Liberals -- Social and/or Fiscal -- Let's try this again

[Daisy]

I'm not a liberal but I very much agree with this...

 

Also, I think I am heading more towards the view that civil unions and marriages should be considered two separate and distinct things, though I'm still trying to work this all out. In my faith, marriage is a Holy Sacrament. As with all of the other Sacraments, the Church decides who receives it and who does not. And I want it to stay that way. But a civil union is a whole different ball game. How did the two become so muddled? It seems to me that if you want a legally recognized union you should go to a civil authority, and if you want a church-sanctioned marriage you should go to a church, and if you want both you should do both. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this too.

[tofuscramble]

Hello from deep in the heart of Liberalism. :D

 

I wish I could remember everything that was written in the last thread so I could just put "I agree" again but here goes my attempt to remember everything.

 

I believe in freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. I don't think a specific religions ideas should be made into laws.

 

I believe in equality regardless of race, religion, gender, orientation, etc. I think marriage is a civil/legal status, not a religious one and therefore should not be limited based on one religions ideas.

 

I believe everyone should have access to healthcare without having to worry about losing their home to pay for it.

 

I think that the idea of helping those less fortunate through private charities is a quaint idea but highly unrealistic and likely to be unfair. Most private charities are having a hard time keeping up with the need now, even with government assistance. What makes us think they'd be able to keep up without government assistance? In addition, too many private charities put conditions on their assistance - beneficiaries must be living their idea of a moral life. We've seen examples of this described on these boards. So only those who are considered worthy will receive assistance?

 

I am pro-choice. I don't feel that it is my place to make such a life-altering choice for another person when it is not possible to know everything about their circumstances. I am in favor of complete sex education and access to birth control so that hopefully fewer women are put in the position of having to face such a decision.

 

This! All of it.

[nmoira]

Also, I think I am heading more towards the view that civil unions and marriages should be considered two separate and distinct things, though I'm still trying to work this all out. In my faith, marriage is a Holy Sacrament. As with all of the other Sacraments, the Church decides who receives it and who does not. And I want it to stay that way. But a civil union is a whole different ball game. How did the two become so muddled? It seems to me that if you want a legally recognized union you should go to a civil authority, and if you want a church-sanctioned marriage you should go to a church, and if you want both you should do both. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this too.

I used to think this was a reasonable solution, but I no longer think it's workable. The term "married" doesn't mean much to me personally -- what changed my mind was talking with many others to whom it matters profoundly. Marriage, like it or not, is the cultural gold standard label wrt relationships in the US. I'm not comfortable saying to entire groups of people they cannot be married, especially when the primary reasoning is that the label makes some people feel uncomfortable. Your church (or any church) needn't accept my marriage or be compelled to perform it (I'm atheist), but that doesn't give it ownership rights to the term "married."

[Amy loves Bud]

Also, I think I am heading more towards the view that civil unions and marriages should be considered two separate and distinct things, though I'm still trying to work this all out. In my faith, marriage is a Holy Sacrament. As with all of the other Sacraments, the Church decides who receives it and who does not. And I want it to stay that way. But a civil union is a whole different ball game. How did the two become so muddled? It seems to me that if you want a legally recognized union you should go to a civil authority, and if you want a church-sanctioned marriage you should go to a church, and if you want both you should do both. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this too.

 

I agree with this. A marriage in my mind is a spiritual thing. Whether it falls under the authority of a church or synagogue or other religious entity, or if it is a lifelong commitment between two people who do not participate in any religious tradition, the government really should have no stake or say in it.

 

A civil union should be an arrangement made for legal purposes.

 

The way I see it, I'm married to Bud because I made vows to him and to God saying so. If we found out tomorrow that our marriage license issued by the state was invalid, I would be no less married to him in my or God's eyes. We may not have the same legal status, but we're still married and nothing can change that.

[kokotg]

I used to think this was a reasonable solution, but I no longer think it's workable. The term "married" doesn't mean much to me personally -- what changed my mind was talking with many others to whom it matters profoundly. Marriage, like it or not, is the cultural gold standard label wrt relationships in the US. I'm not comfortable saying to entire groups of people they cannot be married, especially when the primary reasoning is that the label makes some people feel uncomfortable. Your church (or any church) needn't accept my marriage or be compelled to perform it (I'm atheist), but that doesn't give it ownership rights to the term "married."

