Reply #66: don't you see he takes it much further than that [View All]

[ima_sinnic]

Dean's response is brilliant (and can't really be faulted IMO) because:
1. It satisfies those who feel that marriage is a sacrament that is "corrupted" by the "abomination" or whatever of same-sex marriage. Again, control is returned to a smaller entity, the churches themselves, to determine if gay marriage will be recognized within that religion.

2. All legal rights of "marriage," a public commitment to another individual and joining of properties, are preserved in civil unions. These are spouses for purpose of wills, leases, property, taxes, bank accounts, insurance, etc.

3. He gives it back to the states to define and decide--(actually as it is now--so definitely in opposition to a federal constitutional amendment). This is another instance of returning control to the people, closer to home. It does of course raise the question of interstate honoring of civil union rights--I'm no lawyer but there must be precedents about this--with a Howard Dean presidency I think this type of question--of states honoring each others' laws--might become more relevant.

Getting the government smaller and less intrusive is what the "conservatives" grouse about all the time, and a sense of wanting to return to smaller, simpler times seems pervasive now in the USA (just my humble observation)--in this way Dean is appealing to a broad spectrum--in addition to the community-oriented campaign that he is running.

He is also temporarily reducing the issue of gay marriage to a more realistic level. People are being murdered, atrocities are being committed, in Iraq; we're on the brink of some serious war s**t and being seriously gored up the backside by neocon fraud artists. Admittedly all law-making cannot be given back to the states, resulting in a seriously fragmented and disjointed country--but let the issue be resolved on the local level for now so that attention might be fixed on what is seriously hurting the American people.