We need to radically change our position on Gay Marriage in order to win..

I've been saying this for a long time now, but now is the time to win back the "moral issue" voters.

Buch & Rove deliberately used "gay marriage" as a moral issue wedge.

The solution is to take the government out of the marriage business entirely.

Make all government sactioned marriages "Civil Unions" FOR EVERYONE and remove the distinction between gay and straight unions (in the gov'ts eyes).

Then leave it up to the churches to choose whether to ordain a union as a "marriage". Liberal churches will allow both, conservative churches will allow only hetero marriages.

But it takes the issue away from the government and leaves it up to the individual communities to decide their standards, locally.

This plan follows the Rovian-strategy of attacking the opponent where WE are weakest. Go after them for their "big government" solution to an indiviual issue.

It should be made a major plank in our party's platform in the coming years.

they would claim we are taking away marriage and want people to be like gays.

... but it is a permant solution to take the issue entirely off the table. Something we have never been able to do with abortion.

Thats one of the battles you end up fighting...What you are getting at needs to happen government-wide; removing religious influence from the law and and letting the religious culture do what it wants.

Another problem is, this will be spun as: "This puts gay marriage on the same level as straight marriage. They are the same to the gov't"

We have to spin it as: Whats more important? The judgement of man's government, or the judgement of God?

You have to convince the Xtian community that they have more regard for mans law than gods law. They need to realize that they are weakening their faith by relying on the law. Laws always weaken morals.

They have to be convinced that FAITH is the ONLY way to accomplish their goals...and that what the law says is IRRELEVANT to their faith.

What a jerk.

:mad:

WTF are you talking about?

He just called for giving hets and gays the EXACT SAME rights and you think that's unethical?

No wonder you just called him a jerk and ran away without explaining how it's unethical.

he's saying nobody can get married by the state....


if you want to get married go to your religious institution...



but that idea won't work...


because people will say you are taking marriage away from them....

that we are for gay marraige. It's a civil rights issue, and it is the just and fair position.

There would still be Whites-Only bathrooms.

Is this idea really that complex?

In the 1960s there were large parts of the world where blacks lived with dignity.

But there is little tradition of gay marriage anywhere in the world.

(You can flame me now, but please give thoughful consideration to my post.)

Well, since you missed the point, I'll try again:
The point is this gay marriage is a radical idea, far more radical than equal rights for blacks. Even if you strongly advocate it, surely you can acknowledge it is a radical step.

I say your point is bullshit. There are millions of GLBT in the world who live in dignity in spite of the self righteous bigotry they endure. The only difference is the closet.

That will appease the bigots.

... "bi-racial" marriage if that would help allow people of two different races to be married.

But there is little tradition of gay marriage anywhere in the world.

If you believe that, then you haven't done your homework. I suggest you look back on LGBT history.

Don't ask me to point you in the right direction either, because it is coming up to midnight here in Melbourne (Australia) and I have to go to bed, because I have to get up in 6 hours so I can ready for work.

The issue is to make people understand what values truly are, and show them with a clear message that the republican agenda and true morality and values have NOTHING in common.

It's not moral to crap on poor people and refuse them a living wage; to put corporations before people; to value corporate profits over medicine for seniors; to totally not give a crap if kids have access to healthcare, etc, etc, etc.

They have reframed what "values" are, and like many things (the flag, religion) we have let them hijack the language.

... they are hung up on the word "Marriage". So let them have the word "marriage" and render it meaningless by replacing it universally with the term "civil union".

in front of what is now Union Station in St. Louis... originally, it was called "the marriage of the waters", but because there were statues in the fountain of a nude man and woman representing the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, the guy who was part of the art committee had his panties in a twist over the fact that he felt that marriag was "sacred"--yeah, and we auction it off on prime time tv and make a mockery of it, it's so sacred--they ended up changing the name to "the meeting of the waters".

