Awright--gay marriage, YES or NO?

[wtmusic]

If you were a candidate for POTUS in 2004, would you support use of the word 'marriage' in legislation defining unions of couples of the same sex? (Note: 'Not important' implies tacit approval)

[ulysses]

1. yes

in capital letters, 72-point type, bold.

Ridiculous not to.

[ulysses]

2. I'd like to see

how, exactly, the "no" voters justify that. I've seen snippets, but I still want it lain out in front of me.

[Bucky]

3. My position is so confused about this

Do I think marriage between same sex couples is okay?
. . . . . . .Yes

Do I think marriage between same sex couples is morally right?
. . . . . . .Yes

Do I think marriage between same sex couples should be made legal?
. . . . . . .Yes

Do I know any same sex couples who would make fine, upstanding parents, citizens, neighbors?
. . . . . . .Yes, including some who are already parents.

Am I willing to have a debate or take a moral stand on this issue?
. . . . . . .I'm being unethical about this, but absolutely no.

Is this pure hypocricy on my part?
. . . . . . .Hell, yes


It's simply not worth what it will cost us in votes. This will be an important election. Not 1932-level important or 1860-level important in which democracy itself hangs in the balance. I'm a minority in this board, but the Republic will survive the BFEE. But certainly it's at least 1980-level important in which a bad decision will lead to a lot of people becoming unnecessarily dead.

[Bucky]

5. Let me clarify my hypocricy

I have gay friends who are in every moral and religious sense married. I simply don't want us to expend political capital in this particular election in a way that will split the Democratic-leaning voters. I am wrong on this issue and I recognize that I'm wrong on it. If my wrongness can in some way save lives, end a war, and get rid of a corrupt, reckless administration, I'm willing to be wrong.

It bothers the hell out of me, but I've heard too many people who would otherwise vote with us say that they'd vote against us because of this issue. To me then, as with all hypocrits, it is a choice between my professed core values (integrity, morality, honesty, equality, fairness, and family values) and the things that I want to get in this world (rid of the Bushes).

I think the world is headed in this direction anyway. The first steps are already happening by gay marriage gaining support in a few states. The success of the civil rights movement and most progressive causes has always rested on their gradualism--pushing a little here & a little there for small gains over a period of many years until their side's victory and rightness are clearly inevitable.

Are we 20 years away from this? 10 years? 30 years? I don't know. I know that full legal acceptance of gay marriage, not merely "domestic partner benefits," is written in the stars. I just want to have a Constitution left when that day finally arrives.

[Scott Lee]

4. The real poll should be:

"Why do some of you fear gay marriage?"

- Because for every gay marriage there is one less straight one.

- Because two people of the same sex living and loving together is icky.

- Because my preacher says God doesn't like it.

- Because an ex SO is now gay and I want as many gay people to hurt as much as possible.

- Because the human species is doomed to extinction if gay people can marry.

- Because I want to smack any guy who looks at my basket.

- Because George Bush doesn't like it.

[AP]

6. Surest route to victory: separate marriage from the civil license.

And don't have a marriage (the religious ceremony) be a requirement for a civil license, and then encourage same-sex AND opposite sex couples to get the license. If same sex couples can find someone to perform the religious ceremony, so be it. It should be irrelevant in the eyes of the law anyway.

The first step to ease people towards this new paradigm is to have the civil union for about 7 years, and then, one day, say that everyone gay and straight can get a civil union, and they're equal with marriage before the eye's fo the law (and no longer require the Justice of the Peace ceremony for marriage licenses anymore).

Government should only be interested in legal relationships, and the church should only be interested in spiritual relationships. It's time that we have more separation between church and state with regard to marrigage, and not less.

Not only should we have civil unions, but people who don't really believe in god should be getting them too, regardless of whether they're in same or opposite-sex relationships.

[wtmusic]

8. excellent idea

seems like 7 years would be about right.

:-)

[AP]

9. Tell your friends.

Spread the word.

