidder. I don't doubt the sincerity of those people that have posted their beliefs, but for the most part, it really seems like religion is often used as an excuse to support beliefs that come from somewhere else. I certainly don't see equal attention being paid to Corinithians, or other sections of the Bible that dictate Christian behavior or marital guidelines.

Edited because I quoted the wrong post.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

My vote on Prop. 2 was in line with my interpretation of the Bible.

Is their a biblical objection to same sex marriage.

[Drbio]

Since marriage must be consumated I dare say yes.

[mcsluggo]

Wow, really good debate back and forth people. And with very little resorting to nasty snide comments.

Thanks guys and gals, I really enjoyed reading all of this, ESPECIALLY the well thought out responses from people whose position I disagree with. THIS is why I bother to poke my head into a political forum on a sports website deep in the heart of Texas (I on the other hand have only lived on the east and west coasts, the SOUTH east coast, but the coast none the less)

thanks again