It's all in how you put it to people. The state should sanction all civil unions, but marriage should be under the jurisdiction of churches, being a religious ceremony/sacrament. When you apply for the license, which all couples must do already, one should be considered to be joined in the eyes of the government at that time. You don't get your license from the church, but from the state--and it's already a 2 step process to then, after getting the license, to have to take it to the church for the ceremony for it to be signed after the wedding takes place.

Just a sliver enough to win.

They are on the wrong side of the issue, we are on the right side of running a country, and so they have to suffer until they cry uncle. The only thing I'm changing is my willingness to change.

It's NOT fighting that gets us into trouble. What we need to do is frame the issue better so that people can see this issue for the civil rights issue it really is.

... just like THEY are.

Something like 75% of Americans believe in EITHER "civil union" or full "marriage" for gay couples.

But only about 25% believe in full marriage.

Those 50% are hung up on the term "marriage".

So let them have it back, and let them define it how they choose (within the scope of their church). And replace the idea of a gov't sanctioned "marriage" with a "civil union" for all.

Marriage is fraught because it's such a weird mixture of church and state. I think the religious and legal components should be separated.

Let the churches decide if someone is in a "godly marriage." What's the state doing deciding whether people can engage in "holy union" anyway?

Take the power of "marriage" away from government, and let the state control civil unions for tax/legal purposes.

Religious folks would get married in a church, where they can discriminate till their heads explode, and then apply for a civil union so their marriage is recognized by the government for tax purposes.

Other people can do their thing with whoever or whatever they want, but still have to apply for a civil union if they want tax advantages, etc.

Dr. Dean was right that the Democrats need some nationally viable position on god, guns and gays.

This is a question for gay folks. By coincidence, I had just read the major gay rights and gay marriage opinions -- Lawrence v. Texas in the Scotus and Goodridge in Mass and the Advisory opinion in Mass.

Basically what they say is this: Lawrence says that no state can make gay sex illegal. I think that there is a broad consensus, even with the evangicals on this.

Goodridge, the first Mass case says that it is unconstitutional for the state of Mass to deny gays the benefits of marriage. So the Mass govt passed a constitutional amendment creating civil marriage for a man and woman and civil unions for same sex unions,with all the same substantive rights and privileges. Oddly enough, even on this issue, most conservatives are in favor of civil unions.

The proposed statute was submitted to the Mass S ct and the majority ruled that using different words -- civil marriage vs. civil union --was unconstitutional. That mass had to call both unions marriage.

This is what the evangicals and cultural conservatives hate -- that they can't have a word all their own for their unions. Even the dissent in Mass said basically, this is silly, we are fighting over a word, not substance.

My question is, can the Dems simply say we are in favor of civil unions and letting the cultural conservative straight families keep the word marriage?

We are really getting killed on this issue. Please respond.

then the civil rights of all are protected.
and they are the same.
i'm coming around to the idea of taking of civil unions for all.
only a church really makes a couple married or a sacrament.
the state has no business mucking around in that stuff.

We have a winner!

Let churches marry who they want....let the state just get rid of the word marriage and making any attempt to define the term.
I investigated this sometime ago with this article I wrote that went unpublished so far but for my blog. (wrote this some months ago and need to re-write some parts)


Marriage: Who defines it? Who uses it?

According to Democratic presidential candidate front runner John Kerry's website, he supports civil unions of same sex couples. The recent Massachusetts ruling on civil unions for same sex couples does throw this centrist stance on this issue off balance. By striking down the civil union for same sex couples as unconstitutional when it co-exists with a similar legal definition of "marriage" of heterosexual couples. The simple stance of creating another definition of marriage for non-heterosexual couples and to call it a civil union seemed to be the prevailing stance on this issue. The ruling, however, has opened a Pandora's box and set the stage for a battle over who defines marriage and who can participate in it. It is the process of addressing issues like this that has made the United States a model for the rest of the world when it comes to social change. These changes are difficult and racked with emotion and tend to force the redefinition of social mores. How can such a divisive issue be resolved? How can we as a society be fair and just to people of diverse religious beliefs?

The real debate is going to be in the semantics used as the identifier of the legal recognition of a permanent social bonding between two people and who defines what that term means and how it is used. We have two choices emerging, Marriage and Union.

