Did you support the Masschusetts SC Ruling on Gay Marriage?

I vote "hell yes"

I don't support marriage at all, between anybody. Where does that leave me?

Men and Women are allowed to get married, do you think gay people should be allowed to get married if men and women are allowed too?

I think marriage is an archaic and anachronistic custom.

So where does that leave me?

Marriage between a man and a woman is legal. Now whether you or against marriage is out of the question, but don't you think gay people should be allowed to get married if men and women are allowed too?

and I've found an anti-marriage position causes way more consternation and debate than civil unions!

Before they worry about who's getting married.


Between the high divorce rate and kids born to single parents, marriage is on pretty shaky ground as it is.

Besides being an archaic social custom, marriage in the 21st century is pretty much a joke.

i'm sick to death of this blurring of moral v legal argument! logically, the constitution should protect ALL citizens, and lawmakers should strive to protect their rights. excluding a minimm of 10-11% of the population is horrible!

in America. And with the good people here at DU & other places, America will once again shine like it has for so long.

on edit spelling:

My 350-member congregation has even had two such marriages in Massachusetts. I went to the more recent one. (I think the other one was in 1994 or 1995.)

has had 20 civil unions in 5 years. more power to them.

If the answer is NO, then the 120 services your church has performed is committment ceremony, unless of course we are talking about an MCC, which then, it is marriage in the eyes of the church.

Please don't call it civil unions when it isn't.

On edit: I am sick and can't spell to save my life at the minute.

:shrug:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And Blind Loyalty.

they support this. If they say 'no' they alienate a large percentage of their base, if they say 'Yes' they offend the majority of Americans who are opposed to this.

The right to gay marriage should've been allowed because of the Massachusetts Constitution. It has nothing to do with whether you like it or not, its the law.

This WILL be an issue in the 2004 presidential race. Most Americans (by a LARGE majority) oppose this. It WILL influence their votes. I'm not talking right or wrong (I'm in favor of the ruling).

If the Dem candidate comes out against this it will hurt him/her, if they come out in favor it will hurt him/her.

It is not for the federal government nor for a President to decide a States's rights issue.

I don't think that a Dem candidate would pick up any votes by saying he/she is against Gay marriage.

I don't think a dem candidate will gain votes by saying he is opposed to gay marriage either but I am certain he will LOSE votes by saying he is in favor of it or opposed to it. He has to remain neutral (the states rights answer is the way to go) or it's a lose lose issue for Dems in 04.

angle of it is that all 50 states honor marriages from other states. So to support a state allowing gay marriage they in effect have to endorse forcing the other states to accept these marriages if a couple is married in Mass., thus nulifying the other states "right" to ban gay marriage.

This could end up being a big problem for us in the election. The American people are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage. Not just a little bit opposed like 51%, but VERY opposed as in over 70%. It is going to be a tightrope that must be walked. All out, strong support for gay marriage will spell almost certain defeat. All out, strong opposition will cause massive loss of votes in the primary most likely. And a wishy washy, non-position position stance will make the candidate look weak, uncommitted, and lacking honesty. A strong position must be taken and defended.

I'm only arguing from a political point of view. If we are to win the presidency , the candidate has to be neutral on this issue. Anything else, for or against , will cost him many votes. IMO the best argument is that it's not up to the federal government to regulate marriage.

Sorry, there isn't going to be an ducking this issue. The Reps will make sure that there is an up/down vote on the issue.

If you were Rove, and knew that 2/3 of the public, (Almost all of your own base and most of the independents), was opposed to gay marriage, and that the Dems base was pro gay marriage, what would you do?

before the 04 election (I could be wrong). If there is, we're screwed. Ducking the issue is the only sensible thing to do. If there is a vote, I would suggest that the Dem candidate sit that one out.

Why are you suggesting cowardice over prinicple and fighting for ones position?

for them just slide by? They will be able to get the FMA to a vote at a time that is best for them. It's coming.

on the Confederate flag on the SC statehouse, while he claimed that he "doesn't pay attention to polls, I just do what's right" when it came to taxes, etc. I think it can only make a candidate look stronger to actually do what's right in the face of adversity.

