What's your beef? Is it really Dean or the Democratic Party?

I think the Democratic Party must support gay marriage. If it doesn't, then you can't get mad a Dean for saying what the Democratic Party's position is.

Feingold supports gay marriage, he got re-elected... even after voting against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.

Democrats have to realize that if you don't support your argument, no one else will either.

He's just doing semantic tapdancing around the word MARRIAGE.

Look at what he DOES. People need to unbunch their shorts over this one and get on with it. His support is there, much more so than the suburban party rank and file who don't like changes that don't directly benefit them. They are the ones who have a long way to go until they're willing to accept it and call it what it is. Dean very wisely took the compromise of letting the suburbanites keep the word marriage while he allowed gays in Vermont all the rights and responsibilities of the institution by calling it civil union.

What would you rather have, anyway, the rights or the word? You can always claim the word after you get the rights. Demand the word up front and you may never get the rights.

This debate needs to be reframed around the concept of civil rights we are talking about "civil union" which is a legal status as opposed to "marriage", which is a religious status.

In the United States, marriage is and always has been a civil institution. Anyone who claims otherwise is either mistaken or lying.

Marriage by a church is never regognized by the state without a license from the STATE. So churches may preform state sanctioned marriages for people - but only under the authority of the state (by the power vested in me - i.e. the power of the STATE not the church).

So no Churches do not marry people - the government does. The government doe not recognize marriage performed without a license at all, weather they are preformed in a church or not.

"marriages" performed by the STATE, correct?

A church may refuse to marry a couple - however I have never heard of a church that does not recognize the marriage of the state between any heterosexual couple. If you know of one let me know.

A church does not issue public benefits from marriage or make laws that affect the public.

On edit - all churches recognize gay marriages -each and every one of them. If I am a gay man that is legally married to a man in Massachusetts, to join the Mormon church, or any other church that disagrees with gay marriage - you know what they would make me do? Get a divorce from my husband.

which many churches do not recognize, but my point is the debate needs to be steered away from "marriage" and toward "civil union".

The bottom line is, churches can recognize whatever "traditional marriages" that they want to, but in terms of government sanctioned civil unions or if you will, equal rights under the law must be given.

I think you could eventually convince a majority of the Americans of this if you framed the debate in such a way.

Every church recognizes gay marriages, if they did not they would not make new members denounce them or get divorced before becoming members.

I edited my post shortly before you posted - maybe you missed that edit.

Why should more than 200 years of civil law and legal precedent be put aside just because some people are uncomfortable with the idea of civil marriage? That is your -- excuse me, their problem, not a problem with the debate or the eventual, inevitable outcome. Let religious minded folks come up with their own alternative to legal marriage; after all, they are the ones who are bothered by it.

Case in point: a couple has a Catholic wedding and latter divorces without getting an annulment. They both latter remarry. Legally, they have legal spouses. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, though, they are still married to each other and now living in sin.

Church ceremonies are not necessary to be legally married in ANY state.

No, churches do NOT perform marriages. They do not make marriages in the eyes of the state. They do not make marriages legal or illegal. They are purely for your private amusement, or God's, and don't concern or affect the law or your legal status.

If churches "performed" marriages A GREAT MANY GAY COUPLES WOULD BE LEGALLY MARRIED NOW WHO ARE NOT. Not only would many gay couples who've already been to church for their wedding ceremony would be legally married now, but thousands more would be streaming in to church to avail themselves of this service, thus obliging the state to recognize their married status.

For more than three years, I owned a business as a civil celebrant. The vast majority of my business was performing non-religious weddings (with the occasional funeral, baby-naming and other non-religious ceremonies.) Just so you know my credentials and knowledge of the law. :hi:

In every state I have looked at, marriage is little more than a notarial act. The couple files with the appropriate local authority (typically a county or municipality) and pays a fee to obtain the proper documentation. They take this documentation to an individual authorized to serve in a notarial capacity. In the presence of that individual and one or two other witnesses (laws vary), affirm that they wish to be married and sign the documents. The authorizing individual then takes the documents and files them with the appropriate civil authorities. Then, and only then, is there a legal marriage.

In every state, clergy are allowed by law to serve in this special notarial capacity. In every state, judges also have this capacity. In Florida and Maryland, any notary public have this capacity.

The performance of a religious ritual, or the absence of any such ritual, is irrelevant. In fact, it would be a violation of the First Amendment to require any such ritual. And the performance of a religious ritual, without following the notarial procedures and the filing of appropriate documents with proper civil authorities, does not and can not make a legal marriage.

Churches may perform weddings -- ie, religious blessings upon couples who are or are about to become married -- but they have never, ever "performed" a marriage. That power legally rests with the clergy, not any church organization, and they have that power whether or not there is a ceremony and whether or not the ceremony is religious in nature. So yes, I strongly dispute that churches have ever created legal marriages.

