U.S. Politics

[Dan M]

The right is now making noises that they may ease up on this issue as it may serve their political agenda.

Speaking of not being fooled again, don't think that every liberal politician who votes "correctly" really supports your position.  However, it serves their political agenda.

[Bryancd]

The right is now making noises that they may ease up on this issue as it may serve their political agenda.

Speaking of not being fooled again, don't think that every liberal politician who votes "correctly" really supports your position.  However, it serves their political agenda.

x2, but if it moves Federal policy towards a more accomodative and reasonable postion on same sex marriages, then I'll take it anyway we can. Political expediency or a genuine belief, as long as the results are for the good.

[billybob476]

Could this be the compromise that solves same sex marriage questions?

There was a post about same sex marriage on this thread but I didn't have anything to contribute that would be new or interesting until this morning.  Like most on my side of the political isle, I have never been in favor of same sex marriage until something crossed my mind making me rethink it.  When two sides can't agree often the best thing for the situation is a compromise. 

Same sex marriage is a left of center position strongly opposed by the right.  Now the issue is, should Washington step in and force the other 48 states to honor the controversial marriage licenses issued by Massachusetts and California?   Normally I'm not in favor of that kind of forced dictation to the states.  Now here is where compromise comes in.  And it might be the most interesting since the Missouri compromise.  

Here is something to think about: are there any licenses issued in the red states not honored elsewhere?  There are.  In fact, I have one.  My state issues concealed weapons licenses to persons 21 years old or older with a clean background.  But it's only good for Oklahoma and a few other states.  So I couldn't legally travel to San Francisco or Boston with a pistol under my jacket. But if no other state could invalidate the Oklahoma license, I could be packing everywhere! Could this give and take negotiation be the way to go?  Perhaps it should read, no state may invalidate another state's marriage license or issues concealed weapons license.  Then both sides could tolerate a change they would otherwise feel uncomfortable with because of what they had gained. Would I change my position on same sex marriage if it means I get to carry a gun in all 50 states?  I really had to stop and think about this one!  I'm still not sure but it's the only thing thus far forcing me to open my mind to it.


Could I have just brought GLAAD and the NRA together?

You DO realize you are making out same-sex couples who want to get married seem like criminals with this idea, right?

[Bryancd]

That's just a reflection of my general disgust/disappointment with our current political system.

[Blackride]

Let the states decide what to do not the federal govt..... It's what the founders (and I ) wanted anyway.

[Geekyfanboy]

Let the states decide what to do not the federal govt..... It's what the founders (and I ) wanted anyway.

So what you are saying is let the states decided about gay marriage. So me being a gay man can marry my partner in California but if I get into an accident while in Utah let's say and I'm in the ICU of a hospital my husband can't visit me because in that state we are not married and therefore he is not related to me.

Please tell me how this is fair...or even right...

I don't understand how people can honestly say this is fair. I'm a human being just like you, why can't I have the same rights as everyone else.. I mean we are in the year 2008 now.

Please understand..  I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs, it's just hard to listen to folks compare the love between two people to the ownership of a gun to allowing some states to ban a human right.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Let the states decide what to do not the federal govt..... It's what the founders (and I ) wanted anyway.

I'm actually going to mildly agree with Blackride.  I'm sick and tired of the feds dictating rule for all the states.  This is the United STATES of America.  Not the United Federals of America.  (Sorry to step on you Kenny).  But some people get cranky when they dictate what the National average should be when each state is different and unique in its own way.  I'm sick of it myself.  (No Child Left Behind anyone?) 

King

[Blackride]

I could not have said this any better as I tried to originally:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_importance_of_protecting_m.html

[X]

I could not have said this any better as I tried to originally:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_importance_of_protecting_m.html

I can't disagree with this more.

I have one question for those against same sex marriages.

Is there ANY arguments against same sex marriages that WASN'T used on interracial marriages?

Mitt Romney is a pandering idiot. (I'm in the state that he formerly governed)

he says that history favored Hetero marriage, but if anyone actually decided to look it up, it's not true.

It also dismisses people that get married because they love each other and never want to have kids. Should we ban them from being married too? What about the ones that want kids but can't have them? Should they get banned?

Children are NOT the reason to get married, but merely a result of SOME marriage.

If someone thinks that marriage NEEDS protecting maybe they shouldn't be married? Maybe the problem isn't with marriage, but with them thinking that marriage is some sort of magical cure all to society's woes.