I believe that on the road to power you have to pick the battles you can win and once you have won do what ever you can to right all the wrongs you can with the time and power at your command.


We can all be as pure as the snow and nothing comes from it but to say we had the best of intentions.

will almost certainly guarantee a loss in the general election. The vast majority of americans are opposed to gay marriage and civil unions. Coming out in favor of gay marriage will push most of the fence sitters and a large portion of the independents to the right.

constitution will almost certainly knock the DOMAs down. Another poster on DU says that he is already planning the next phase of national legalization of gay marriage. That would be a SCOTUS challange to the DOMAs. Since 37 states have DOMAs, they will feel like this is being crammed down their throats. The FMA is already introduced into the house. It will now pick up steam. The backlash is coming.

Is only further screwed.

I thought the ruling was if a couple asks for a license, they won't be denied it for being gay. Do they still recognize it for inheritances and stuff?

I support Civil Unions because I'm progressive and support CIVIL Rights.

I'm against Gay Marriage because marriage is a holy sacrament from God and I am Catholic.

www.gaychristians.org
And it still boils down to Constitutionality. Religion should have no place in what the state decides concerning marriage.

If there is a separation of church and state then all marriages are civil unions. But religiously speaking, not all civil unions are marriages.

But according to the Massachusetts constitution gays should be allowed to get married, and not all marriages are religous, you can go to a court and get married. Atheists can get married too.

What's wrong with homosexuals?

marriage is a holy sacrament from God and I am Catholic.

I personally believe there is no god and there is such a thing called seperation of church and state which means religion shouldn't affect how desicions are made, especially laws. But there was something in the Massachusetts in the constitution I guess something in there basically said gays should be allowed to get married but in different wording.

When a person goes to vote they can vote any way they want to AND FOR ANY REASON THEY WANT TO!!!!!!!!!!! A huge portion of the population believes in a God, and belives that there are absolute morals, and draws those moral beliefs from their faith. They take their faith with them into the voting booth.

So when a conservative/moderate preacher speaks out against gay marriage, (And that is his first amendment right) then some of the congregation will take that into the voting booth.

That is why religion can't be separated from the discussion. It IS a MAJOR influence for most people.

Right wing preachers can say whatever they want to, but religon SHOULDN'T affect whether or not gay marriage is allowed. It is matter on law and laws should not be made or changed simply because their religion says so. But when someone says gay marriage shouldn't be legal because god gave them marriage or whatever. My point is this, whether god likes it or not doesn't matter, this decision was made based on the Massachusetts constitution not on the bible and I am glad.

as their beliefs tell them. For most that will include the influence of their faith. And that will change the laws. The courts should not take a religious system into account, but the legislators are completely free to do so. In fact, in many districts, a person's faith will be part of their electability.

A DUer says gay Marriage should not be legal because god that isn't how god wants it. I say this desision was made based on the Massachusetts constitution, not the bible, the coran, or whatever. Religous beliefs should not be used to determine how laws are made or changed, I don't care what voters do. I care about the law makers and I am glad this decision was made based on the Massachusetts constitution instead of the bible.

It is impossible to have an absolute wall of separation between church and state, because for most people, their faith is part of who they are and they carry that faith with them into the voting booth. And they will usually vote for a religious legislator.
And the citizen in the voting booth and the legislator in the chamber are free to vote however they want to for any reason they want to also.

The courts are not and should not take any religious system into account in their decision. I said that. But you can never take religion out of the picture, because in the voting booth, the citizens will put it back in.

It is completely irrelevant to what I said. A DUer said gay marriage should not be legal because his god doesn't like it, we also have something called freedom of religion. I just pointed out leave religion out of this because this desicion was made based on the Massachusetts constitution, not on the bible. If something indicates that gay marriage should be legal in a constitution then it shouldn't be changed because of someone's religous belief. I don't care how many people are christians, Massachusetts made the right ruling in this case.

Voting is the core of a democracy. No, I won't leave voting out of it, because that is where the decisions are ultimately made. And courts will ultimately bow to the will of the people as they are overridden. In this case the overriding mechanism appears to be the FMA.

religous beliefs? You have not yet indicated whether or not you support this decision but the vibe I am getting is you don't.