 

But I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) she's saying straight people would get married and gay people would do the same thing but have a different word. Just that the govt would get completely out of the marriage granting business altogether. Everyone, gay or straight, gets a "civil union" or whatever that grants all the legal rights of "marriage." If you then want a church blessing on your union, you also have a church ceremony. This would obviously require finding a church that DOES bless your union, but that shouldn't be an issue for anyone, again, gay or straight, who wants a church marriage. Gay people get married in churches now.

[Ester Maria]

I do not, however, quite get the "freedom from religion" thing. I actually have only ever heard this phrase used to clarify the fact that freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also don't think the phrase "freedom from religion" appears in any of our founding legal documents the way "freedom of religion" does. For example, government schools cannot promote prayer before the school day or before a school sponsored event like a football game, but nor do they have the right to stop an individual student from praying just because it makes someone else uncomfortable. I don't actually think we have a freedom from religion. I firmly believe people have a right to choose a religion or no religion at all, but they have to live with the fact that others may choose differently and that there are religious institutions established that have a right to exist.

[...]

It seems to connote (whether that's what is meant or not) that one has a right to not see any markers of religion in public life, which I don't agree is the case.

Usually we speak of freedom from religion in the context of church and state separation. On a somewhat broader level (although, as some view it, it's not a broder level but a direct implication) that leads to separation of official (not to confuse with public!) and religious. Religion has no place in official contexts of a secular country: it means not only the secular law cannot claim an authority of a holy text or be based on its prescriptions, but also that religious symbolism has no place in courts (many European countries even today have crosses on the walls, many countries swear by a holy book, etc. - those are some of the problematic instances). It means that religion cannot be taught (or cannot be taught as an obligatory subject and during the regular daily course of study - opinions differ) in public schools and that no religious symbolism may be present (again, go to Italy and you will find crosses all over the classrooms). Same with (public) hospitals. The exceptions are the cases in which religious symbolism is an integral part of the building architecture, but those are rare cases we may freely neglect for the purpose of this thread. It also means that one cannot enter a public school and handle religious materials, even if it's "only offered, not forced". Such details. A few exceptions are usually tolerated (religious symbolism that's a result of a long tradition - in coats of arms, even athems, etc.), BUT, the main idea is that religious symbolism is reduced to the minimum and that religion has no entrance in the government and otherwise official contexts. A state needs to make a clear, unambiguous cut with regards to that.

 

Religion in public, but not official contexts - such as on your random street, or religious symbolism on people - is a different question, and there are many conflicting opinions about where's the line. Usually, one might say that a modest visible religious symbolism on individuals is not a problem even when they represent official contexts (a nurse in a public hospital with a rosary bracelet, or a cross, etc.), others claim that it's out of workplaces (unseen religious symbolism is always okay), and the most extreme ones claim that excessive or fully covering religious symbolism should not be allowed even in the streets. I'm quite basic here, though I do believe it's a question of etiquette not to wear attention-drawing religious symbolism on a workplace if you represent the secular authorities and official structures.

 

I'm also against any kind of sponsored prayer time in schools. The individual prayer is, again, a matter of etiquette in my opinion - not something to forbid, but something preferrably not done at all (inappropriate place), particularly in an attention-drawing way. Same can be said of proselytising - America really lacks etiquette in this aspect, but I don't think it should be illegal to preach in public (NOT official) places.

 

It's not about markers of religion in public life as much as about in official life, kwim? About public life, most of us would just want the basic etiquette respected, but wouldn't actually ban things, and that's all. Hope it helps. :)

[Greta]

But I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) she's saying straight people would get married and gay people would do the same thing but have a different word.

 

Right. I'm sorry for the confusion, Moira and everyone else. I worded this poorly. I'm going to edit.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

But I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) she's saying straight people would get married and gay people would do the same thing but have a different word. Just that the govt would get completely out of the marriage granting business altogether. Everyone, gay or straight, gets a "civil union" or whatever that grants all the legal rights of "marriage." If you then want a church blessing on your union, you also have a church ceremony. This would obviously require finding a church that DOES bless your union, but that shouldn't be an issue for anyone, again, gay or straight, who wants a church marriage. Gay people get married in churches now.