[Bryancd]

I to am not a big fan of the Federal government and wish that this country was governed more like the Republic under which it was founded. There is an obvious need for the Federal government and any legislation regarding gay marriage should come from he Federal government to ensure it is applied uniformly across the States. Or at the very least, if a State population chooses to deny gay marriage, the basic rights and privileges accorded to married couples should still apply even if the State doesn't have laws allowing for gay unions. Just a suggestion, we have an old thread regarding same sex unions and maybe this discussion should be moved over there. This thread was more about the current election initially.

But I do feel that the Fedreal government has usurped excessive power form the States and that is contrary to what the founding fathers; intended. I'm more Libertarian than anything else.

[Blackride]

I agree this is not the thread for this discussion. I usually try to stay away from this discussion because there is nothing said that is going to change my mind or my families and I do not like to upset others either...

[alanp]

Hadn't posted in a while and before I started posting again I thought I'd better try to settle everything down that I seemed to have unintentionally stirred up on this thread.

First of all, I don't care what goes in anyone else's house other than my own.

Second, I never even addressed the reason that I said I hadn't been a supporter of same sex marriage.  So here is the reason.  I see marriage as a religious arrangement not a secular one.  Should government step in try to sort out who is baptized and who isn't?  In my religion and in most around the world it is the clergy who decide what marriage is.  That being said I have feared the government taking that right away.  I mean, I feel that it's a tough pill to swallow that government should step in and say it's no longer for your clearly or a private citizen to decide what will be called a marriage.  Just my opinion and I hope we can all agree to disagree on this one.

I do think in America, people should be allowed to live how ever they want without interference from the government as long as they  aren't hurting anyone.  And I think the rights that come with marriage should be available to those who aren't married.  Including hospital visitation and I'll get to that one in a sec.  I think the government should say, "OK, we've been treating a 'religious institution' one way, so now we have to make a similar arrangement  where property can be owned, hospital visitation is possible, etc. that mirrors how the government treats marriage."  This is all my opinion and I hope we can agree to disagree.

Now the morning I wrote the post I had thought about how I wish my concealed weapons license would be valid in other states just as many same sex couples who have marriage license, would be recognized in all 50 states.  And the point to what I had written about was how ironic that was.  I did feel more than a little hypocritical that up until that morning I wanted my permit recognized by all 50 states but at the same time didn't support someone else's of a very different type.  Just a few random thoughts I put to text because I had some time to kill.  I wasn't trying to make an apples to apples comparison between the two unrelated items.  Nor was I equating those same sex couples to criminals.  That one surprised me.  Who brought up crime?  I was talking about lawfully caring guns for personal defense with the approval of the government.

Now Kenny is right that in the ICU units of many hospitals only allow family back there. I totally feel this is a bogus practice. I think the patient should be allowed to specify who may visit not the hospital.  What if I wanted my accountant right there with me after a plane crash?  Shouldn't I be allowed to make that happen without marring her? If I was a wall street day trader this would be a big deal to me.  The way we got around this when this happened in my own life was through a process called lying.  My best friend wanted to come see my grandma after her stroke.  When asked if he was related, he said he was her grandson!  It does work, but I don't think we should have to resort to that....  In this world of digital medical records, we ought to be able to make a list of people who may come in if something happens to me.

So I hope we can agree to disagree on a few things and you guys don't think I'm a hate-monger from the first posting!  And if you do disagree with me, keep in mind that I am a live and let live guy who wouldn't change your mind if I could.

[Darth Gaos]

Tis a slippery slope we walk here but I did want to point out an observation.  During the Vice-Presidential debates BOTH candidates said they were in favor of ways to ensure that gay couples had more rights (ie visitation, insurance benefits etc)....not just the Democrat, BOTH candidates.  BOTH candidates also said they were opposed to gay marriage and/or redfining marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.  Not just the Republican candidate...BOTH candidates.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Tis a slippery slope we walk here but I did want to point out an observation.  During the Vice-Presidential debates BOTH candidates said they were in favor of ways to ensure that gay couples had more rights (ie visitation, insurance benefits etc)....not just the Democrat, BOTH candidates.  BOTH candidates also said they were opposed to gay marriage and/or redfining marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.  Not just the Republican candidate...BOTH candidates.

