Why has no candidate suggested abolishing heterosexual marriage?

I have seen a lot of people who make some very eloquent arguments against gay marriage.

Civil unions are all they need, say these folks.

If civil unions are good enough for gay people, then why not straight people?

Not one has been able to present a credible case that same-sex couples love each other any less, or are less committed to each other than their heterosexual brothers and sisters.

Some mention religion. Well, if the US is a secular state, what business does religion have slogging around in laws about property and inheritance rights?

If marriage, as opposed to civil unions, is a religious institution, then let it be one.

Let couples, gay or straight, who wish to have a religious marriage ceremony have one, with or without, and independent of, their state-sanctioned civil union.

Why should the candidates put themselves in the difficult position of defending a two-tiered system of equality under the law?

Why would any Democratic candidate wish to argue that homosexuals are second-class citizens?

Disclaimer: I do not support any of the candidates.

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

:thumbsup:

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

Why would allowing gay couples to marry jeopardize that?

Personally, I think the parent poster's idea has validity and merit, and using practically meaningless words like "values" (which can be construed in so many ways there's hardly a set meaning) doesn't really advance the argument any more.

Most people who make arguments like yours are basically committing a type of logical fallacy called Petitio Ad Principii (or Begging the Question) that states that since X proposition is the status quo, we can't change X because X is the status quo. I'd like to see a little more defined opinion from the opposing point of view, since I've already seen point-by-point elaborations of several people's arguments in favour of a separated civil union/marriage institution, and I agree with it

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

And a Catholic, to boot. I don't believe the Bible should be taken literally.

grant those religions special favors? Or should you have equal justice under the law?

What is it that makes American values dependent on heterosexual marriage? What does it say about your contention when half of marriages end in divorce?

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

you've made a wise decision.

Happy King Day :)

A person who leaves others ALONE?!?! instead of deciding who can do what according to your dictates?

If you like the institution of marriage, great...make sure you extend that to anyone who wishes to get married.

Before they decide to outlaw gay marriages, they should try to outlaw divorce.

And we all know how well THAT would go over. :eyes:

"I do not support any of the candidates."

Do you mean you don't support any particular candidate or that you don't like any of them???

The rest of them are married heterosexuals and would be seen as hypocrites for opposing straight marriage.

But as the original post says, if civil unions are considered adequate for state recognition of gay peoples' choice of life partner, on what grounds can a secular state, with equality under the law hardwired into the constitution, justify setting up a two-tiered system based on sexual orientation?

I'm a law-abiding citizen, productive and a taxpayer; I have also defended my country in armed combat. Why has the state decided that MY love is not worthy of official recognition on a par with a heterosexual couple's love?

:grr:

Cuban_Liberal, we are in agreement. Biblically speaking (bear with me, as I was raised up in a Baptist church) the case against homosexuality is based on the fact that is a perceived "sin." As is divorce, yet I see no republican platforming for the removal of divorce... nor the attorneys and judges that preside over them.

Every citizen, regardless of gender and race is supposedly awarded equal rights under the constitution. Yet biological and environmental influences seem to be a factor in determining which citizens are afforded which rights. It's hogwash, hatemongering, and in my opinion, hypocritically sinful.

This ruffles my feather perhaps like no other issue.

that liberals are out to destroy the institution of marriage.

:shrug:

You'd have the same rights as everyone else under the law.

Just like the old Plessy v. Ferguson rule of 'separate but equal' was equal, but it sure was separate.

And you drive away loads of moderates with this sort of thing.

Marriage is or is not sanctioned by the state; if it is, then not allowing gay people to get married is discrimination against them.

If the state constitution says that marriage is between a man and a woman, "gay marriage" doesn't exist.

"Because I told you so" is a legitimate reason to dsicriminate against me? what about the 14th Amendment, and equal protection of the laws?

The 14th amendment is meaningless in this case.

And it most certainly does go toward maintaining this two-tiered system. I'll see your State Constitution, and raise you a 14th Amendment.

The United States lives under a common law based system.

What was the point? Of course we do, but we also live under a Constitution. Not all law is based on precedent and res judicata.

:shrug:

Assuming you are straight, for the purposes of argument.

I don't follow the analogy.

If states want to sanction gay marriage that's fine with me. I just don't think any of our candidates should be running on dumping hetero marriage.

only beable to have civil unions and not marriage?

You need to convince the majority the change its mind.

When was the last time that the majority supported same-sex marriage?

shouldn't that suggest a different attitude toward heterosexual marriage by the church?

Hell, Britney Spears made a joke out of marriage last week...I don't hear the Bible-thumpers screaming for her head.

Thanks. :eyes:

You represent for a wider community of people at DU - start acting like it. If you don't want to support any of the candidates and feel like spouting off devil-may-care nonsense, start your own website.

I represent myself. I do not claim to represent you, and you have my permission to tell Rush that I do not.

Jesus, get a clue.

I welcome it.

or do so yourself?

Lets pick the most left-wing out of touch subject and have a massive thread about it!!!!

Excellent point. :)

You get the same rights as me.

If nothing's different, why not just make everyone have a civil union, including heterosexuals?

I must admit, I'm not up to date on the gay marriage thing.

anytime they want...

If god doesn't like the union, who cares? God doesn't live here...we do.

Not me. Or the federal government.

It doesn't mean any of it needs to be officially recognized by the gov't.

Also, you don't think DOMA is "stopping them".....I think you should try to get educated about the issues.

With a marriage license issued by the County Clerk, just like heterosexual couples?

Why destroy the sanctity of marriage by doing that?

We're a secular nation, so 'sanctity' is an irrelevant concept.

I'm done here.

So, once again, 'sanctity' is an irrelevant concept.

"gay marriage" is an oxymoron to me. I'm not going to keep this ridiculous thread kicked.

i mean people wouldnt say well i believe that a brown and a white person can have civil unions but not marriage! Well not just yet any way.Why wont any canidates (except for kucinich) say they are for gay marriage?
I think what you are saying makes total sense though i think that when dealing with things like immigration adoption and property rights that should be left to the state and what ever else e left to the church

Hell, let churches marry whoever they want, however they way (as long as they aren't marrying off children to adults, as one possible exception).

Said sacreamental ceremony, however, should not entitle you to file your taxes differently, change your name without a court order, etc.

If you want those things, go down to the courthouse for civil union papers. Require the civil union to be performence by a non-sectarian official. No more priests, rabbis, ship's captains (well, maybe ship's captains) "marrying" people in the legal sense.

Just seperate the two.

and because I'm still waiting for that credible argument for a two-tiered system ;)

Whether it may be right or wrong, anybody that pushed that agenda would never get elected to another office again.

If he did, I haven't heard anything about it.

Maybe Rush is slipping, and should think of stepping aside for someone more on their toes.

and the taxes/benefits/visitation rights, etc can be done contractually