 

This is a great solution, I think, because it spreads equality for every union. Legal unions for everyone sanctioned by the government for legal matters; marriage only in your establishment of faith, whatever that may be. This is how it is done in Germany. Not sure about the rest of Europe.

[nmoira]

But I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) she's saying straight people would get married and gay people would do the same thing but have a different word.

True... that's why I used myself, an atheist, as the example. [And I cannot emphasize too strongly that the marriage label means little to me personally.]

 

Just that the govt would get completely out of the marriage granting business altogether.

But then the state of being married could be granted by churches only. My point is that the "married" label itself has cultural significance far beyond that of any church. FWIW, its historical usage is not exclusive to church contexts.

[GWOB]

:seeya: from a very isolated-feeling, almost-bleeding-heart, Jesus-loving liberal here. Honestly, I think Jesus wouls be a modern-day democrat. Jesus loved people. He hung out with prostitutes, social rejects, and other "undesirables." He told me to love others, and I try to do that, though I fail miserably every stinking day. I don't give one good flying if homosexuals marry. I have known gay (specifically lesbian) couples who have adopted "less than desirable" kids and have given them amazing homes. How can I, a hopeless sinner, deny them their right to happiness? I completely reject discrimination on all fronts. God created ALL of us equally. Period. End of discussion for me.

 

I completely, 100% support universal healthcare. I think God wants all of his creations (that took a really long time to create) to be healthy and happy.

 

War sucks. Take it from a former military spouse. Purposeful, ADULT dialogue works pretty darn well if you ask me. Guns suck, mostly, unless you live out in the country like me and meed a decent riflr to protect your chickens and livestock from predators. I like my free-ish eggs.

 

The death penalty is just downright wrong. No one should play GOd. If we cannot kill babies, we shouldn't kill anyone. And yep, I know what I am talking about. I have a degree in Criminal Justice.

 

Equal opportunity for ALL citizens. Seriously, stop hating on the Mexicans. Yes, they aren't citizens, but they provide those cheep serives white people just will not provide. They aren't raping your women. Get the bleep over it. America sucks because of the old, cranky white men in charge, not the Mexicans. And your "They don't talk no English" argument? Diagram that sentence, or ask a homeschool kid to do so. You apparently "Don't talk no English" as well;).

 

Christians scare me, and I totally identify as a Christian. Jesus would hate the hateful, conspiricy (read "self-centered") theory loving republicans. Jesus' greatest commandment was to love one another, not be hating on all the non-white, non-heteros. Newsflash! Jesus was an Arabic-looking Jew, not a whitey.

 

Coorporations (or however you spell them) are downright evil in my opinion. Yay for socialism. Capitalism kinda sucks.

 

Welfare, WIC, and other similar programs are awesome. We were once on WIC when my hubby was active duty. Isn't it sad that our gov't spends soooooooo much money on military expenditures, yet their soldiers/sailors qualify for gov't assistance?

 

I love the environment. "Drill baby drill" is foul language in this house. Now, I may not qualify as an environmentalist as my hubby works in nuclear power, but hey! We make a febile attempt to reduce our carbon footprint. And yep, I cannot spell.

 

Abortion- Mixed feelings. Again, I believe all live is sacred. However, if we want to reduce the amount of abortions, we seriously need to provide a) universal healthcare and b) afforable, QUALITY childcare. End of discussion for me.

 

I think that is it for me.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Moderator
Removed personal attack on another poster.

[kokotg]

 

But then the state of being married could be granted by churches only. My point is that the "married" label itself has cultural significance far beyond that of any church. FWIW, its historical usage is not exclusive to church contexts.

 

Well, or you could get married by your friend Bob in a private ceremony in your backyard...I shouldn't have said "church"; I guess what I meant was that the word marriage would be yours to claim or not, and to claim however you wanted, in whatever sort of ceremony or lack thereof you chose. It would just no longer be a word with a legal definition. To be clear, I have no objections whatsoever to the government granting marriages to same sex couples; quite the opposite. But I also don't have any objection to making marriage a personal/spiritual/cultural term and having a separate term for a government-recognized arrangement in which two people form a partnership with certain tax implications and legal protections.

