What is your position on gay marriage?

I've been looking over the recent topics and haven't found this one. I believe the fairest way is to have everything recognized as civil unions under the law, and then churches can have their own ceremonies.

For purposes of this poll, civil unions provide equal rights except for the label applied.

diclaimer.

Gay Marriage would be my #2 option.

I said all 'civil unions'... the government would no longer be in the business of 'marriage.' Marriage would become what it should have been all along - a completely religious ceremony with no secular meaning. Similarly, civil unions would be completely secular contracts, with no religious meaning.

A marriage license would be a Civil Union License. Any marriage performed by a Justice of the peace would be called a civil union regardless of the genders of the participants. A marriage would be a religious ceremony.

Separate Church and State.
The legal term would be civil union, the religious term would be marriage. If a church performs a gay marriage it is a religious ceremony and therefor called a marriage. If a Justice of the peace performs the union of a straight couple, it is called a Civil Union because it is a "legal" ceremony.

Yeah, that works for me. Of course, it's OK with me if they are all called marriage or all called civil unions as long as I can keep the spouse I have.

...moving "marriage" into the world of religion, leaving it up to the respective denominations whether or not they'd marry people.

While the legal aspect of the relation would be defined as a civil union, for everyone.

...I voted that all gay marriages should be legal, but I now understand your point and agree with it.

But the Government had better damn well treat folks equally.

otherwise those priests would be behind bars

but all marriage is ok by me. . .

all the government is doing with this thing called "marriage" is sanctioning a contract between two people, regardless of sex. The actual spiritual emotional aspects of marriage should be left to religion or a couple's own choice for solemnizing the union.

If a church won't sanction same sex marriage, then that couple should be able to go to a JP. There should be nothing emotional or spiritual about government's involvement in people's private lives and there government should have no interest in whether a couple is of the same sex or not.

Marriage is thought of in religious terms. But I am against gays having a different label under the law.

so they have no business deciding if a marriage between two people is "moral" or not.

We both don't want unions to be connected to religion under the law. I think what he have now goes against separation of church and state.

this post got duplicated... disregard.

not with a separate legal status for certain groups.

I recognize that abolishing the prinicple of Equal Protection under the law, or making it an option for states to choose or reject, has many potential applications that are business-friendly, and could save employers a substantial amount on benefits alone.

Obviously, if I have 50 office employees, and 3 or 400 laborers who are of a particular ethnic group, it would offer me a significant financial advantage if my state will establish a separate legal status for that ethnic group.

However, in my opinion, aside from moral considerations, the social costs of such a plan would harm the public interest more than the additional revenues channeled into business interests would help it.

Having said that civil unions is a positive step in the right direction, which will ultimately make it possible for marriages to be politically possible. 20 years ago we wouldn't have been able to even talk about states sanctioning civil unions. A lot of this is generational. We are simply going to have to wait the older generations out on this. I know a lot of conservative people in their 20's and 30's who have no problem with gay marriages.

While I fully support gay marriage - I understand the position Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards on this.

If they push for it, they lose.

I would prefer they remain coy about their beliefs, win the election, let support for gay marriage build, then revisit the question.

"Would you favor or oppose a law in your state that would allow gays and lesbians to marry a partner of the same sex?" Favor/Oppose rotated

Favor: 30% Oppose: 64%

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

There is too much at stake to let one issue be the deciding one in this race. If we lose, gay rights will be pushed back further, as will women's rights and minority rights.

All they have to do is take a principled stand, and STICK TO IT.

As much as the Democrats are driven by fear on this issue, it's not nearly as big a deal as we let the Repubs portray it to be. Most Americans (even those rural southerners) don't give a damn about what somebody does in the bedroom-- as long as they have good jobs, good health care and a promising future for their kids.

It's really amazing to watch the mincing and parsing done by some of the candidates on this issue. People aren't looking for a candidate whom they agree with on all issues-- what they want is a candidate who can take a stand on principal, and not apologize for it, whether it's popular or not.

People want to vote FOR something, not against something else.

I respect this opinion. But do you realize that this will get you in the MOST trouble with Middle America?????

Headline:

<SPIN>
"Not only do gays and lesbians wish to degrade marriage, they want to ELIMINATE it COMPLETELY!!!!!!"
</SPIN>


Seriously, arguments of equality under the law are COMPLETELY meanigless here. This is NOT the civil rights movement. This is NOT the Women's suffrage movement. About the ONLY close parrallel I've seen is in reference to interracial marriage. And even THAT has VERY STRONG historical precedence both in history AND inside America*.

If you want the gay-marriage amendment to pass THIS YEAR, just keep spewing the line advocating the elimination of marriage as a civil institution. It's about the DUMBEST political statement I've ever heard.


* After all, how could one NOT condone interracial marriage when Irish, Scottish, English, German, Swede, Dutch, Polish, Italian, Spanish, Russian, etc... were ALL intermarrying. And if you don't think that people of the time thought the "Euro-races" non-distinct, you're kidding yourself.

aren't running for anything!

As far as I understand, this isn't about what position a Dem pol has to take before we support him or her; this is just a poll of our personal beliefs.

