Parties in a quandary about gay marriage | Atlanta Journal-Constitution

[Ediacara]

< The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 1/26/04 >

Parties in a quandary about gay marriage

By GAYLE WHITE
Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Gay marriage is shaping up to be the battlefield of the culture war in 2004.

"It's not going to be an issue on the order of national security or the economy," said GOP pollster Whit Ayers, "but I do think it's likely to be the most important cultural issue in the presidential election -- which makes it pretty important."

President Bush alluded to the issue in Tuesday's State of the Union address, calling for protection of the institution of matrimony while avoiding asking for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex couples from marrying.

Most Democratic presidential contenders cautiously say they support civil unions but not "marriage" for gay couples.

More at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

[demconfive]

1. This non-issue confuses me the most.

What exactly is the quandry? If you don't like gay marriage, then I suggest you don't marry anyone of the same gender as yourself. As for "protecting the institution of matrimony" I have yet to hear how gay marriage would effect marriage. Are people suggesting that they will leave their spouses and shack up with a gay lover if its allowed?
Are republicans simply repressed gays looking for any excuse to leave their stepford wives? That would explain some of George's queer comments about a Canadian minister.

[thebaghwan]

2. Me either. I just cannot come up with or find a good argument that states

who is actually harmed by gay marriage. Even went to the Family Research Council's site to see what they had to say but only found a lot of rhetoric about"preserving the sanctity of marriage". Excuse me but protecting it from what or whom?

Do not legalize discrimination.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[priller]

4. Exacty. Gays are Americans, too, after all

so I don't understand why civil unions are so objectionable. It wouldn't be called "marriage", yet it would give gay couples the same benefits as hetero couples. Take it out of the "marriage" and religious realm and put the argument where it belongs, in the civil rights arena.

[LiberalFighter]

13. "preserving the sanctity of marriage"

If the sanctity of marriage was so important then civil ceremonies would not be permitted.

If the sanctity of marriage was so important then ship captains would not be permitted to perform marriages.

If the sanctity of marriage was so important then judges would not be permitted to perform marriages.

If the sanctity of marriage was so important then marriages would not be permitted to be performed in Las Vegas.

If the sanctity of marriage was so important then couples would not be permitted to elope.

If the sanctity of marriage was so important then brides would not be permitted to wear risque outfits.

If the sanctity of marriage was so important then brides would have to be certified a virgin if they wanted to wear white.

If the sanctity of marriage was so important then ministers that committed adultery would not be permitted perform marriages. EVER

If the sanctity of marriage was so important then ministers that were divorced or married after a divorce would not be permitted perform marriages.

[Festivito]

5. No quandry quibble, no, it's definitely divisive.

Abortion just ain't bringing in the voters the way it did before. (They're catching on that nothing's been done in a lot of years.)

[JoblessRecovery]

6. It completely escapes me as to why anybody should be

concerned about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes behind closed doors, and why steps should be taken to prevent them from sharing the same rights that other opposite sex committed couples enjoy. It is simply none of my business as far as I'm concerned.

Suggesting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex couples from marrying seems to me the height of arrogance, discrimination and oppression.

[Puglover]

7. My best friend thinks that it's big business...

In the past big companies can just write off around 10 percent of their employees and not give them benefits. If gay marriage happens in some shape or form they would have to pony up.

[LiberalFighter]

11. Conflict?

Wouldn't that consitutional amendment be a conflict with the 1st Amendment?

[platinumPens]

14. Seems to me that it would, but repukes twist

and turn the constitution on its head when it suits them.

Cases in point:

Clinton impeachment
Bush v Gore

[MisterC2003]

8. Gay marriage is a loser topic for Dems

Simply having it in the mix distracts from more productive topics like joblessness, the environment and did Bush go AWOL or desert. Get our man in the White House, THEN sort this one out. Until then, avoid, avoid, avoid.

[platinumPens]

16. I don't think the Democratic Party can afford to discount the

civil rights of some of its constituents. Maybe it doesn't have to be called "marriage", that's not my call, but the Party needs to pack its collective poop together and stand firmly for equal rights for gays on this issue.

[w4rma]

17. Then it's good that no major presidential candidate is running on that

They support civil unions and partnerships but no major Democratic presidential candidate supports gay marriage.

[eridani]

21. Kucinich does n/t

[LiberalFighter]

9. Simple

There are two types of marriages. Civil and religious ceremonies.

Civil ceremonies are conducted by non religious individuals.

