I´m sick of this gay marriage issue

[Vernunft II]

It´s way out of proportion. I know I´m using a provoking subject line and I did so on purpose. Bear with me for a moment and try to understand my points.

1) To conduct church weddings is the prerogative of churches.

2) Churches are independent, thus the government has no way of telling them what to do.

3) If a government would try to tell them it would violate the constitution.

4) What the government can do is make sure same sex couples get a marriage license and, once joined they have the same benefits as any married hetero couple.

5) That´s what all Dem candidates seek to my best knowledge. That´s all they CAN possibly seek as well as seen in #3.

6) Every attempt to see this issue differently makes about as much sense as charging tidal waves or trying to outlaw Winter. Get over it, churches don´t change that fast. No amount of complaining and posting will change that.

7) I´d ask the powers that be to stick this thread to the top and hence so people realize the folly of their ways. The current discussion is both completely pointless (reasons see above) and hurting the Dem party immensely. Can we please stop it ?

Thank you for your attention.

[foreigncorrespondent]

1. You say...

...you are sick of the gay marriage "issue" so why did you begin another thread, which can be considered inflammatory for?

[Vernunft II]

3. The voice of reason is only heard when spoken, right ?

[foreigncorrespondent]

5. Not at all.

But I am pointing out the hypocrisy in your OP. You say you are sick of the "issue" but then go ahead and begin another entire thread on it. When you could have simply put the gay marriage threads on ignore and moved on.

[Vernunft II]

8. I don´t want to put things on "Ignore", I´m trying to make people aware

of FACTS, however uncomfortable they may be. There is no point discussing things that cannot be, is there ? People demand things from a candidate that no candidate can provide unless he burns the consitution first.

[foreigncorrespondent]

18. Well then...

...don't say that you are sick of something then. It is quite obvious you aren't sick of it, if you choose to continue conversation about it.

And quite frankly, I am queer, so I am not uncomfortable about the gay marriage threads.

[Vernunft II]

20. See my post # 16 :-)

I´m in full agreement that couples regardless of their sex should be able to live together in peace, protected by the state.

I´m aware I used a rather blunt subject line but as I explained in my original posting I did so on purpose.

[whirlygigspin]

2. Rosie O'Donnell thanks you

coming up next: "gay weddings & the ebola virus, is there a link?

we report, you decide

[Vernunft II]

4. I have no clue who Rosie O´Donnel is....

[FDRrocks]

6. Chruches are not independant...

That is why the state recognizes marriage as a union, apparently.

The right way to solve this, since, in my opinion, it IS A CIVIL RIGHTS issue, is to stop the state from recognizing marriage.

People get married, the church recognizes it. I think people should have to apply for a civil union to be recognized by the state. If the church wants the state to recognize marriage then they can deal with Gay Marriage, in my opinion. All men are created equal. And people are guaranteed equal protection and privleges under law.

Period. Dot. Period. That is where it ends in my book.

[Vernunft II]

9. Churches ARE independent.

You can´t require a Pastor or a Priest to conduct a marriage. Not without burning the constitution. So a "Civil Union", created, conducted and recognized by the state, providing all benefits of marriage to any kind of couple is the only way.

[KelleyKramer]

7. Heh heh. Weapon of mass distraction

I'm tired of it too.

Imho this is all a big distraction from the real issues like jobs, the economy, the deficit, Americans dying every day in wars based on lies, canceling an investigation into the biggest failure of security in US history, traitors in the White House trying to kill CIA agents..

You know, minor stuff like that.

[Vernunft II]

10. I think people here are clawing each other over semantics

And it needs to stop.

[KelleyKramer]

11. Some people here ..

In case you havent noticed, some people here want us 'clawing' at each other.

Who would want something like that? Think about it.

Look at any divisive issue for us, and see who is pushing it.

Once you realize that, its funny and pathetic at the same time.

They just cant win on the real issues so they spend the whole month pretending to be Luke Skywalker.

Bwaahhahahaha!

Sad.

Pathetic.

[Vernunft II]

16. Which is why my original posting is summing the situation up

step by step and strictly logical.

I´m fully aware that there are people here who enjoy seeing us claw each other for whatever reason (one rather prominent one does come to mind :-) ) and I´m attempting to douse that flame.

All these discussions are a waste of time and resources and they give our political opponent both endless amusement and ammunition and I for one am loath of providing either.

[rpannier]

26. Couldn't Agree More

While I understand how some people feel about the issue (on both sides), I think the loss of 2,000,000+ jobs, the men and women dying in Iraq, the misuse of power by this administration are more important at this juncture in history. My opinion and I make no apologies for it.