[Amy loves Bud]

 

Equal opportunity for ALL citizens. Seriously, stop hating on the Mexicans. Yes, they aren't citizens, but they provide those cheep serives white people just will not provide. They aren't raping your women. Get the bleep over it. America sucks because of the old, cranky white men in charge, not the Mexicans. And your "They don't talk no English" argument? Diagram that sentence, or ask a homeschool kid to do so. You apparently "Don't talk no English" as well;).

 

.

 

This is why this country is in trouble. Not because we have such a wide variety of opposing viewpoints, but because people on BOTH ends of the spectrum choose to paint the other side as ignorant, uneducated and uncaring.

 

And, FWIW, I am pretty much a throw open the borders girl, so it's not that I disagree with your thoughts on immigrants. It's just the delivery.

[Amy loves Bud]

Well, or you could get married by your friend Bob in a private ceremony in your backyard...I shouldn't have said "church"; I guess what I meant was that the word marriage would be yours to claim or not, and to claim however you wanted, in whatever sort of ceremony or lack thereof you chose. It would just no longer be a word with a legal definition. To be clear, I have no objections whatsoever to the government granting marriages to same sex couples; quite the opposite. But I also don't have any objection to making marriage a personal/spiritual/cultural term and having a separate term for a government-recognized arrangement in which two people form a partnership with certain tax implications and legal protections.

 

Yes, I agree.

[Amy loves Bud]

I'm posting in two threads, because I fall more fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. Mostly. Heh.

 

I'm finding this thread very interesting and helpful because it's fun to see the differences *within* these broad labels.

[ChristyH463]

I'm a bleeding heart liberal Christian in Texas (and not in Austin). So yeah, I don't say that out loud too often. LOL. I would put a "Jesus was a Socialist" bumper sticker on my car, if I thought my tea-partying mother would ever go anywhere with me again. And if I weren't afraid my car would be keyed, or something else terrible would happen to it.

[Greta]

Wendilou, I enjoyed your post so much. Personally, though, I'm just going to gently urge caution on the "Jesus would be a democrat" thing. When people become convinced that God is on their side and would be against those people it can lead to a whole lotta trouble. I've had people tell me that if the word "Christian" isn't preceeded by the word "Conservative" than it isn't genuine. I know how deeply that offends me, so I don't want to do the opposite, which is really the same. KWIM? Not trying to get on your case about it at all! I genuinely hope I have not offended. But I felt compelled to mention it having been in situations where the shoe was on the other foot.

 

But we agree on many of these issues. Thanks for bringing up capital punishment. That one doesn't get mentioned much, but I really feel that it is nothing more than organized revenge killing.

 

And with regards to your hubby's job - I know that nuclear power is very scary to most people, but I was under the impression that it is actually a clean and efficient energy source. So hold your environmentally-friendly head high! :D

[kokotg]

Wendilou, I enjoyed your post so much. Personally, though, I'm just going to gently urge caution on the "Jesus would be a democrat" thing. When people become convinced that God is on their side and would be against those people it can lead to a whole lotta trouble. I've had people tell me that if the word "Christian" isn't preceeded by the word "Conservative" than it isn't genuine. I know how deeply that offends me, so I don't want to do the opposite, which is really the same. KWIM?

 

Sojourners magazine sells a bumper sticker that says, "God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat." I want it, but I don't want to have the conversations about it (or at least not all the time). I can't quite commit to a bumper sticker.

[GWOB]

Sojourners magazine sells a bumper sticker that says, "God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat." I want it, but I don't want to have the conversations about it (or at least not all the time). I can't quite commit to a bumper sticker.

 

Yep. :iagree: I know I said "Jesus would be a democrat," but I am not 100% sure. Jesus lived 2000 years ago. Who is to say with certainty what Jesus would be now? Surely not me. I fall soooooooooo short of what Jesus asks me to be. Now, my personal flavor of Jesus would be a democrat, but others have different flavors of Jesus they like. It's all the same Jesus to me!;) All I know is that my personal Jesus=Love. I just try to love everyone. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Witches, Pagans, Buddists, Hinduhs,, or any other religions (even Atheists, God forbide! lol). Again, my personal Jesus=Love. Period. That is why I consider myself Liberal-ish. (Emphasis on the ish.)