At the legal level "Union" poses a problem when it co-exists with Marriage because it creates a separate but equal scenario deemed unfair and potentially open to discriminatory practices. This was all too evident in the "Separate But Equal" rulings stuck down by Brown vs. The Board of Education. Thus the Massachusetts ruling has taken this same course in preventing another mistake like "separate but equal" by deeming this unconstitutional.

Same sex "Marriage" becomes problematic for the bible literalists because there are specific passages in the bible pertaining to marriage that reference a man and a woman. Also, for many, there seems to be a problem separating a spiritual marriage from a legal one. The religious conservatives feels the need to own the definition of marriage and dictate to the rest of society and government what the definition is. Our society has made that very easy to be done by empowering the religious organization to legally bind the couple to one another by witnessing and signing the marriage license by the minister, priest, reverend or rabbi. The problem lies directly with lawmakers refusing to let go of the term "marriage" as a descriptor for legal bonding of two individuals.

To appease all sides of this issue a compromise must be reached that meets specific needs of all parties. First same sex couples must have the same rights under the law afforded to them as heterosexual couples, anything less would be discriminatory. History has shown that discrimination of any type leads to a host of social problems. Second, religious institutions should retain the right to marry who they will based on the creeds or beliefs they hold. The only way to do this is to remove all references of marriage found in public policy and change them to a union. Marriage occurs in the church and union is the legal portion that enables the rights normally associated with marriage. Marriage is a term derived from religion and thus it is faith and religion that should be the keeper of it. We as a society must separate the word marriage from the public vernacular and reserve its use for religious public ceremony celebrating the bonding of a couple. The exact definition is determined by the respective religious organization be it Catholic, Unitarian Universalist, Muslim, Jewish, Baptist etc. Every single faith in our diverse country defines marriage differently based on creed or lack thereof.

Our government needs to return to a more Jeffersonian idea of separation of church and state and take the state out of marriage business and put it back in the hands of our religious organizations. Some faiths already will marry same sex partners in public ceremonies. The key to allow this to happen legally is to remove marriage from the hands of government. If a church wishes to not perform same sex marriages they are free to do so. The couple can simply walk away and find another church to marry them or go to the Justice of the Peace and take care of the legal binding. Most states don't care where you got married as long as it involves a license, a witness and a legally appointed representative of the state. (Judge, minister, ship captain etc...). It is important not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation to occur in this supposedly free society. If it requires the state to get out of the marriage business so be it.

What this does is to afford those religions who will not "marry" same sex couples the right to do so without impeding on anyone's rights to be married and enjoy a legal union. This would allow the religious conservatives to maintain their freedom while affording same sex couple to have the right to be joined legally with no special class or distinction made by the states between same sex or heterosexual couples. The underlying issue here is to what extent does the state have over the beliefs of the public.

It is clear that many religious conservatives feel that it is their duty to convert and change society to match their beliefs so they tend to frame public policy debates around a moral code that comes straight from their religious dogma. There is nothing wrong with using personal judgment that may come from religious teachings to help leaders form policy but it must be tempered with equality and fairness for all who are influenced by such legislation. Continuing to press on this issue will reveal the religious right to become what many have suspected, a intolerant, discriminatory dangerous movement that threatens the American democracy. The religious right will push the issue and ignore the fact that retaining control over the marriage rights for all in will continue to discriminate against and entire segment of our society. A segment that has existed since the beginning of the human species. That is why the states must push to remove marriage as a term used to identify a legal life partnership bound by love.

Men like senate leader Bill Frist, George W. Bush, Trent Lott and John Ashcroft profess to be devout Christians, they wish to project their beliefs and terminology of their religious community (and base supporters) onto policy without much regard for people who may not adhere to the same religious creed as they.

