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

[Guest Cindie2dds]

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

 

 

 

Interesting!

 

I don't think that's a true representation. If you did a poll in Texas, it would be very different from California. States decide since it hasn't been added as an Ammendment to the Constitution. How many states have ratified same sex marriage?

[kokotg]

I don't think that's a true representation. If you did a poll in Texas, it would be very different from California. States decide since it hasn't been added as an Ammendment to the Constitution. How many states have ratified same sex marriage?

 

Right, of course...but this is the first big poll to show a majority in favor of gay marriage. Until very recently, social conservatives could argue correctly that most of the country was not in favor of gay marriage (civil unions have enjoyed majority support for quite awhile now). That argument no longer holds up. I wasn't really arguing with you about anything....I just happened across it and thought it was relevant to the whole civil union/marriage semantics discussion we had going on here.

[Wheres Toto]

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?

.

 

In order to provide benefits to married couples the state has to have some way of confirming that marriage. I don't see the government (or businesses) deciding to provide benefits to anyone who walks in and says they're married without any proof. There's also the need for proof in cases of divorce - without official documentation how do you know how to split the assets and debts? I'd say for child support too but now a days, marriage is not necessary to establish responsibility to support children (one of the original reasons for marriage as a legal institution). I suppose the state could get out of the marriage business completely and no longer provide any benefits to couples that are not provided to singles.

 

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.

:iagree:

[spradlin02]

Montana boasts common law marriage, no license needed. And anyone can marry a couple, it doesn't have to be a licensed official.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

Right, of course...but this is the first big poll to show a majority in favor of gay marriage. Until very recently, social conservatives could argue correctly that most of the country was not in favor of gay marriage (civil unions have enjoyed majority support for quite awhile now). That argument no longer holds up. I wasn't really arguing with you about anything....I just happened across it and thought it was relevant to the whole civil union/marriage semantics discussion we had going on here.

 

Good point. :D

[Amy loves Bud]

In order to provide benefits to married couples the state has to have some way of confirming that marriage. I don't see the government (or businesses) deciding to provide benefits to anyone who walks in and says they're married without any proof. There's also the need for proof in cases of divorce - without official documentation how do you know how to split the assets and debts? I'd say for child support too but now a days, marriage is not necessary to establish responsibility to support children (one of the original reasons for marriage as a legal institution). I suppose the state could get out of the marriage business completely and no longer provide any benefits to couples that are not provided to singles.

 

 

 

 

I addressed this when I said:

 

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.

 

A marriage would get you no benefits (or protections in case of divorce). A legal or civil union would.

 

That is in my little world it would. Because it's never gonna happen in the real world! :lol:

[Greta]

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 don't know that it would placate anyone but me. :D I simply think it would be more logical than the current arrangement.

[catz]

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.

 

Wow - I totally agree with this. I've had this discussion many times. Thanks for typing it up! :001_smile:

[easygoer]

I also don't like the civil union compromise. For the reasons many people are saying. No religion own the word 'marriage' anymore than one owns the words 'worship' 'congregation' 'resurrection' ad infinitem...these words do have very specific, special meanings within some religions but that certainly doesn't mean that I can't use them in other contexts with other meanings.

 

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.

 

May be, but it shouldn't (and IMHO won't) be put to a majority vote.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

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.

 

I know, they shouldn't, but my point is they do.

 

So.... do we wait around until the very conservative finally agree to share the term "marriage" and stop fighting over it, or do we try to get benefits for all now in the form of a civil union?

 

Most of my colleagues would prefer to have some sort of legal benefit now so that their life partner can be the beneficiary to all they hold dear. As it stands, only certain companies recognize domestic partners. It's a sad question to even have to pose, but such it is.

[Audrey]

I know, they shouldn't, but my point is they do.

 

So.... do we wait around until the very conservative finally agree to share the term "marriage" and stop fighting over it, or do we try to get benefits for all now in the form of a civil union?

 

Most of my colleagues would prefer to have some sort of legal benefit now so that their life partner can be the beneficiary to all they hold dear. As it stands, only certain companies recognize domestic partners. It's a sad question to even have to pose, but such it is.

 

 

I see what you are saying, Cindie. That's a good question, too. I fall on the side of not compromising, because that sets out some couples for "lesserhood" from the start. It is very difficult to move past compromises like that.

 

Here, it is not an issue, as same-sex couples can marry in the same manner that any other couples can marry. I live in a VERY conservative province, too, with 2 major groups of very conservative religious people. They may not agree with same-sex relationships, but no one seems to be begrudging them the right to marry here. I think that speaks volumes for those 2 groups, by the way, and while we may differ on many grounds, I truly respect the common courtesy and acknowledgement of equal humanity that they have publically extended to same-sex couples.

[Mergath]

I don't think that's a true representation. If you did a poll in Texas, it would be very different from California. States decide since it hasn't been added as an Ammendment to the Constitution. How many states have ratified same sex marriage?

 

Saying that legalizing gay marriage is up to individual states doesn't really work, though, when you've got LDS groups in Utah basically buying the outcome they want over in California. And now that corporations are also able to essentially buy whatever outcome they want for any vote that comes up, even voting on this sort of thing won't be an accurate reflection of what the people want.

 

Also, as far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't have to be added as an amendment to the Constitution. One of our civil rights is to be free from discrimination based on things like sexual orientation. Banning marriage for only gay people would be discrimination, and therefore would be a revocation of their civil rights and a violation of the fourteenth amendment.