At least that's how I see it...

What's wrong with Civil Unions?

Non-religious people have civil unions too don't they. I always thought marriage was a religious thing and civil unions were a secular thing.

Separate but equal is like that separate school for gays.

"What's wrong with Civil Unions?"

They give the same rights as marriage but by a different name. I don't object to them in practice, I object to them in principle. Just like you wouldn't make a seperate legal term for marriage when Black people do it, you wouldn't make a seperate legal term when Homosexual people do it.

"Non-religious people have civil unions too don't they. I always thought marriage was a religious thing and civil unions were a secular thing."

That would be incorrect. Marriage is something recognized by the state. Civil Unions apply only to homosexuals.

This ruling does not say that the Catholic Church, or any other religious institution, must give Homosexuals a marriage ceremony. That is entirely up to each Church. The reason why many people who favor civil unions oppose calling it marriage is because they think that it would require church's to give marriage ceremonies. That's not true because of the public/private .

"Separate but equal is like that separate school for gays."

I agree, but I don't think that seperate but equal /= applies only to schools, but to all state functions. It is simple discrimination by the state, IMHO.

The fact remains that public opinion is polarized and very emotional. Didn't civil rights come in stages of a sort? Some changes must be made regardless of how the mob may feel but it can be more safely accomplished in steps, imo.

After signing the VT bill, Dean made this generous and conciliatory statement. I read it and was so frustrated by his sensitivity to "the other side" but as far as govt interacting with ALL the people- respecting ALL the people, I believe he's right. And this was just for the Civil Unions step.

here's a snip>

I believe that because until every human being is treated with dignity, because they are a human being, and not because they belong in some category, then every American and every Vermonter is poorer because of that. This bill enriches not just the very small percentage of gay and lesbian Vermonters who take advantage of this partnership and get the rights that the court has determined that they are due. I believe this bill enriches all of us, as we look with new eyes at a group of people who have been outcasts for many, many generations.

I want to take just a moment to expand on why I chose again to do this privately. This bill is like no other bill I have seen, and I suspect that it's like no other bill that you have seen in many, many years of covering the State House. I suspect it's like no other bill that most Vermonters have ever seen. I've said repeatedly throughout this discussion that this is a bill that is not about politics. This is a bill that is about the deepest most personal feelings that human beings have. I personally have friends, supporters, that are furious with me over the fact that I have supported this bill. And I know that I have disappointed them and that's a very painful feeling.

I, like many of the people in this building, have not had a great deal of sleep for the past five months. In politics, bill signings are triumphant. They represent the overcoming of one side over the other, they're a cause for celebration. There is much to celebrate about this bill. Those celebrations, as the subject matter of this bill, will be private. They will be celebrated by couples and their families, by people making commitments to each other.

And I think we also have to respect and take note, not of the extreme rhetoric, but of the many, many decent people who feel strongly that this bill is not the right thing to do. They are Vermonters. We work for them in this building. I work for them. The state is pretty evenly divided. I remain the governor of all Vermonters, despite the fact that I have signed a bill that was supported by only half of all Vermonters. I want to acknowledge those feelings. I want to say I think the legislature did listen. I know I listened. In fact, after listening to all the people speak, I came to a different conclusion than many of those who urged me not to sign the bill.

But I think it is important that we reach out today to all Vermonters and realize that all Vermonters' input in this debate was thoughtful, valuable and helpful. There is no shame in having opposed this bill for most of the people who opposed it. We will now use the time to reconcile each other's viewpoints. But we will go forth forever more realizing that equality is not simply a matter of a concept that's written in history books; equality of opportunity, equality of treatment, equal access to the law, equal respect for the law, has been this year a living process in this state.

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/6607

A religious institution should never be forced to accept government mandates that could possibly infringe on the separation of church and state.