The recent ruling in Massachusetts on gay marriage at first glance appears to shoot down civil unions as the moniker for marriage of same sex couples because of a separate but equal argument thus forcing the issue to raise to a new level where the state must determine if they are right in being in the "marriage" business at all. After all we don't have laws that recognize coming of age ceremonies, you don't really become a legal adult after you become a confirmed member of a church. You are also not considered a legal person when you are baptized there is no legal equivalent. You aren't legally dead just because you had a funeral. Though one can imply by inference that you are "most likely" not alive. Not until a coroner signs the death certificate are you "legally" dead. You don't gain any specific legal recognition by being circumcised either yet in some religions it is a significant spiritual event. One also is not absolved of the legal ramifications of committed crimes after they are confessed to priest. God and Jesus may have forgiven your soul but the state will still require justice and reparations (It makes one wonder, though with recent scandals in the Catholic Church if this is indeed true).

There is only one solution that is indeed fair, democratic and progressive. The states need to stop trying to define marriage and recognize that marriage is a religious right and the union formed from a marriage ceremony is accompanied by a legal, secular union, as a distinctly different entity. There is an argument marriage is deemed to be a religious term that defines the status of two people's relationship in the eyes of their respective spiritual communities. This would force states to draft laws that remove the word "marriage" from public policy and return the use and return the definition and usage of "marriage" to the individual religious groups for interpretation. Marriage should first and foremost be a public affirmation the couples commitment and love in a spiritual community.

In basic terms "marriage" needs to divorced from public policy and returned to the spiritual community. This is the only way that will allow all faiths to be free to retain control of their beliefs without interference by the state and allow all who enter into marriage the same rights under the law. Many states already will not recognize a marriage ceremony as a legally binding contract unless accompanied by the appropriate license so why not take the next step and return the term marriage to the religious organization? Those that argue against that marriage is being destroyed by the gay agenda are only masking their hate and fear. In the end if the religious conservatives are allowed to influence the states to force a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman then we will enter the path that slowly turns our democracy into a theocracy.

American democracy has tackled larger issues than this in it's past and has proven time and time again that our government can change, it can be fair and compassionate even when vast numbers of people refuse to do so.

if every state moves to block gay marriage and the supreme court will no doubt rule on it before '08, and especially if they add it to the consitution, it won't be an issue anymore. But I think it's clear given Ohio's vote on this issue, the state probably would have swung our way if it were not on the ballot and Kerry would be President right now.

offence generally speaking trumps defence.
dems are playing defence to repukes offence.
on this issue and just about any other you can think of.

So was the rush to get licenses in San Fransisco & elsewhere earlier this year worth it to the gay rights movement?

By doing so in such a flamboyant way- defying laws and holding mass marriages - the movement gave Rove hot button issue AND set back their own movement.

Unfortunately, its impossible to control the actions of a large decentralized group of any kind. But particularly independant minded liberals.

;)

or civil unions is coming.
and it will come in your life time.
so coming to bat like you aren't looking for a homer is what lost this issue.
being mealy mouthed about it.
people know when somebody isn't bothered by gay marriage or chartruse aliens.
whining that they should leave it up to states or it's not really an issue 'cause of state constitutions just smells bad to people.
it's whimpy -- like your post.

Gay marriage bans overwhelmingly passed in 11 states.

Maybe it is coming, but the gay rights movement had better come up with a new strategy. Because if they persist with the showy mass weddings and swamping clerks for licenses, they'll do nothing more than solidify their opposition.

The Republicans have got a wedge issue every bit as good as choice/abortion. They'll TALK about it, but they do not want to resolve it. It will keep the base motivated, the coffers full, capture media attention, and bring out their voters.

Granted opponents of gay marriage may get ahead of the R's and resolve the issue in some states, but national media will keep the issue front & center for everyone.

It does us more harm than good; the people who really care are mostly the people who are against it.

We can stop talking about it, but that won't stop Republicans from pointing to the Democrats when talking about "liberals" and their fight for gay rights.

It's just not a practical solution, IMO.

Attack our "weakness".