[Piperay]

28. I agree

the repukes threw it out there as a smoke screen cause they don't want the media and the candidates talking about the lousy economy, the war, global warming etc. etc. etc. :mad:

[Vernunft II]

41. Which is why we need to find a consensus on this and

move on to issues that hurt them.

[MSchreader]

12. Idiotic

"What the government can do is make sure same sex couples get a marriage license and, once joined they have the same benefits as any married hetero couple"

This is what the fight is about: the Republicans, and some Democrats, don't want gay couples to be able to obtain a marriage license, much less "have the same benefits as any married hetero couple".

Apparently, you don't understand what this fight is about. Let me make it easy for you:

-- Points 1-3 are irrelevant to the discussion, since no one is challenging the prerogatives of churches.

-- Point 5 is false, since only Kucinich and Sharpton advocate Point 4, while Kerry and Edwards want a new legal category called "civil unions".

-- Point 6 is, again, irrelevant.

-- Point 7 is worthless.

The next time you want to lecture, Herr Professor, make sure you know the material and what has already been covered.

Martin

[Vernunft II]

14. I think you should re-read what I wrote

It´s not that our point of view is very far apart. As far as I can see a civil union is defined as giving a homosexual couple the same rights and benefits a heterosexual couple enjoys already.

From the discussions on the subject I read so far I don´t think any of my points is irrelevant. There´s so much heat and emotion here that a little bit of distance and cold logic would be very beneficial for everyone.

[uhhuh]

19. I think you COULD be right

If you also realize that NOBODY should be recognized by the state as having anything other than a civil union. "Marriage" could then be a term conferred by a religious institution, and have no legal standing. If that is your point, I could not agree more.
That, of course, would mean that a man and a woman, or a same sex couple, are not "legally married", they are religiously married, and legally "civilly united".
That is the only way to be fair to everyone.

[Vernunft II]

23. Yes, that´s my point exactly.

Here in Germany EVERY couple is required to marry in the town hall as the legally binding ceremony. After that, if one choses and finds it important you can go to a church of your choosing and perform a religious ceremony. But for legal issues the church ceremony is irrelevant.

THAT is what "Civil Union" means. Technically I´m only married in a civil union myself because neither me nor my sweet wifey would voluntarily enter a church.

[MSchreader]

27. The problem

Here in the U.S., even a civil (state) ceremony is a marriage ceremony. It is one of several forms of the marriage ceremony that takes place. What matters is who issues the license, and that is the state. The state issues a marriage license. That is the nub of the issue. To talk about anything beyond that is unncessarily mucking up the issue.

You say you want to end the problems with this debate. Fine. The solution, then, is to no longer raise the religious issue, since it is wholly irrelevant to the question at hand.

Concentrate your efforts on dealing with what matters.

Martin

[Vernunft II]

31. I think religion is a huge issue in the public discussion though

which is why I´m trying to show that this issue has a civil side and a religious side. The government can only influence the civil side and I think we all agree on how that should look like.

But when it comes to discussion both sides get mixed up. Most people don´t even know there are 2 sides to this story, hence the general confusion. Our political opponent feeds on us fighting over non issues like this and I was trying to bring more clarity.

As far as the issue at hand is concerned I think our points are identical, aren´t they ?

[MSchreader]

33. I am beginning to think so

But it would have been best to say something like: Forget the religious side of it; it doesn't matter. Concentrate on the fact that marriage licenses are issued by the state, and that means the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection apply.

As long as the above is the point you were trying to make, then we agree.

Martin

[Vernunft II]

34. Religion is a non issue for me personally

but the USA is a very religious country so I thought it was necessary to make that point in particular.

[tkmorris]

36. I am an Atheist

I was not married in a church, I was married in a county courthouse. The key word there is married. I was not "civil unionized" or anything else. My wife and I are just as married as my brother was a couple of years ago when he got married by a Catholic priest in one of the oldest churches in America.

That's the point here. Religion has nothing to do with our status as a married couple whatsoever. The fact that the American government chooses to recognize that a couple married in a church is married under the eyes of the law provided they get a license is moot. They also recognize marriages performed under many other circumstances.

So why should a gay couple be singled out and not allowed to be married in the eyes of the law as well? Why must their union carry some stigmatic tag like "civil union"? Even if the legal status was the same (which it wouldn't be, mark my words) it still is discriminatory by singling out their union as somehow different than everyone elses.

[Vernunft II]

38. What you did is technically a civil union you call marriage

I do exactly the same thing.

