How Should the Gay Marriage Issue be Handled?

[njmst12]

I think the democratic party should take a clear and firm stance against gay marriage and likewise support rights for couples in civil unions. The key is communicating this very clearly...

[JohnKleeb]

1. I disagree

I think we should support a federal law for civil unions with full equal benefits as a married couple and leave it up to the places of faith whether to have marriage.

[njmst12]

2. And How Should we Handle Polygamy?

What about polygamy...should that be up to the states to handle as well? or legalised?

[sonicx]

6. who's talking about polygamy?

[njmst12]

7. We're Talking About Marriage

And polygamy is a form of marriage! If you feel gay marriage should be legalizes, i'm interested in knowing your stance on polygamy please.

[sonicx]

12. i have no problem with it. but as i said...

noone is talking about (atleast til you did). so shut up about it already.

[JohnKleeb]

9. we're talking about a marriage between two people

not polygamy.

[Hello_Kitty]

14. If it involved fully consenting adults I wouldn't have a problem

But unfortunately, many of the polygamous communities in this country force 13 year old girls to marry grown men. We have a big one in here in Arizona. It's a really horrible situation where you have these abusive religious leaders who exert total control over the women and children and bilk the government out of million of dollars in welfare benefits.

[Lexingtonian]

36. What's the question?

Polygamy exists in the United States. There are emigrees who are polygamous. There are polygamists in rural Utah.

The legality of it is that we permit it to people who are visitors/emigrees, people who had the matter legalized in another country. The major factors in permitting their immigration are (a) a society in which this is normalized that they can return to in crisis situations, and (b) economic means to sustain such families once inside the United States.

We have a domestic American form of polygamy that is legal. It involves divorcing one person before marrying another, like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh and Ronnie Reagan have. It's referred to as "serial polygamy".

As for purists' kind of polygamy, yes the Mormon kind was outlawed. Where it is found it tends to involve women who are minors being 'married' to older men, generally requires public assistance- welfare payments- because the men can't earn enough to provide, tends to involve substantial spousal abuse and/or neglect, and has a high rate of women fleeing it. If marriage is 'sacred' by fiat, we have to imagine it to be true, because it's hard to find it as a reality in polygamous American ones in the United States in recent year. In fact, it seems far more generally to be Hell rather than heavenly for the participants. The rolls of the welfare agencies of the state of Utah are heavily loaded with people from them.

The reason for not legalizing polygamous marriages is that the elements of marriage cannot be discovered, retrospectively, in marriages of the kind. The case for legalizing gay marriages is much more convincing in practice.

There are voluntary polygamous marriages in the United States that work fine, or at least well enough for the participants not to take their complaints to the government or be discriminated against by the government for it in a way they consider detrimental. There are people who live in something called 'polyamory' and don't consider the courts, barely competent to cope with simple divorce issues, competent to deal with their privately contracted marriages (or not marriages). There is the classical Boss-Secretary-Wife triad, which the Wife tacitly permits for a period of time, as the one permitted by Tradition and Conservatives throughout the ages, but the technical problems with legalizing it will never be overcome. (After all, the well-known right of the Wife in the matter is to shake down the Boss and subject the Secretary to verbal abuse, and the Secretary gets Special Vacation Trips and Nice Cars, and the Boss is permitted to lie until the Neighbors figure it out and start gossiping.)

So that is how we handle polygamy. It's a running welfare/spousal abuse problem in practice when whitebread Americans try it. But it's functional in theory.

Gay marriage, in contrast, is perfectly functional in practice to the degree the straight kind is. But a theoretical/conceptual problem exists for those people who are still full of the Nature paganism of their pre-Christian forebears (though they give it a facade of Christianity, which has nothing relevant to say on the matter).

[napi21]

11. I agree with you. Fed law for civil unions and states rights!

I guess I'm still having a difficult time understanding why the word Marriage is important to gays. That seems to be the big thing most people are against. The RW has convinced their followers that gays are going to be marrying at their altars. This of course is nuts, but if the word "marriage" was removed from the issue, it seems like it would deflate the anger.