I mean, Equality and Justice is so blase'.

i'm not that the state changing the legal status or nomenclature of ''marriage'' to ''civil union'' is the same as getting rid of civil rights.

you're quite rockin' yourself.

i have to disagree with you though.
When states' Rights run counter to Federal Law something needs to be done. It is discrimination, plain and simple. And changing the language isn't going to do a damn thing.
Do you realize that the states that voted on Tuesday to ban Gay Marriage also voted to disallow Domestic Partner status to Gays?
"They" weren't satisfied with just defining Marriage, they were voting with their ignorance and hatred to deny Gays the same rights afforded to Heterosexuals.

Equality and Justice IS Civil Rights.
If Heteros can be joined, protected by Domestic Partner or Common Law laws than by Denying Equality to Gyas-regardless of language-
they've denied Millions of Citizens Equal Status, therefore denying Gays their Civil Rights.

tell me how changing the language is going to accomplish anything in the face of blatant Discrimination!

Have I told you lately that I love you?

In the purely spiritual sense, of course. But still. You are one of the best.

and I have been for "civil unions" for all for a long time. But then there is the even more decisive issue of CHOICE. That one is even bigger than gay marriage, I think.

The right to choose marriage like everybody else.

EVERYONE else.

People on both are willing to fight to the end over nothing more than a word. The action I propose treats EVERYONE the same in the gov's eyes.

...and is more honest.

That is what the republicans do. They change their so called values just like their underwear to fit with what their voting base seems to want on any given day. So you are saying as a democrat in order to see more democratic leadership I have to become a republican but only with a donkey logo instead of an elephant. That is what is known as a political whore. Being what is necessary in the name of political expediency. Sorry my friend. It is hard enough to lose the election. I am not going to lose my ethics and convictions along with it. Then I would be some empty shell of a person. You know. a republican.

It's time for a third party that will unite all true progressives like the Greens, Naders, socialists, etc.

I ain't no Democratic ho no mo.

Gays should be able to marry.

End of discussion.

were the problem.

What you wrote above was basically Kerry and Edwards's position.

body and who people sleep with more than

the Economy, Jobs, Health Care, the environment, education, War.

Sad.

I say we broadcast Muslim tortures as well....for fun!

This is one of the most disgusting threads I've seen. Just because they swayed voters with religous fear tactics never makes it right and I'll be damned if I have to sacrifice principles for political talking points!

educate people about what the Republicans are really doing, and organize people to demand change.

They think it is a choice, like what shoes to wear on any given day.

We can change the word, but it goes deeper for them. They go to this Crazyland where first we allow gay civil unions and next it will be humans and animals getting married.

You can't rationalize a solution because these are not rational people.

Dems owe it to gay Americans to stand up for their rights --win or lose --just as we do for all marginalized groups.

Remember...It has nothing to do with being 'married' or 'united.' It has to do with being gay. Marriage was just the wedge that let the GOP talk about the issue without being mean to poor little Mary Cheney.

Karl Rove throws the carefully crafted gay bomb into the midst of the democratic party and the shrapnel finds us all, no matter what our position might be.

Mississippi voted to ban gay marriage by 91% margin or something like that - bestiality would have fared better in the polls - especially in Mississippi.

I live in Arizona - a proposition basically cutting off all services for people who cannot prove their citizenship was passed here Tuesday. It is a not very well disguised dose of old fashioned racism.

Liberals, DUers, whatever - we keep believing that if people are given the facts they will change their minds somehow or agree with us. WAKE UP - the majority of people in this country are racist homophobes who will vote against anything with the word gay or immigrant in it a thousand times before they will vote in their own enlightened self interest. Karl Rove has a huge tactical advantage here - HUGE - because he understands and does everything he can to appeal to that.

Meanwhile we will destroy each other over the same issue.

First it's gays. According to the Christian Bible, they are an abomination. Now we are passing law that validates it.

Then what else? Slavery will be back in style?

Miscegenation, oh I guess for the millions of bi-racial folks in the US they are up shit's creek.

No, get the effin' religion out of our government.

the democratic party shifted to the right a lot faster than i imagined.

again, no spine.

That's really what we're saying...

that implies a civil union for all and leave marriage in church.