Peace out,

Eric

:smoke:

I marry in a church but the state lets the church marry me as a stand in for the state. I do not get to marry with the church giving me that right but the state does.If gays wish to call it a contract it is fine with me but I think they wish to call it marriage and that is where the trouble comes in. They could do almost all they wished under contracts I can think about right now but I think SS would be hard to get. And the hospital thing is silly but I have been told in a hospital that my mother and father could not see me as they were not near enough but my husbands mother could.Just silly. In a society of laws marriage must be a civil law as all contracts are. It is needed to protect the two parties, as all contracts do.

Back to more thinking about it.

because I have serious issues with marriage that I still haven't worked out in my own mind. A lot of the time I look at marriage as an artifact of the patriarchy. I think about how women are still not really treated as equals in marriage and how the system has been used to keep us in our place and treat us like property and I just don't understand why gays and lesbians (or women for that matter) would want to take part in a patriarchal system that has been used to put us all down.

It's my issue to work out though and I'm not looking for a gazillion posts either agreeing with me or calling me a "feminazi".

I do believe that whatever the government does it should be fair and equal for all concerned. And I do mean ALL. It shouldn't exclude those who are not in traditional 2-person relationships either.

a choice religious people make. I got married in a non-denominational church just to please my christian family, hoopla and all. My second union, my husband and I had a beautiful wedding. Just the two of us in beatiful Sedona, Arizona.

one was religious, the other was not; LBT people cannot even make that decision. Both times your ceremony was called marriage; neither time was it called a "civil union" by anyone officiating it.

Edit: vocabulary issue

I do...but by your definition...you are not.

Marriage should either be separated from the state or from religion.

Either everyone should be able to marry, or everyone should have civil unions. Either is perfectly okay with me.

kinda nutty but there it is

gay marriage. I do have a question though. All this uproar is about "two" people who want to be married or unionized. Should there be a limit of "two" people in a marriage or union??

I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding how many people can be a party to a civil contract which is all "marriage" is under the law. Religious definitions have NO place in our laws.

Angry that it is just now becoming an issue for so-called liberals when it has been an issue for decades and angry that I am being scapegoated by both sides of the argument as a reason we will lose or SHOULD lose with dignity.

About the only thing I am glad about is that Log Cabin Republicans are feeling like the stupid fucking assholes these mostly selfish males have always been.

For the record, I didn't vote in the poll.

I find it shocking that people want to change the way relationships are characterized just to cater to homophobic religious zealots.

We don't call them common-law civil unions, do we?

Atheists are still married, right?

I agree with across the board civil unions regardless of gender or sprituality (or lack thereof) because that's the way domestic partnerships should ALWAYS have been conducted in a secular society. IOW I view it as righting a long-standing wrong in our laws.

I think civil unions are a bullshit cop out, and those in favor of them are trying to pander to right wingers. Civil unions are a second-class status to marriage.

All civil unions being my second choice. Not being a religious person, I still call it marriage, so I see no reason why the government shouldn't. The biggest thing is that gays and lesbians should be entitled to equal rights. I also feel very strongly that heterosexual and homosexual should be protected under the same piece of law, and given equal protection. Seperate is not equal and I worry that seperating gay and lesbian marriages from the rest in law(howeever supposedly giving equal rights) will make them an easy target to chip away at.

in complete agreement. Marriage is a socio-religious construct and has no place in the laws of a secular nation.

Civil unions for all who want it, church ceremonies for those who want that. Both for those who want it, either/or for those who want that. I like it! Mix and match! There have been churches to perform gay marriages for at least two decades, I attended one, the problem was that the state of Louisiana didn't recognize the wedding of two women. Couples, gay or straight, need to have that option of the civil union that is recognized by lawyers, insurance companies, etc. I also know straight couples where the husband and wife have to go to some difficulty to keep their affairs separate, because one party doesn't want to be responsible for the other's liabilities. If they had the option of being able to marry in their church, but not being "married" or in a union in the eyes of the law courts, this is the route they would have chosen for asset protection. (Sometimes one spouse has a business or is otherwise at high risk of being sued.) The possibilities are endless.

but to me a 'marriage' is a thing performed in a church by a religious functionary. I don't understand it becomes a legal issue. If people want the union to be legally recognized then there's an issue for the law.

So I guess I don't support 'gay marriage' if that means forcing churches to perform them, but I also don't think that's what anyone I've communicated with is suggesting. It seems to me that the issue is the use of the term 'marriage' to refer to a non-religious ceremony.

Whatever it is that we _should_ be calling a secular ceremony that unites two people in a bonded union, that thing should be allowed to any couple. The religious ceremony is another matter.

straight and gay.

from the state point of view. Legal marriage confers upon two individuals certain rights - shared property etc. - as well as regulates certain civil relations regarding those rights. As far as I can tell - that's what state marriage is. So I to deprive gay couples of marriage is to deprive them of this civil right which is wrong wrong wrong. As for marriage in the church with a preists etc. - I don't believe that the government can legislate there. If the Unitarian church wants to hold same sex marriages - great. If some other church won't - although I don't agree with them, I think it's within their right. I just think that marriage as a religious thing has become too conflated with civil/legal/state marriage.

and then if they want to go to a church they can do that sort of marry there.

There is no legitimate reason against it and every reason for it.

It has no business in it. It should all be on the basis of contract.