My point is that "Wedding" and "Marriage" are religious terms for many and religion disagrees with the idea. By calling it differently it is far more acceptable for many and cannot be used against any given Dem candidate.

The important thing is that either form grants the same rights and benefits. I would never agree with a 2 class system where a "civil union" would only be granting part of what a "marriage" grants.

[tkmorris]

39. The facts are though

Here in the United States "marriage" is a legal term with certain rights etc attached to it. It is most definately not "technically" a civil union. It is in fact a marriage, carrying all of the rights and responsibilities.

I have seen your arguments in this thread and in Martins other thread that civil unions and what we call a marriage is the same thing when it's not performed in a church. The trouble is however that this is not true here in the US. We have no legal definition for a "civil union", only for marriages. If gay couples are given are allowed to enter some newly defined contract called a "civil union" while heterosexuals are allowed to be "married", even when they don't do it in a church, I can guarantee you that there will be a difference in the legal standing between us and them. Even if the lawmakers say it is the same, in the end it will not be.

That is one very important reason that they shoul;d not be allowed to create a seperate legal term to define gay couples. By ensuring that heteros and gays couples unions are legally defined as one and the same thing right now any attempt later to make them different will have to be based upon the fact that they are gay, not because they enjoy a different sort of legal union.

Someone else mentioned the "seperate but equal" term in another thread. I don't know if that phrase means anything to you in Germany but here in the US it is what we used to call our treatment of blacks in this country. They had this odd legal status wherein they were supposed to be equal to whites, but it was acceptable to keep them seperate freom whites at the same time. Hence, seperate but equal.

It was a disaster. Blacks were treated as anything BUT equals. They suffered all manner of hardships over these policies but whenever legal action was brought against the whites responsible the poor treatment of blacks was deemed to be the result of something other than what it was, unfair treatment due to bigotry.

This situation remained until the "seperate but equal" notion was thrown out entirely and in it's place policies were instituted that tried more to treat blacks and whites in a more colorblind fashion. No longer was there supposed to be "seperate" treatments of blacks and whites regardless of whether it was called equal or not.

That's the problem here as I see it. If the lawmakers allow gay couples to legally bond together but try to put them in some sort of different category as the rest of us it will be used to continue to discriminate against gays. They will try to call it equal but it won't be until the law is completely blind to the sexual preference of the couple.

[Vernunft II]

40. That is what I (and I think Martin as well) are saying

Make marriage as a whole a civil matter run by the state. Those who want a church involved can go there but the legally binding ceremony should be a state / government matter.

Of course those civil unions would be looked upon with contempt at first. It was the same here in Germany when it started. Churches were running amok against it because it meant a huge decrease of power for them and all the old people thought it was "second - class".

30 years later most people don´t even bother to go to a church anymore and nobody would even dream to think bad about it.

What I´m saying is, it takes a generation to change society. But it´s an important step making the USA a more secular society and righting a wrong at the same time.

Another example, it took until the mid 70s to abolish $ 175 STGB, the paragraph of the german code of law that outlawed homosexual activity not just for underage people but as a whole. It was a BIG deal with lot´s out outrage. Today two of the 16 german heads of state (equal to a US governor), the majors of Berlin and of Hamburg are openly homosexual and nobody thinks anything about it anymore.

Imagine a US governor doing that. The guy in Berlin (Wowereit) even brings his boyfriend to official festivities like someone hetero would bring his wife. And it´s largely accepted. Imagine where the US could be in 30 years :-)

[tkmorris]

42. Agreed

As long as the marriages or whatever they want to call them that are conducted by the state do not differentiate in any way whatsoever between hetero and gay version. Don't call them different things, don't even make mention that there is a difference. Treat them exactly the same.

I have learned a bit about how Germany conducts it's marriages from you Vernunft. It's rather uplifting to hear of the successes that have taken place there. I hope we can duplicate it over here.

:beer:

[MSchreader]

21. I read it multiple times

I stand by what I wrote. The question being discussed among Democrats and other left-wing people in general is whether gay couples have the right to obtain a marriage license from the state, or whether a separate legal category -- "civil union" -- should be created. I support the democratic right of same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license, and oppose the "separate but equal" category of "civil unions" for the same reasons I oppose "separate but equal" schools for Black and white children.

Religious matters have no relevance in the discussion. Only the Republicans need it in there to have a basis from which to argue. So, yes, in my view the religious points are irrelevant. As I said, no one is questioning church prerogatives, so they really have no place here.

By making the religious points primary, you further confuse and mystify the discussion. Instead of "distance and cold logic", you have only brought more heat and emotion into the debate.