Either way..................................we're screwed.  I'm not saying just the whole gay issue its just that there is nothing these candidates won't say to get elected.  Its why I think we're sooo............fu-barred.  No one stands for issues anymore, they stand for "WHATEVER is needed to say to win even if I'm lying through my own teeth to win it"

King

[Geekyfanboy]

Tis a slippery slope we walk here but I did want to point out an observation.  During the Vice-Presidential debates BOTH candidates said they were in favor of ways to ensure that gay couples had more rights (ie visitation, insurance benefits etc)....not just the Democrat, BOTH candidates.  BOTH candidates also said they were opposed to gay marriage and/or redfining marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.  Not just the Republican candidate...BOTH candidates.

I thought this thread had died.. wishful thinking..

I found this article about about that topic and thought they brought up some good points.

Veeps Agree on Same-Sex Couples - Or Do They?
October 4, 11:19 AM
by Billy Thieme, Relationship Examiner

One undercurrent that has crept across the media spectrum from Thursday night's Vice Presidential debate is the observation that the Biden and Palin actually agree on civil rights for same-sex couples. Kudos to both of them! It's about time we removed the discussion from the government's table. After all, What business is it of theirs? The government needs to back away from attempts to define what relationship "is" or "is not" the right kind, right? Glad to see the candidates agree that it's up to us!

But wait - maybe we need to look a little more closely. In light of the decision we'll all be making in a few weeks, I think it makes sense that those of us who have a vested interest in allowing people to find, as Sarah Palin put it, " . . .relationships that they deem best for themselves" make sure that the messages the candidates are sending out are as clear as they can be. This way, we can be sure we're makeing the most informed decision in November.

Let's look closely at the candidates' views on the issue:

The question put forth in the debate was "Do you support granting benefits to same-sex couples?"

Senator Joe Biden, actually addressed the question directly, and replied directly with this answer:  " . . . in an Obama/Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction, from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint, between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple. . . . We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to property rights, rights of visitation, rights of insurance, the rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do."

Governor Palin's answer, however, was not quite so direct.

When asked if she would be willing to see Alaska's current regulations (which require granting equal benefits for same sex partners - a result of a ruling in the state's Supreme Court in 2006) spread out across the U.S., Palin responded: "Not if it goes closer and closer towards the redefining the traditional definition of marriage" as a union between one man and one woman.

She then spent some time explaining that her answer in no way should be taken to mean that she "would not be tolerant" of same sex couples, and that a McCain/Palin administration would never oppose " . . . visitations in a hospital, or contracts being signed, negotiated." She finally rested on the statement that she was being "as straight up as I can in my non-support of anything but a traditional definition of marriage." Very noble statements, to be sure.

But it's not agreement. Governor Palin, as she is now known to do quite often (and quite well), avoided ever answering the original question, and instead re-stated her and Senator McCain's intent to continue haggling over the definition of marriage. This only proves that the important questions in their administration would not include civil rights for same sex couples, but would include more discussions towards coming up with the definition of marriage, their definition, for all of us.

I'll say it again: the government has no place in attempting to define relationships for all of us, no place at all.

When asked directly, since Palin changed the course of the original question to the candidates' views on gay marriage, Biden replied: "  . . . Neither Barack Obama nor I support redefining, from a civil side, what constitutes marriage. That is basically a decision to be left to faith . . . ." What Biden is saying here is that it should not be up to the government to define what is, or is not, considered marriage. And he is correct.

Biden even attempted to help Palin clarify her position on the original question by stating that if Palin " . . . thinks there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple, and a committed heterosexual couple," then they basically agree.

And Palin again avoided answering directly - at all, really - by pointing out that the question debate moderator Gwen Ifill asked Biden was whether he supported gay marriage, and that no, she did not.

As noble as Governor Palin's views may have seemed to come across, it's obvious that her and John McCain will continue to encourage and argue that the government must define what constitutes marriage in our country, once and for all. In a McCain/Palin administration, it seems there will be little intent, if any, to allow same sex couples the same civil rights and benefits as heterosexual couples.

The government, therefore, should be able to potentially prohibit people from being able to find (again, as Sarah Palin put it) " . . .relationships that they deem best for themselves."

This is not an agreement on civil rights for gay couples - it's just another example of "spin", from a campaign that obviously has an agenda, not a viewpoint, on this issue.

As universal as they may seem, relationships are deeply personal quests that many of us spend the majority of our lives trying to find, grow, enjoy, and perfect. They influence, and are influenced by, nearly every level of our beings - spiritual, physical, psychological - and each and every one of them is unique. There can be no single definition of which one is "the right one," or follows "the right path." And our government has no place in attempting to define it for us.