[Greta]

Sojourners magazine sells a bumper sticker that says, "God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat." I want it, but I don't want to have the conversations about it (or at least not all the time). I can't quite commit to a bumper sticker.

 

I like that! :001_smile: I know what you mean though - I don't do political bumperstickers any more. My dh works on an Air Force base (though he's not military) and he got hell from the guards at the gate once for a liberal bumpersticker we had. Jerks. But jerks who could decide to search his car every day, or that something about his badge doesn't look quite right, etc. So we took it off because it didn't seem worth the potential hassle. :sad: Now, that one you'd THINK would be neutral/bipartisan enough to generate *good* feelings in others. But you never know!

[Greta]

All I know is that my personal Jesus=Love. I just try to love everyone. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Witches, Pagans, Buddists, Hinduhs,, or any other religions (even Atheists, God forbide! lol). Again, my personal Jesus=Love. Period. That is why I consider myself Liberal-ish. (Emphasis on the ish.)

 

Amen! :grouphug:

[GWOB]

:iagree: I'm enjoying this thread and I don't want to see it closed because of trolls. Debate can be interesting but sometimes it is just nice to find people who see things the way you see them.

 

You may be on the conservative end of the spectrum. I'm cool with that. I learn so much from people with differing opinions. You are particularly respectful. Keep it up! You don't have to be Liberal-ish for me to like you! Just respectful. Others, as mentioned before, are not respectful of differing opinions. I, as a homeschool parent, cannot respect that. I want my kids to be free-thinkers. Ad hominem attacks are useless to us. I teach my kids to look out for that. Rest assured you personally are respected, at least by me.

[happygrrl]

Hi Y'all!

[nmoira]

 

Well, or you could get married by your friend Bob in a private ceremony in your backyard...I shouldn't have said "church"; I guess what I meant was that the word marriage would be yours to claim or not, and to claim however you wanted, in whatever sort of ceremony or lack thereof you chose. It would just no longer be a word with a legal definition.

I have no problem with this. :001_smile:

[hana]

Liberal here, especially on social issues.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

All I know is that my personal Jesus=Love. I just try to love everyone. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Witches, Pagans, Buddists, Hinduhs,, or any other religions (even Atheists, God forbid! lol). Again, my personal Jesus=Love. Period. That is why I consider myself Liberal-ish. (Emphasis on the ish.)

 

I couldn't have described myself better. This is me! :D

[Jumping In Puddles]

You may be on the conservative end of the spectrum. I'm cool with that. I learn so much from people with differing opinions. You are particularly respectful. Keep it up! You don't have to be Liberal-ish for me to like you! Just respectful. Others, as mentioned before, are not respectful of differing opinions. I, as a homeschool parent, cannot respect that. I want my kids to be free-thinkers. Ad hominem attacks are useless to us. I teach my kids to look out for that. Rest assured you personally are respected, at least by me.

 

:grouphug: Thank you! But I can assure you that I am NOT on the conservative end of the spectrum ;) (not that there is anything wrong with that! :D:D:D)

[mo2]

Here!

[GWOB]

:grouphug: Thank you! But I can assure you that I am NOT on the conservative end of the spectrum ;) (not that there is anything wrong with that! :D:D:D)

 

Ok, I must have confused you and Jumpedintothedeepend (or whatever it is). I think she wrote on the other thread or something. I will now refer to you as the nice-hiney-avatar lady:D.

[Jumping In Puddles]

Ok, I must have confused you and Jumpedintothedeepend (or whatever it is). I think she wrote on the other thread or something. I will now refer to you as the nice-hiney-avatar lady:D.

 

Fine with me! :lol:

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Ok, I must have confused you and Jumpedintothedeepend (or whatever it is). I think she wrote on the other thread or something. I will now refer to you as the nice-hiney-avatar lady:D.

 

As I haven't come forward in either thread stating what my politics are I can't imagine how I have offended you.

[Leav97]

I used to think this was a reasonable solution, but I no longer think it's workable. The term "married" doesn't mean much to me personally -- what changed my mind was talking with many others to whom it matters profoundly. Marriage, like it or not, is the cultural gold standard label wrt relationships in the US. I'm not comfortable saying to entire groups of people they cannot be married, especially when the primary reasoning is that the label makes some people feel uncomfortable. Your church (or any church) needn't accept my marriage or be compelled to perform it (I'm atheist), but that doesn't give it ownership rights to the term "married."