[JohnKleeb]

30. I think marriage is wanted because it gives them acceptance

I for one support gay marriage but I realize that its a religious thing to choose if people can marry or not. Everyone should have equal benefits for this at the least and that should be federal law right there, gay marriage should be up to the place of faith.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. I like the idea of completely separating marriage from the gov't

All unions would be civil unions in the eyes of the government and all couples, regardless of gender, would have the same benefits and protections. Marriages would be performed by religious institutions at their discretion.

[AgadorSparticus]

40. this is the best answer i've hear yet on this issue.

[mikehiggins]

4. I think the party

should just ignore the whole issue and hope it'll go away.

Seriously, this was another wonderful example of allowing the right to set the agenda, and the left not having a clue how to deal with it.

The obvious answer from Kerry/Edwards would have been "I'm quite certain our boys in Iraq are not all that concerned about this issue. You guys in the media should get your priorities straight."

[njmst12]

10. I think this is what kerry tried to do

But it played against him because I know of a few people who actually thought kerry was for gay marriage whereas he said many time he was'nt. He fail to make a clear loud point. And bush did on this issue. Kerry should have backed the anti-gay marriage innitiatives in states like Ohio to make a stronger point.

[OneThirty8]

5. Being 'against Gay Marriage' sounds bad.

I think that's exactly what the religious-right wants. I think we need to frame the whole conversation differently. I personally think that we should make a blanket rule that basically says, "every person already legally married now legally is part of a civil union." Then, while we make a civil union the legal equivalent of what marriage was, we let the religious sector worry about what 'marriage' means to them. We'll allow civil unions for all, and the sanctity of 'marriage' is no concern of the government.

That's how I see it in a perfect world, anyway.

[ropi]

17. i say frame them as intolerant assholes (the religous right that is)

eom

[Outrider]

8. Let em have their fun

Quietly let the Defense of Marriage Amendment pass through Congress. The amendment will then go down in flames because at least 13 states won't pass it preventing it from being confirmed. Then all we have to do is wait a few more years for the courts to come around and legalize it like they did with Inter-racial marriage. Until that time we should support civil unions that have rights included that closely mirror the rights given under marriage.

[njmst12]

13. totally agree with you!

[newyawker99]

42. Hi Outrider!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MercutioATC]

15. I have an unequivocal answer to this dilemma:

1) Let "marriage" be the domain of religion. Anybody who wants a union that's recognized by the diety of their choice is free to do so, but it's not recognized by law.

2) Let "legal unions" (or whatever you want to call it) be the domain of law. Anybody who wants a union that's recognized by the law is free to do so, but it's not recognized by their chosen diety.

3) People can get both if they'd like.

The beauty of this:

1) It doesn't change anything for hetero couples. Thay already have to get a marriage license ("legal union") if they want their union legally recognized.

2) It provides true equal rights to all people. There's no "separate but equal" situation for same-sex couples.

Anybody have issues with this?

[sonicx]

16. I agree. the problem...

fundies and RW evangelicals won't go for it. They want the government to make them feel special.

[MercutioATC]

25. I think it'd be more palatable to them that anything proposed so far...

You're right, they probably would still not support it, but I think it's still a good idea.

[JohnKleeb]

18. are we on the same page?

I sort of revised my opinion on this. I believe in a federal civil unions law where homosexual couples get the same exact benefits as straight couples, and I would let it be up to the places of faith if they want to marry them, so say if the sometimes pro gay marriage espicoals wanna marry a gay couple, they can do that. Do we have the same or similiar point here or not.

[njmst12]

22. Democratice party ought to be clear about this..

I think we should enforce civil union laws and give gay couples exact same rights as heterosexual couples. I think democratic leadership has to take a crystal clear stand on this issue and not leave any room for misunderstanding.

[MercutioATC]

23. I think we are.

There are religions who will "marry" same-sex couples. That's great. It just won't be legally recognized (and neither will religious ceremonies for hetero couples).

Same-sex and hetero couples would both have equal access to "legal unions" which would be the ONLY avenue to obtain the legal rights which we now associate with "marriage".

[JohnKleeb]

29. yes some of the liberal protestant faiths will and

I respect that a lot. I think we are on the same page indeed.
edited because I cant spell that word :).