Religious ceremonies are conducted by ministers, priests, pastors, rabbis, etc that are permitted by the laws of the state they reside. Those ministers perform the marriage ceremony according to the dictates of their religious leaders. They can refuse to marry individuals for reasons not provided by state law such as not being member of the church or that they have been married before and according to their faith are not permitted to marry again. Churches can prohibit the marriage of same sex within their church and state law cannot require otherwise.

Churches should not be concerned about the marriages of those that are not of their faith. Roman Catholic should not be telling who can be married by other church denominations and vice versus.

IN WISCONSIN:
Before performing marriages, ministers must file their credentials of ordination with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in the county in which their church is located. The clerk will give the minister a certificate.

IN MICHIGAN:
A minister of the Gospel who is ordained or authorized by his or her church to perform marriages and who is a pastor of a church in this State, or continues to preach the Gospel in this State may perform marriages.

[LiberalFighter]

10. What happens if a church is formed just for gays?

Wouldn't the state be interfering in the religous beliefs of that church by prohibiting marriages?

[davidinalameda]

20. it's called the MCC

http://mccchurch.org/

[mbperrin]

12. I don't see the quandry; I believe in marriage -been married

for more than 20 years, and so if two folks of the same sex want to get married, please do. Definitely more commitment than shacking up for anybody!

[LiberalFighter]

23. For those heterosexuals and religious zealots

Not considering heterosexuals and religious zealots to be one and the same.

But with gays and lesbians permitted to be married doesn't that make it easier for heterosexuals to know another heterosexual of the opposite sex is not gay/lesbian?

For the religious zealots not to waste their time trying to "save" the souls of gay/lesbian?

Maybe this would open up the eyes of everyone else to make more of a commitment to their marriage seeing that gay/lesbian go thru more strife than heterosexual marriages.

[Solly Mack]

15. Anyone in a "quandry" over this cast a shadow of doubt on their

belief in equality, justice , and liberty.. for all.

[TrogL]

18. Why people oppose gay marriage

I've been very active in the gay marriage controversy. I've attended a number of events and debated this extensively in all sorts of forums, so I've got a fairly good handle on their position.

Here's their main points.

To them, marriage is something *special*. It has mystical elements beyond just a piece of paper. Being mystical, they can't necessarily put this into words or have it make rational sense. Especially because they don't necessarily understand it themselves, they resent anything that may threaten it. Hence, they don't want "just anybody" to get married. It feels icky. Hence, they opposed inter-racial marriages not for any rational reason but it made them feel icky, hence this "stain" would expand to the whole concept of marriage and make all marriage *icky*. Now they see it happening again with gay marriage. Gays are *icky* so that ickyness would spread to "marriage".

They have this same issue with "family". To them "family" is a special, mystical thing which they can't adequately explain, but affects them to the point where they even have a different pronounciation for it. If you listen carefully, they pronounce it "fambly".

Hence, they have this shiny-happy mystical relationship with "fambly values", which they feel are threatened by pretty much everything except white picket fences, apple pie and chicken soup.

If you approach them with a rational argument about rights, equality or whatever, it goes in one ear and out the other because you're speaking to the wrong side of the brain. This is emotional, mystical stuff and mere words aren't going to change it.

What DOES work is for them to have good feelings about Adam and Steve and then beg the question why Adam and Steve aren't allowed access to this mystical state, and as soon as they drag out their Bible, you pounce.

[kitkatrose]

22. My mother and I had this discussion,

she was the conservative "protect the sanctity of marriage side," and I got to be the gay rights side. The only point that she could argue was that if you view marriage as primarily about reproduction, then gays don't fit the mold, obviously because they can't reproduce within their union. When I brought up the fact about straight people not marrying for the purpose of procreation or those that can't, she just said that others look down, have problems, or whatever, with them as well. She couldn't retaliate when I brought up the straight people doing more to destroy the supposed sanctity of marriage, like the reality TV shows, etc.

She isn't against gay civil unions, but is against gay marriage. I'm not really sure how she distinguishes the two. I mean, gays don't have to be married in the sense of a church wedding to be considered married.

[LiberalFighter]

24. Marriage wasn't always required in the US

Don't know to what extent this was in Europe or other places.

But I recall that in Kentucky it was common in the coal mining regions a man and a woman to get hitch without a minister or any legal method. When a man decided to move on for whatever reason the woman would be left behind to find another man to get "hitch" to.

[flaminbats]

19. This is not a partisan issue...

There are many activists in the GOP pushing for reform, to ensure that both parties consider these concerns.

http://www.lcr.org/