But, you just cannot say this to these people, these streaming
hordes of idiots who want to control what others do while they slit
their own throat financially and risk America to economic collapse.

Go back to the constitution, the definition of our fathers...

the stuff we heard when we were 5 in school and Sunday school
before some fascist cult freaks hijacked the term religion
as a front for intolerance.

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

You SO restore my faith in Democrats everywhere.

NOT.

Frankly, I am sick of this pathetic whining of "the straights" who, in their helpless frustration, turn "the gays" into their own personal whipping boys, for lack of anything else to blame this disaster on.

Who cares? I BLOODY WELL FUCKING CARE.

And I shall marry, with no credit to you. And I frankly don't give a damn that you make me out to be YOUR enemy, when I have faithfully supported YOUR causes, while subjugating my own.

Now, who should shut the fuck up again?

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

Don't give a damn about abortion rights, eh? Well, one DUer advised yesterday that we women start saving our wire coat hangers -- and he was bloody well right. Me, I suggest you start saving your spare change for a bus ride to Tijuana.

May it never happen to you. But if it does, you're going to regret your callous indifference. In spades.

are you looking for someone to blame? me too.

I am angry at people like you, shelley.

You have fallen for the Right-Wing's Propaganda-

You refer to Civil/Human Rights as Gay Rights.

You can choose not to 'care'
but, it is your Rights too that are being taken away.
Equality is Equality.

You can't expect it for yourself while denying it to others.

It's that simple.

And so does my partner (sapphocrat.)

We are a lesbian couple, who are truly in love and want to get married. We also realize that the Christian right will never call our relationships anything but evil, but to us, and to our family and friends it will be a marriage.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I haven't seen too many regarding the queer community around here since yesterday, that have actually been so thoughtful.

Clinton was pro-gay and although he took heat for it, he won two terms easily. the problem with the democratic party is the same thing it has been since 9/11. The repugs and the media in their pocket have us too cowed into submission and too afraid to speak up forcebly. When we do speak up, its to timidly assert ourselves, speaking againts their positions only after validating theirs. Look whats happpened here to prove my point. How many "democrats" here are quickly embracing the repug line and ditching gays because they are afraid that the GOP will call them immoral? Too many.

You would have to convince them that they are showing a weakness of faith by wanting the law to reflect all of the nuances of their faith. Make them realize they are seeking validation through man's law, rather than god.

You would have to get them to think, "The Law is irrelevant to my faith." (Which I think IS true)

I am a lurker or a troll or something like that...I am a conservative voter...I don't always vote repub, but usually do. I come to this board just to get the viewpoint of "liberals"...

This issue is one that resonates with me...I don't think marriage is something the government should be into at all. I think it is a purely religious idea, that is defined in religious texts. If you go to a church or temple etc that will "marry" you..then great, you are married...and the only people who should care about that are the 2 poeple getting married.

(wich brings up the issue of why do gay folks really give a damn if the gov recognizes their marriage or not..isn't it a religious ceremony?)

The dems would be wise to take this chance and make this an issue they can win with...give the power to the churches etc..wich is where the people really want it to be and why they voted as they did...

I hope that my admission of being a troll or whatever will not earn me banishment from this forum....I am thankful that I am able to read what you all post here and on very rare occasions, participate. Thanks.

You can't say "civil unions for everyone" because "civil unions" is a touchy phrase. Frame the argument this way:

Driving is a privilege, therefore we have drivers' licenses. But marriaga is a personal or religious choice- why should we have to get a license from the government to get married?

Eliminating marriage licenses reverses all of the ballot initiatives saying that you can't issue them to homosexuals.

but the democrats will never get a candidate elected without some southern states. Most of the repubs i talked to during the campaign were voting on the gay issue.
The repubs were wise to get the gay marriage issue placed on the ballots. I believe that is what brought out their base.
You have to remember the south and most of the midwest are still conservative.
The civil rights movement drove the south further to the right.
We dislike the repubs because they are too far to the right......they dislike us because we are too far to the left.
I want a candidate that is somewhere in the middle and so do 3/4 of the voters. It is as simple as that.