[evilqueen]

31. umm... I think you meant "denominations" there

Although, they could be into s&m... hehehe

[JohnKleeb]

37. yeah I did sorry

Ive been up since 6.

[AZCat]

21. I support this idea.

Why is the government recognizing a religious ceremony anyway?

[Crunchy Frog]

19. Why are you so fixated on gay marriage?

Are you afraid that you might be tempted to get into one if they aren't strictly prohibited?

What do you think the Democratic party's position should be on the issue of men marrying box turtles?

This whole thing was whipped up by the repugs to stir up peoples hate and fear to motivate them to vote against their own interests? Really, how does it impact anyone what some people who they don't even know do in their personal lives?

[njmst12]

26. Why Are You In Denial

You seem to suggest that people are so stupid to have a mind of their own and that only the repugs can tell them what is important and what is not. That's arrogant. The who gay marriage thing was a considerable factor in this election whether you like it or not! And it was not because Rove and Co. were stiring up people hate and fear, it was because democrats in Massachusetts, San Francisco and NY put it on the agenda. Can you answer this question:

Do you support polygamy here in America?

[Crunchy Frog]

28. No, I don't support polygamy here in America

but I do support the right of a consenting man and box turtle to get married.

This whole thing is ridiculous. I'm through trying to talk to you because I think you're just here to stir up trouble.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Separate the legal aspects from the religious

**Everyone** gets a legal contract of partnership (Insert your favorite sanitized name for it here).

Leave marriage to the religious institutions. Many support gay marriage. I know our Unitarian church, among many others, does.

[countmyvote4real]

24. Under the State equal is equal or it's not.

Under whatever God you choose to follow it's whatever your God tells you is right.

Marriage is a contract. Whatever God's blessing on it has very little to do with its enforcement. If anything, the dissolution of a marriage contract can be quite ugly. And where is the "god" in that?

This argument against gay marriage is just bullshit.

Whatever God/Religion is free to discriminate as long as there is a separation of Church and State.

People are either equal or they are not. And if you perceive that we are not equal to this status under law, then I promise you that we shall overcome.

[evilqueen]

27. hmmm

I would just like to point out that if you substituted the word "interracial" for "gay" would any of you still be saying that it makes no difference what we call it... that it's the same... that you don't understand why they object to a difference in wording?

Understand the concept of segregation? I do. And I know why what's being said is offensive.

[SnowBack]

32. I want EQUALITY

If you cancel all the straight marriages in America and change them into "civil unions", then fine...

Otherwise, I don't want to be second class...

Or tell you what... Straight people can have civil unions and give us gay people marriage... Cuz, "it's just a word". RIGHT?

:eyes:

[MercutioATC]

33. Read Post #15. Does that work for you?

[AZCat]

35. Yes

I think we should convert all the straight marriages in America into "civil unions".

I don't think you should be "second class'.

Why don't we give the RELIGIOUS people "marriage" - because it is a word that seems to mean something to them. I really could care less, but I understand that some people do care about a term. What I think is important is that couples, gay or straight, have equal rights and opportunities under law (both federal and state).

Is there a problem with this that I might be missing? I ask this in all seriousness and in the spirit of constructive debate.

[newyawker99]

43. Hi SnowBack!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Clarkie1]

34. The government needs to get out of the marriage business...

The government should only give civil unions for heterosexual or homosexual couples, and leave the "marrying" to the churches.

When people get married, they can also get civil union status from the government, or they can get civil union status without marrying.

The religious term "marry" and the legal rights issue need to be separated for this issue ever to be resolved equitably and satisfactorily, in my opinon.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[JohnKleeb]

39. don't he need 2/3 from the congress?

I dont think it will then.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[blondeatlast]

44. HE DISRUPTED POORLY...

Don't let him disrupt "poorlier".

[fnottr]

45. The Libertarian platform

I think this makes a lot of sense, I think putting the issue this way will make it much less threatening to many. Here's an excerpt:

"Just as anyone can engage in a business relationship, any individuals should be able to enter into a marriage. Government's role in a business partnership is to simply enforce, not dictate, its terms. Government's role in marriage should be the same.