[wtmusic]

11. Where is Edwards on it?

[evil_orange_cat]

10. civil union... :b: not sure about "marriage"

yes, gay people should be able to get civil licenses for marriage that give the same rights and benefits that traditional marriage does... I don't really care what people call it, but I think civil union is the term that is politically correct for dopes on the right.

[Closer]

7. yes

[pasadenaboy]

12. Too me, its a silly thing to fight over

give all people equal rights. Use civil unions for now. In twenty years, nobody will care and it will be considered marriage.

[politicat]

13. I won't vote because I don't believe in marriage at all....

Even though I am. We prefer that we had a civil union.

Do I support any group of consenting adults choosing to make a long term financial and social commitment to combine resources?

Absolutely

Do I support state registration of such groups?
Only if they can prove why it's a good idea. What is the point, after all?

Do I support the right or privilege of clergy to issue such certificates of financial and social commitment?

No. Church is church and if they want to have a ceremony, that's fine. But they don't get to be a dispenser of state documents.

So here's my issue. I think anybodies should be allowed to civil union, and had I to do over again, that's what we'd do. I don't like the word marriage, I think marriage is hijacked by religions who have no place whatsoever in such mandates. Marriage was originally a religious concept and they're welcome to it. Further, I do not believe that civil unions should be limited to two people as long as everyone is of age, consents and is free to leave at any time. However, while a civil union lasts, the participants should get all of the tax breaks, social advantages and legal pluses that we marrieds get. Fair is fair.

Do I want to see the institution of marriage go away and be replaced entirely on the civil level with civil unions? Yep. Let those who need a shaman to wave burning feathers over them to feel married feel free to do so, but leave the religious stuff out of the civil part.

My 2 cents.

Politicat

[iverglas]

14. I don't either ...

but then, I also don't eat seafood.

However, even though I have no desire to eat seafood and can't see why anyone ought to do it, I wouldn't be agreeable to a law restricting the sale of seafood to men and prohibiting the sale of seafood to women.

The principle of equality doesn't require that we approve of what people do, only that we not prohibit some people from doing what other people are allowed to do.

Certainly, one solution would be not to allow anyone to do it. But at the moment, that simply isn't about to happen. So the situation that exists and will continue to exist is that some are allowed and some are prohibited, and that really just won't do.

The way around it, for conscientious objectors like you and me, is just to say that IF some are allowed to do it, then all must be allowed to do it. Leave the "if" up to society.

On the question of private organizations performing state functions on a discriminatory basis, I do agree. Everybody's in such a rush up here in Canada to assure the fundies that they won't have to perform same-sex marriages. And why shouldn't they have to? Their clergy are acting as agents of the state. Ministry of Transportation agents certainly wouldn't be allowed to decide they're going to hand out driver's licences only to heterosexuals. I agree -- let 'em perform whatever raindance they want, and let the state handle the part that confers rights and obligations, directly or through agents that don't insert their own rules between the state and the individual.

I think the broader question of who gets (and how many get) to form what kind of union is going to have to wait for its own critical mass. I'd hope that if women in particular achieve economic independence, and the social safety net is strengthened to include things like health care and better old age benefits, the whole dependency-based rationale for things like survivor benefits will dissipate, leading to less need for unions rather than more. Then everybody could just do their own raindance, and never mind the state.

It's interesting to note that in Quebec, where the distinctions between marriages and "de facto" unions is increasingly minimal in terms of rights and obligations, the marriage rate continues to decline, despite the heavy hand that the RC church wielded in Quebec until not too long ago. (There is now a formal registration process for both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, but only as of 2002, so the phenomenon was widespread long before that.)

In 2002:

- 98.5% of couples in Ontario were married by clergy, vs. 70.6% in Quebec (Canadian average 76.4%, and I find that Ontario figure weird)

- the marriage rate in Quebec declined 11.8% from 2001 (in keeping with a decade-long decline except for 1999), 6.8% in Canada as a whole

Of course, what with all those same-sex marriages happening -- and approval rates for same-sex marriage are very high in Quebec, where people still overwhelmingly self-report as RC -- we'll probably be seeing an increase in the rates. ;)

.