 

I'm only for this solution is everyone is required to obtain a civil union for the legal rights and then seek out a church for a marriage if they desire. I think only having civil unions for gay marriages would create a "second class" marriage.

[Greta]

I'm only for this solution is everyone is required to obtain a civil union for the legal rights and then seek out a church for a marriage if they desire. I think only having civil unions for gay marriages would create a "second class" marriage.

 

Yep, this is exactly what I was thinking. Some couples, gay or straight, might not care about the legal side of it, others might not care about the religious side of it. But those who wanted both would have to get both because they would be two separate things.

[Greta]

I'm finding this thread very interesting and helpful because it's fun to see the differences *within* these broad labels.

 

That is interesting. I've enjoyed this thread, and now you've piqued my curiosity about the conservative thread. :001_smile:

[lauranc]

Chiming in to say 'hello' from a fellow liberal. Married to a European socialist-- :D

Edited August 11, 2010 by lauranc
rewording

[Wheres Toto]

Yep, this is exactly what I was thinking. Some couples, gay or straight, might not care about the legal side of it, others might not care about the religious side of it. But those who wanted both would have to get both because they would be two separate things.

 

So, if all you wanted is a church wedding, you would not get any of the federal or state legal marriage benefits? Only a civil union would provide the civil benefits? Interesting.

[nmoira]

 

So, if all you wanted is a church wedding, you would not get any of the federal or state legal marriage benefits? Only a civil union would provide the civil benefits? Interesting.

I am strongly opposed to the idea churches should own "marriage," but the idea of its being a self-identified state is intriguing... and really, if there's no legal component, anyone could indeed say they were married. However, this is polar opposite of what most advocates for "traditional" marriage want, and I've got to wonder what is the point? Who is this meant to placate, should we placate them, and could it ever work? I'd be very surprised if individuals and groups that are against gay marriage (or re-marriage, or whatever) would not then take umbrage at gay marriages done even with a church's blessing. How are we ahead? And would the majority of those with civil unions call themselves something other than married? I doubt it. Edited August 11, 2010 by nmoira
puctuation

[Audrey]

I am strongly opposed to the idea churches should own "marriage,"

 

:iagree: I dislike this term of "civil union" as a whole. That term is being used to marginalize non-hetero and non-religious couples, and I think it should be abandoned. Clergy who perform marriages are already sanctioned by the state to preside over the legally binding contract of marriage. If you get married in the County Courthouse, that is the same legally binding contract and it is a marriage just the same as the clergy-presided marriage. Separating the terms just to make certain people feel more "comfortable" is an egregious ploy cloaked in the guise of "compromise."

 

I see no reason why marriages cannot continue just the same way they are now (where both clergy-presided and state-presided marriages are available), but allow same-sex couples the same ability to marry as any other couples.

 

Religious people who claim their churches would "be forced" to perform same-sex marriages are fishing with a huge red herring. Churches right now can turn down ANYONE for marriage. No clergy person is obligated to perform marriage services unless they want to do so, and I would never suggest that change.

 

Simply give same-sex couples the same marriage options as others.

[Amy loves Bud]

Separating the terms just to make certain people feel more "comfortable" is an egregious ploy cloaked in the guise of "compromise."

 

.

 

I'm sure that it is for some, but for me, I just don't understand why a state should have any say at all over personal relationship matters. Doesn't it seem odd that we have to get "license" from the state to get married? And that the state is dictating whether or not two consenting individuals can or cannot marry?

 

The legal union is basically so Joe can let Sam be in charge of his matters as "next of kin" status, benefits, etc. And in my mind it is a lesser term. And, btw, I would not limit it to "romantic" relationships. If two elderly sisters want to have a legal union to protect and provide for eachother in their old age, and protect eachother from greedy children, I'd be all on board with that.

 

The marriage term would carry with it the weight of the beliefs of the people involved. And anyone who wants to get married, provided they are consenting adults, would have the ability to do so - within a faith, a community of likeminded folks, or on their own on the top of a mountain. I would honor that marriage as a marriage.