Martin

[tishaLA]

13. Churches won't have to perform same sex weddings

it's that simple. They don't have to perform ANY weddings now, either. They choose which ones they want to do. Catholic churches, by and large, don't do interfaith marriages. Many rabbis, priests, pastors interview couples they might marry and they sometimes choose not to marry them. The state cannot interfere with that; only churches/synagogues/mosques that WANT TO will perform same sex (what you call "gay") marriages. No worries. My synagogue WILL do them--we have spoken as a congregation and we think it is the right thing to do as a progressive congregation. Yours might not. Big deal. If yours doesn't like it, so be it. Leave us alone and my synagogue will leave your church alone.

[MSchreader]

15. Churches/synagogues/mosques/temples/etc. are not the issue

Obtaining a marriage license from the state is. The religious side of the argument is the real diversion here; it obscures, mystifies and confuses. It is mote in the eye.

If the Democrats want to have a chance of defining the framework of this debate, to say nothing of winning it, they need to forget the religious angle and concentrate on the question of who has the right of obtain a marriage license from the state.

Martin

[Vernunft II]

17. Now you say exactly what I´m saying.

Why do we seem to have an unfriendly discussion then ?

[MSchreader]

22. Because you are unnecessarily introducing

Religion into the argument. Concentrate on the secular, state issues. See what I wrote in my thread from earlier today.

Martin

[Vernunft II]

24. Please read post # 23 and answer.

I still think we may mean the same and not get it.

[tishaLA]

29. I was simply responding to

the religious commentary in the first post. I think religion is extraneous to all of this too.

[MSchreader]

30. I am beginning to think the original poster does too

He seems to be getting frustrated over some people equating forms of ceremony with the content of a state-issued license. He's just not formulating it very well.

Martin

[Vernunft II]

32. It´s hard to formulate something "very well" when

you´re addressing such a diverse crowd such as DU, especially when English is not my native language. I tried to make my points simple and start at a point where even one who never bothered to discuss the issue would be able to follow me.

I thank you and everyone else participating here for discussing with me and helping make my point more clear :-)

[MSchreader]

35. I didn't pick up on the language issue

Until just a few minutes ago, when I saw a post saying you're in Germany. That clarifies a lot of things. Sorry about needlessly attacking you.

Martin

[Vernunft II]

37. Your "attacks" helped honing my points so I don´t mind :-)

[KharmaTrain]

25. This is a States Right Issue...Pure & Simple

I have two marriage licenses...one issued by my faith (Judaism...the Katuba) and, most importatantly, the license issued by the STATE. It's under their eyes that I'm legally married and the power of attorney, benefits and other "perks" of marriage are run through the state. The only way the Federal knows that I'm married is through my Income taxes.

This is a legal, not a moral issue in the fact of allowing anyone to decide who their "representative" is in case of an illness or incapacity...an issue not even addressed here. When a person becomes infirm and unable to care for themselves, it creates a legal nightmare. Who can decide on treatment, who will pay for it, whose liabel and so on. Enabling a legal marriage license for gays just levels the playing field legally. That's all of an issue involed here, and one that polls show a vast number of Americans approve of. This should have been the issue, period.

However, because the GOOP perverted the equal protection provision of the Constitution to steal an election, now they're attempting to use it to overrule states and decades of their laws. Supposedly, by enable a gay couple to marry legally in California means they are entitlted to all rights held my married couples in Idado. That's totally a farce, since then we'd have to extend things like legalized gambling and prostitution from Nevada...since they have them there, we should have them here, or mandating Jefferson Davis Day as a holiday in Alaska. This is another strawman argument from the party of hypocrisy and diversion.

One last word...I would hope my gay friends don't get so touchy here. Yes, many of us heterosexuals find the gay lifestyle not to our liking. C'est La Vie. It doesn't mean that because of my "orientation" (I use the word preference) that they are any less of a person than I am...nor special either.

The issue of gays and the church is an issue that belongs strictly in those various religions. There the question of one's sexuality and faith can be handled on a personal, individual basis.

The hypocrisy of the GOOP who claims to be for states rights and less government going so over the top to pander to what is a sure voting block is just plain spite against gays...nothing more, nothing less.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

43. No we cant please stop it.

We are at a frontier in civil rights here, and this is a signifigant issue.

You might want to stop it, but we wont, and the GOP sure as hell wont.

[Vernunft II]

44. Well, you know what ?

Keep playing. I´m living in Europe already so I don´t need to run from what you all are invoking with your blatant ignoring of facts. Have fun and don´t come for asylum when you need to run.

[kayell]

45. If you don't like them, click the ignore button

For some of us, this issue is of vital importance.