When marriage is taken out of the legal realm, it is seen for what it has always been: a matter of heart and soul. Just as the Catholic Church has historically disdained divorce among its congregation, so too will some religious groups refuse to bless gay unions. Both those who support and those who condemn gay marriage will be free to practice their beliefs and persuade others to their way of thinking. Each individual will be free to choose. Isn't that what America's all about?"

I think this is the perfect way of framing the argument, we aren't backing down on our support of gay rights, but we also aren't trying to confront any religion, and I think that's the biggest obstacle we are facing in this.

Read the whole thing here,
http://badnarik.org/plans_gayrights.php

[Emily Jane]

46. Here's what I say....

The democratic party should come out and firmly say:

"We will never require anyone to marry someone of the same sex."

[neonplaque]

47. Why is the government in the 'marriage' business?

I'd just like to see the government remove all verbage regarding 'marriage' from all laws completely. Establish civil contracts or civil unions for any 2 consenting adults and apply the rights and responsiblities of the law to them.

Leave 'marriage' up to the churches and religions.

Why is this so difficult? To reframe 'marriage' in law as including same-sex couples will just meet continuous and hard resistance.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Equalt rights for all includes same sex marriage!

Democrats will not take a stand on anything unless they take a poll and conduct a focus group first.

Perhaps instead of becoming more Republican, the Democrats should take a clue from one of the progressive third parties, or from our own Dennis Kucinich:

Kucinich gives spirited defense of gay marriage
Democratic hopeful chides his rivals for equivocating
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

Wednesday, December 17, 2003

Pointedly criticizing the major Democratic presidential candidate for failing to support same-sex marriage, Rep. Dennis Kucinich said Tuesday in San Francisco that the matter is a "fundamental civil rights issue ... that shouldn't even be a close question.''

"I can't, for the life of me, understand why I'm the only one who's taking this position with such emphasis,'' Kucinich said following a speech and question-and-answer session at the Palace Hotel sponsored by the Bar Association of San Francisco. "We have to be courageous in protecting people's rights ... and I don't think people should expect any less from a president.''

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/17/MNGV03P1GH1.DTL

And from the UK Greens:

Greens back gay marriage
10th Oct 2004

First major UK party to call for end to "sexual apartheid"

The ban on same-sex marriage is discriminatory and divisive, says the Green Party as the House of Commons prepares to debate the Civil Partnership Bill this week (on Tuesday 12 October).

Jean Lambert MEP (Green Party, London) said today: "The recognition of same-sex marriages is a vital step towards ending legally-sanctioned homophobic discrimination. If MPs are serious about social justice, they must allow gay marriages and end another facet of the UK's institutional homophobia. Stopping people from making a public and lifelong commitment to one other just seems perverse."

Darren Johnson AM, a Green Party member of the London Assembly and one of Britain's most high-profile openly-gay politicians, added: "Whether marriage or civil partnership, the options should be open to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation."

And Peter Tatchell, leading gay human rights campaigner and Green Party member, added: "Excluding gay couples from marriage is an affront to democracy and human rights. Denying people the right to marry because of their sexual orientation violates the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that every adult person has a right to marry."

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/index.php?nav=news&n=1602

Compare the GPUSA 2004 platform language to the Democratic platform:

Green Party USA 2004 Platform

5. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

In keeping with the Green Key Values of diversity, social justice and feminism, we support full legal and
political equality for all persons, regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

a. The Green Party affirms the rights of all
individuals to freely choose intimate partners,
regardless of their sex, gender, or sexual
orientation.
b. We support the recognition of equal rights of
persons gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender to
housing, jobs, civil marriage, medical benefits,
child custody, and in all areas of life provided to
all other citizens.

c. We support the inclusion of language in state and
federal anti-discrimination law that ensures the
rights of intersex individuals and prohibits
discrimination based on gender identity,
characteristics, and expression. We are opposed to
intersex genital mutilation.

d. We support the right of all persons to self-determination
with regard to gender identity and
sex. We therefore support the right of intersex and
transgender individuals to be free from coercion
and involuntary assignment of gender or sex. We
support access to medical and surgical treatment
for assignment or reassignment of gender or sex,
based on informed consent.

e. We support legislation against all forms of hate
crimes, including those directed against people
who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer,
transgender, and intersex.

http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf

[Moderator]

49. locking

the original poster has been banned