...for Dean, but I wish ALL the dem leadership would just be forthright when it comes to civil rights and stop trying to play both sides of the fence. I don't see any point in trying to appease the fundies on this or any other issue, frankly.

Move that ass it's in the way.

A small quote will suffice.

"How can we be viable in Utah and Mississippi and stick to our principles at the same time? I saw screw those people in Utah and Mississippi. They are freaks whose suppport I can live without."

As much as I am generally in favor of gay rights including on the marriage issue, I don't think that the above attitude helps the Democratic Party much. Dismissing the residents of entire American states as freaks whose support can be lived without is a pretty um, grimy, attitude that doesn't come off as conducive to success.

Now, Dean's being criticized for two things.

a) Misstating the Democratic Party's position with a quote drawn directly from the Defense of Marriage Act (sic) that President Clinton signed while in office.

b) Being on The 700 Club at all, misstatement or not.

The b) part is consistent with the quote I cite above. I don't think it's wise to just write off vast sections of the population for the simple reason that this is inconsistent with good politics, as opposed to ideology. This does not excuse what appears to be a mistake. It also does not excuse the Democratic Party's platform not being what gays and lesbians would prefer that it be.

But I mean, geez.

Dean's whole point was that regardless of what the fine print is about the platform, that in no way implies that the party is somehow not interested in treating gay and lesbian people without dignity and respect. In other words, Christians who believe gay marriage is wrong don't need to marry gay people themselves, but gay people should not have to suffer by their mere existence being treated as a crime. And if their existence is not a crime, society needs to be welcoming, notwithstanding that large segments of it will not be approving.

It doesn't mean that viewers of The 700 Club or members of the Democratic Party should be FORCED to support gay marriage, esp. any talk of forcing religions to acknowledge gay marriages. And it doesn't mean the Democratic Party should be PURGED of all those who do not agree with this ideology on religious grounds.

IMHO Dems should be supportive of pushing equal rights. Should gays, lesbians, transexuals and XY males with testosterone insensitivity (thus presenting as females and being thereby interested in XY x XY marriages) all be treated equally before federal law? Absolutely, yes.

Should marriage among these people and their chosen partners be permitted? I think so, but I also think that marriage rules, being one one of those matters not mentioned in the Constitution, belong at the state level.

Really, a whole series of progressive agendas can all be moved forward under the banner of equal treatment under the law which is an existing principle of the amended United States Constitution. Abortion rights, Gay rights, women's rights, immigrant rights all have in common the issue of universal equality. At the level of elected federal offices it seems appropriate and reasonably safe for Democrats to embrace that broad principle (among others) in the legislation that they promote and in the various appointments that they confirm.

It is important to remember that Democratic candidates are engaged in rhetoric with opponents invoking religious justifications to their bigotry. Religious justifications are not subject to compromise for obvious reasons; and consequently, one can't successfully argue against what another believes is the will of "Divine Authority." To succeed in gaining a majority of votes in regions that are strongly influenced by religion Democrats must structure their argument in ways that are equally universally appealing.

Equal treatment before the law _is_ universally appealing.

the churches if that's what they want to do. Any "ceremony" that does not involve a priest/minister etc, shold be called a civil union, IMHO.

Conservatives put a gay marriage ban on the ballot in Illinois. While the Democrats will try to keep this quiet.

Result: bigots are encouraged to vote while the rest of us are ignored.

Since Illinois is currently under Democratic control I see one of two solutions. First, sell out gays and pass legislation move ballot initiatives to a separate vote from that for elected officials. Tell the bigots they have to go to the voting booth twice if they want to register their hatred of gays AND vote Republican.

Second option would be to fight this. In fact, the gay community themselves might as well put a ballot initiative out there calling for the exact opposite: legalization of gay marriage. Democrats can't complain. The bigots have already put the issue on the ballot. I can just see the enough voters getting confused so that you have BOTH initiatives pass!

Though I must admit, I would get a devious kick out of the first option.

Too bad we have the dominant influence of the DLC telling us we shoudl give up the good fight on so many issues.

And Dem bashing helps letting the GOP stay in power.

I am resolute in refusing to refer to something as "gay marriage"; I refer to marriage as "marriage" and I believe that we have to frame the debate as one for marriage equity, not for same sex (what others call "gay") marriage. If we refer to it as marriage equity, the idea--that marriage is equal and not divisible between heterosexuals and LGBT people--is part of the terminology itself. If fundies can do this with "partial birth abortion," which is far more unwieldy, why can't we?

Secondly: the OP says that the Chair said what the Democratic Party's position on marriage equity is. That is not true, as he himself admitted yesterday in his clarification. In fact, the Democratic Party platform is mute on the subject of marriage equity except to say that it is up to the states to decide and that the Party opposes a federal amendment against it. In MA, for example, the state has decided to honor the idea of marriage equity while other states have not yet followed suit. Does that mean it is accurate to say that the Party opposes equity in marriage? No--it means that it respects MA's decision to provide it.