Nevertheless as long as Gay Marriage is voluntary it should not be prohibited. B-)

by saying "I support the rule of law and the courts have ruled on this issue." Most, if not all, have already stated they support on this issue, at least to the point of supporting civil unions, not sure who has come out in support of gay marriages within the church and wouldn't that, in the end, be in the hands of the various congregations, etc?

amendment to the U.S. Constitution, called the Federal Marriage Amendment, that is already in the house. The Republicans will use it to put Democrats on the spot. They will have to vote on it, and in an election year.

I will have to research the wording in the bill, it may have sections that the dems can use during debate.

FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

The Massechusetts SC made the right decision, emphatically. A great day for civil rights in America.

... civil union, marriage, whatever you want to call it.

However, any matters with one's church and their position on homosexuality is between you and it.

The bully that happens to be the Massachusetts Speaker of the House. He's made his career off of a Republican-like record, and he's going to sabotage this in some way. Though he may be powerless to stop statewide opinion in the matter.

I wonder why he's still speaker...

Romney will make some non-committal stance on this, like "I respect the courts opinion, but must dissent because of my religious views", but Finneran has the power and the history to wreck something like this. Luckily, this time, it might be beyond his control.

I don't know why he's still Speaker, either.

... he went out of his way to kill campaign reform, even when more than 70% of Mass voters supported it.

:bounce:

to the time that I can throw my foster daughter a big, splashy do, complete with picture in the paper, the works!!!

liberty and justice for all! B-)

It's the equality, stupid!

for all Americans. The Mass. S.C. has upheld that we are all created equally and deserve the same rights. I don't see this as a gay/straight thing just like many of us dont see the Civil Rights Act of the 60's a black/white thing. Congrats to them all. I can only wonder how the freepers are going crazy aboit this. I'll have to check after work. Good day to you all :) .

nt

But it IS a civil rights issue. Yes, it may hurt us politically, but what profit a man if he should gain the world and lose his soul?

Hi Muddle,

My problem with this is that the price for standing for gay marriage may be so high that it will not only guarantee Bush v2.0 reelection, but could give him a filibuster proof senate, and large gains in the house. That would then kill any chances we have of doing anything else as we would be marginalized.

In any war, you have to pick and choose which battles you fight. Sometimes you are caught in bad situation and have to retreat to be able to even be able to fight again another day.

There are other battles that we can win that need to be won. Let's not lose them too fighting a doomed fight here.

And accept that some can see things that way. I guess I am just channeling a couple hundred years of African-American history here and can see the other side as well.

I am all for civil unions. In fact, I am all for civil union status that matches marriage status in terms of the law.

However, marriages have so much religious and social meaning that go beyond the law.

In fact, it makes me think that state sanctioned marriages are a violation of the seperation of church and state in a way.

That is right I am borderline against the whole idea of states sanctioning a special status for people that are married.

Why? Since it is a legal distinction with too much social and religious connection to be a legally clear method of designating status.

There should be civil unions (no worries about religious and social significance here) and the church or social group you are connected to bestows the married part as a seperate non-legal ceremony.

I know my idea has issues but how do you divorce the idea of marriage from social and religious norms of the communities?

This is a great day for civil rights.

...the policy of religious ceremony, there is absolutely no logical reason to deny a committed same gender couple the same legal protections of a similar heterosexual couple.

Or in simpler language : Fucking get over it already, Freepers! :eyes:

The government or the courts have no right to tell me how I worship God. The decision will force churches to recognize marriages that are clearly against their teachings. That's wrong in my opinion.

I think that benefits are ok. And I think that legal status that will allow people who love each other to be near one and other when a person is dying or undergoing a major medical procedure is essential. However, I think this can be done without endorsing gay marriage, and without telling me how to worship god.

If your god says you can marry three people at once, what business does the state have in denying that right?

If your god says you can't marry someone of a different race, what the heck is the state doing issuing a license to mixed-race couples?

The state should butt out of these matters of sacrament.
:crazy:

pointing out it is an issue of equal rights, not taking something from straight married people.
it's the right thing to do -- to act weak on the subject, waffle, hem and haw -- is how rove will win his numbers. attack rove, driving home the superstitious and anti-american stand religous and right wing nuts take -- and dems win.
that is the repuke play book and it's a good one. staying aggressively ahead of any issue -- paste your opponent with his hypocracy loudly and clearly -- and you win.