With the war in Iraq, global warming, the failing education system, the disaster with FEMA, immigration reform, public scandal, and a host of other important topics to worry about you would think that the Republicans in congress would have something more important to worry about than gay marriage.
But with the midterm elections looming, and the poll numbers for republicans sinking, the GOP is once again going to try and play the “gay” card. They feel that they can get enough of the “base” riled up by once again parading the issue of gay marriage before the public. They are going to try and pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. An amendment that has less than zero chance of passing, but will keep congress busy for at least the next three weeks.
It’s an insult to the American people that the republicans in congress and the white house are ignoring a host of deadly serious issues to worry about who marrys who. If two men can’t get hitched will this prevent a hurricane from destroying Cape Cod this summer? Maybe if we ban gay marriage it will solve the looming social security problems, perhaps preventing the love of two American citizens will do something about the economy.
If you listen to the parade of conservative talking heads they will say again and again things like “we need to defend the institution of marriage.” As if gay people getting married will suddenly cause a rise in the divorce rate, or gay marriage will cause straight people to get married less.
The issue of the “defense of marriage” is on its face a bigotry laden, bald faced plea for votes. The speeches that republicans make in support of a ban on gay marriage are almost identical to speeches made in support of a ban on interracial marriage made many years ago. They are counting on the very worst in people, pitting two groups against each other in a calculated attempt to eek out just one more term in office.
The republicans should realize that this ploy is not going to work again. We have too many important issues that we need to deal with right now. They will learn this midterm election that they can not simply tote out the culture wars every time they need a couple more votes. The “base” will eventually wake up and realize that the republicans are keeping them poor, ruining there environment, sending there jobs overseas, and getting there kids killed in an unnecessary war. The gay marriage ban is a phony issue devised to drum up votes, and one would hope the American people are too smart to fall for it again.
Devious…How true!
A question to you as a supporter of gay marriage.
What is the purpose of marriage? Is it for procreation? Benefits? Social stability? Religion?
Since the government is in the job of handing out “licenses” to get married, what is the purpose of marriage?
balboa, you miss the point, the point is there is better things to be doing. Lets not even worry about this issue until we have the rest of the important questions taken care of..
“what is the purpose of marriage?”
Marriage serves many purposes. From a legal perspective, it is a social contract. From a religious perspective, it serves whatever purpose is defined by that religion. From an individual’s perspective, it serves whatever purpose is defined by that individual.
Our government has the responsibility of maintaining religious freedom for all people. Defending the “sanctity” of marriage is outside the scope of the government’s responsibilities; that is a religious matter and so must be covered by churches or individuals.
You have to realize that while all mainstream religions claim to have access to absolute truth, there is in reality no such thing (in regards to human behavior). As Americans, we support religious freedom to guarantee that people can think for themselves and define truth for themselves.
We shouldn’t allow one group’s religious perspective to define the social freedoms of others. That is un-American. Gay marriage no more threatens the “sanctity” of marriage anymore than divorce does (which is fully legal, of course).
I actually agree with you. I think it’s a complete waste of time. I would much rather if they were spending their time cutting my taxes :)
My argument is, if legal “marriage” is nothing more than a social contract that is recognized by the government, why shouldn’t siblings be allowed to marry? or mulitple spouses?
I’m personally an atheist, so I don’t really care about the religious aspect of marriage..
Balboa I think the government should only issue “civil unions” and that marriage should be the realm of religions. In this way we allow anyone who wants to get a civil union. And we let the individual churches decide whatever they want.
Or conversly we can stop giving tax breaks etc to people who get married.
Naib, I was saving this message that I typed out yesterday and today, and you stole my thunder. ;)
I understand that it’s necessary to entertain the “slippery-slope” perspective. If we allow this one non-traditional definition of marriage, why stop there?
The difference is, I don’t think that we’re facing crowds of siblings or multiple partners wanting to get married. However, we do have a significant number of homosexual couples that want to get married. The main objection to gay marriage I’ve always heard was that it’s immoral (from certain religious perspectives). As we earlier addressed, religious perspectives aren’t a particularly valid basis for legislative activity.
My solution to this problem: no more government marriage licenses. Instead, _every_ adult of legal age would be able to engage in a civil union with another adult of legal age, with all of the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage. Marriage would then solely be a religious issue, as it should be (or non-religious, for you and I). The idea is to allow people to enter legally recognized committed relationships, without any moral pronouncement on the part of the government.
Yes, this would include siblings: we don’t outlaw inbreeding now, and this civil union approach would change nothing. Incest currently takes place in the US with impunity. A civil union wouldn’t legitimatize it.
Multiple spouses would be trickier. Again, we don’t face crowds wanting group marriages. I’m not sure group marriages would work, only due to practical concerns (and not moral reasons, of course). However, a civil union among multiple partners might be similar to any other legal, currently available, group contract. Personally, I think we have to set a practical limit for reason of bureaucracy. We would limit it at two individuals–for now–until we got some idea of how civil unions are working out.
An objection might be that civil unions could be entered and exited solely for the benefits. I would say that this is not necessarily different from the current state of matrimony in the US. I’ve listed some of the typical benefits of marriage below. I don’t think that any of them are incompatible with the idea of the civil union, even with multiple partners. It would just make things more complicated.
1. Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
2. Creating a “family partnership” under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
3. Estate planning, government, employment, medical, benefits etc.
I believe that we should always try to expand the rights available to our citizenry, and should also be very suspicious of any attempts to limit rights.
Sorry, after some research it seems that incest between consenting adults is a felony. I apologize; it seemed inconcievable that incest in such a situation would be illegal. For example, I read that in France it is not. So, civil unions could not be issued to illegal incestuous relationships at this time. Whether incest between consenting adults is actually a crime is a whole other debate. :)