 

ETA: In the meantime, since the state is determining who can and cannot get married, I'll continue to throw my support behind any and all consenting adults who so choose.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Amy loves Bud

[Mejane]

Honestly, I think Jesus wouls be a modern-day democrat. Jesus loved people. He hung out with prostitutes, social rejects, and other "undesirables." He told me to love others, and I try to do that, though I fail miserably every stinking day.

 

 

I think Jesus was very much a liberal. It's funny (to me) that so many christians are conservative.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Mejane

[Mejane]

I dislike this term of "civil union" as a whole. That term is being used to marginalize non-hetero and non-religious couples, and I think it should be abandoned.

 

:iagree:

[HRAAB]

I am strongly opposed to the idea churches should own "marriage," but the idea of its being a self-identified state is intriguing... and really, if there's no legal component, anyone could indeed say they were married. However, this is polar opposite of what most advocates for "traditional" marriage want, and I've got to wonder what is the point? Who is this meant to placate, should we placate them, and could it ever work? I'd be very surprised if individuals and groups that are against gay marriage (or re-marriage, or whatever) would not then take umbrage at gay marriages done even with a church's blessing. How are we ahead? And would the majority of those with civil unions call themselves something other than married? I doubt it.

 

:iagree: I dislike this term of "civil union" as a whole. That term is being used to marginalize non-hetero and non-religious couples, and I think it should be abandoned. Clergy who perform marriages are already sanctioned by the state to preside over the legally binding contract of marriage. If you get married in the County Courthouse, that is the same legally binding contract and it is a marriage just the same as the clergy-presided marriage. Separating the terms just to make certain people feel more "comfortable" is an egregious ploy cloaked in the guise of "compromise."

 

I see no reason why marriages cannot continue just the same way they are now (where both clergy-presided and state-presided marriages are available), but allow same-sex couples the same ability to marry as any other couples.

 

Religious people who claim their churches would "be forced" to perform same-sex marriages are fishing with a huge red herring. Churches right now can turn down ANYONE for marriage. No clergy person is obligated to perform marriage services unless they want to do so, and I would never suggest that change.

 

Simply give same-sex couples the same marriage options as others.

 

After reading nmoira's and Audrey's comments, I'm looking at this (gay marriage) differently. I think in my mind I was trying to keep peace all around: with the Christians who believe marriage was instituted by God and with gays who want the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Civil union seemed like a 'neutral' term, but why wouldn't same sex couples want a 'marriage' just like I did? Anyway, I do support same-sex marriage, but I'm thinking now using the term 'civil union' is still causing division and saying gays don't deserve marriage. That wasn't my intent.

 

Reading this board can be challenging - in a good way.

[Jenny in Atl]

It's always interesting to see the struggle between the contract side ($$ used to change hands in a marriage) and the love/social side... a rather new idea in the west. I like to say, my better half and I jumped the broom long before we got married. ;)

[Guest Cindie2dds]

I dislike this term of "civil union" as a whole. That term is being used to marginalize non-hetero and non-religious couples, and I think it should be abandoned. Clergy who perform marriages are already sanctioned by the state to preside over the legally binding contract of marriage. If you get married in the County Courthouse, that is the same legally binding contract and it is a marriage just the same as the clergy-presided marriage. Separating the terms just to make certain people feel more "comfortable" is an egregious ploy cloaked in the guise of "compromise."

 

I see no reason why marriages cannot continue just the same way they are now (where both clergy-presided and state-presided marriages are available), but allow same-sex couples the same ability to marry as any other couples.

 

Religious people who claim their churches would "be forced" to perform same-sex marriages are fishing with a huge red herring. Churches right now can turn down ANYONE for marriage. No clergy person is obligated to perform marriage services unless they want to do so, and I would never suggest that change.

 

Simply give same-sex couples the same marriage options as others.

 

In a perfect world, Audrey, this is a great solution, and I agree with you. Unfortunately, at this time in the United States, it would be very unlikely to get the majority of the country to vote for everyone to get "married." It's the word "marriage" that strikes such a huge chord with people.

 

I'm sure that it is for some, but for me, I just don't understand why a state should have any say at all over personal relationship matters. Doesn't it seem odd that we have to get "license" from the state to get married? And that the state is dictating whether or not two consenting individuals can or cannot marry?

 

The legal union is basically so Joe can let Sam be in charge of his matters as "next of kin" status, benefits, etc. And in my mind it is a lesser term. And, btw, I would not limit it to "romantic" relationships. If two elderly sisters want to have a legal union to protect and provide for eachother in their old age, and protect eachother from greedy children, I'd be all on board with that.

 

The marriage term would carry with it the weight of the beliefs of the people involved. And anyone who wants to get married, provided they are consenting adults, would have the ability to do so - within a faith, a community of likeminded folks, or on their own on the top of a mountain. I would honor that marriage as a marriage.

 

ETA: In the meantime, since the state is determining who can and cannot get married, I'll continue to throw my support behind any and all consenting adults who so choose.

 

:iagree: If it were a broad term that everyone (heteros included) had to go to the local government to get a civil union certificate for legal reasons (like in Germany) then if you so choose, you get "married" (or whatever your faith calls it) in your establishment of belief only for fulfilling of faith purposes, not legally binding ones.

[HRAAB]

I think Jesus was very much a liberal. It's funny (to me) that so many christians are conservative.

 

I was raised in the Catholic Church and went to Catholic school, and definitely most of the families I knew were democrat. It was an eye opening experience when I started homeschooling and meeting people who operated on the idea that being Christian was synonymous with conservative Republican. Then again many of them might not even consider Catholics to be Christian. :banghead:

[kokotg]

I was raised in the Catholic Church and went to Catholic school, and definitely most of the families I knew were democrat. It was an eye opening experience when I started homeschooling and meeting people who operated on the idea that being Christian was synonymous with conservative Republican. Then again many of them might not even consider Catholics to be Christian. :banghead:

 

It's a fairly recent thing, this association of political party with degree of religious observance. Remember that until a few decades ago (until Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and Republicans took advantage of it via the Southern Strategy) Republicans were pretty much unheard of in the South. Certainly Roman Catholics historically vote Democratic and still do in much of the country. I lived in a working class Irish Catholic neighborhood of Dorchester, in Boston for a few years that was full of people who were very religious and relatively socially conservative but who would never dream of voting for a Republican. It's fascinating the way politics have evolved over the past half century, and the way the parties have battled over the claim to the populist mentality.

[Audrey]

In a perfect world, Audrey, this is a great solution, and I agree with you. Unfortunately, at this time in the United States, it would be very unlikely to get the majority of the country to vote for everyone to get "married." It's the word "marriage" that strikes such a huge chord with people.

 

.

 

 

But, that's exactly what nmoira and I both have stated as objectionable. The church, or religious people, cannot and should not be allowed to claim ownership of the term "marriage," which is a legally defined relationship. No church and no religion should be able to control the legal sphere.

[nmoira]

 

But, that's exactly what nmoira and I both have stated as objectionable. The church, or religious people, cannot and should not be allowed to claim ownership of the term "marriage," which is a legally defined relationship. No church and no religion should be able to control the legal sphere.

And "marriage" has a cultural significance with respect to the status of a relationship far above and beyond its legal significance.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

I agree and am not communicating clearly, sorry. I don't think marriage should have any legal status at all; that's a faith status. The government shouldn't issue marriage certificates at all. I would be very willing to have a civil union for myself recognized by the state and not be legally "married."

 

Semantics, I know, but I don't think the US would unanimously vote for a legal marriage. With civil unions for everyone, marriage would be a moot point.

[kokotg]

In a perfect world, Audrey, this is a great solution, and I agree with you. Unfortunately, at this time in the United States, it would be very unlikely to get the majority of the country to vote for everyone to get "married." It's the word "marriage" that strikes such a huge chord with people.

 

 

 

Huh. CNN, in timely fashion, has just released a poll that shows, for the first time, majority support for gay marriage:

 

37A. Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their

marriage recognized by law as valid? (ASKED OF HALF SAMPLE. RESULTS BASED ON 496

INTERVIEWS IN VERSION B -- SAMPLING ERROR: +/-4.5 PERCENTAGE POINTS.)

Aug. 6-10

2010

Yes 52%

No 46%

No opinion 2%

 

Interesting!

[Guest Cindie2dds]

And "marriage" has a cultural significance with respect to the status of a relationship far above and beyond its legal significance.

 

Okay. That I get. Good point, ladies. I really didn't think about the cultural significance.