 

Sorry if this was covered already, I didn't have the patience to go back and read everything.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

Mergath ~ Until it's an Amendment, it's only up to the states, unfortunately. That's why Massachusetts and only a handful of other states have recognized same-sex marriage. If we wait for it to become national, it would be a while.

 

Oh, Audrey, can I transport my farm next to you? You sound like you have a lovely community. :D

[Rosie_0801]

In order to provide benefits to married couples the state has to have some way of confirming that marriage. I don't see the government (or businesses) deciding to provide benefits to anyone who walks in and says they're married without any proof. There's also the need for proof in cases of divorce - without official documentation how do you know how to split the assets and debts? I'd say for child support too but now a days, marriage is not necessary to establish responsibility to support children (one of the original reasons for marriage as a legal institution). I suppose the state could get out of the marriage business completely and no longer provide any benefits to couples that are not provided to singles.

 

 

I'm not legally married, as in we haven't signed any "I do" paperwork. However we've been defacto for longer than two years, so for legal purposes we have the same rights and responsibilities as those with marriage certificates. If hubby and I split, we'd go through the same rigmarole as anyone else, except it is $200 cheaper because we wouldn't have to serve divorce papers. I don't know that there would be much difference in rigmarole if we'd been together for less than two years, actually. If you are living together, you are treated as a couple as far as social security is concerned, even if you only moved in yesterday.

 

Rosie

[Mergath]

Mergath ~ Until it's an Amendment, it's only up to the states, unfortunately. That's why Massachusetts and only a handful of other states have recognized same-sex marriage. If we wait for it to become national, it would be a while.

 

But my point is that it shouldn't be up to the states, and it shouldn't require an amendment. Unless we ban marriage for everyone, gay and straight, it's discrimination, which is unconstitutional.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

But my point is that it shouldn't be up to the states, and it shouldn't require an amendment. Unless we ban marriage for everyone, gay and straight, it's discrimination, which is unconstitutional.

 

Oh, well put! Are you running for anything in the future? :D

[Mergath]

Oh, well put! Are you running for anything in the future? :D

 

Heh. Not with my husband's criminal record. The nineties were a little too much fun for him. :tongue_smilie:

[Guest Cindie2dds]

Heh. Not with my husband's criminal record. The nineties were a little too much fun for him. :tongue_smilie:

 

At least you're honest about it. That's the problem with politics, the people who really care and would be great are dragged through the mud. I like your point of view, for what it's worth. :D

[Mergath]

At least you're honest about it. That's the problem with politics, the people who really care and would be great are dragged through the mud. I like your point of view, for what it's worth. :D

 

Thanks. :)

 

And don't forget that the tens of thousands in fees you need just to run for any national office pretty well excludes anyone who isn't fairly wealthy. I read somewhere that it's that way on purpose, to keep out us "undesirables." I actually know quite a few people who would be amazing legislators, but they don't have enough money to even throw their hats in the ring.

[Audrey]

 

Oh, Audrey, can I transport my farm next to you? You sound like you have a lovely community. :D

 

 

Well.... do it now because by the time January rolls around and brings -40°C with, you'll change your mind. :D

[naturegirl7]

:seeya: Another bleeding heart liberal girl here!

 

I can't wait to read the other posts and get to know some of my more liberal counterparts here! :D

[KathyBC]

 

I think the 2nd amendment is to have a militia - not for individual gun rights & certainly not for some of the weapons we have now.

 

I'm not American, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the whole point of the 2nd amendment was that a militia needed to be able to defend itself from its own army. Which would make the case for individuals being able to match resources with the military.

 

Not that I'm advocating individuals owning the vast majority of that technology, BTW, just checking a theory.

[IsabelC]

Me (wave) :)

[Guest Cindie2dds]

Well.... do it now because by the time January rolls around and brings -40°C with, you'll change your mind. :D

 

I forgot about Canadian winters already. Hmmm.... Okay, I am there in spirit. :D

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:seeya:

 

I am a liberal with a conservative twist but I am sure most conservatives would consider me a screaming liberal:D I believe in capitalism but I also believe in reasonable regulations to protect the environment, stock holders, employees, and consumers.

 

I believe fiscal responsibility but not when we are in the midst of a huge recession when stimulus spending can help as it did in the depression.

 

I am in favor of repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest since I believe that trickle down is not working. In fact, I think the American dream is much harder to attain nowadays even with hard work. I believe in most cases you need lots of money to attain the American dream.

 

I believe in separation of church and state since I do not want to see a theocracy.

 

I believe in helping those who are less fortunate through charity and through government programs since charity alone is insufficient. Of course, I believe in safeguards to prevent abuses such as already enacted with welfare reform in the 1990's under Clinton. However, I believe that abuses are not the majority of cases and that we cannot just kick these people to the curb.

 

I believe in universal single payer healthcare as the best way to help our citizens and businesses thrive. Does that make me a commie or socialist? No:D. We have already had medicare for decades and it has not led to death panels or communism.

 

I believe in the right of gay people to marry in any church that acknowledges gay marriage or to get a civil marriage. IMHO God does not make mistakes and I believe that gay people are born that way and deserve the same right as straight people.

 

I believe that life begins at conception. However, I also believe that the decision to have a abortion should be up to a women and her doctor since I believe that it is very difficult to legislate. For example, it is very hard to prove rape and I do not think a women should have to prove it. I would encourage her to keep her child if I could. I used to be totally against abortion but then I met a woman who was gang raped at 13 and knifed in the privates. I do not know if I could tell her not to do this which she ended doing. I pray for abortion to be legal but rare. I strongly believe in all forms of birth control and the plan B emergency contraception as way to reduce abortions.

 

I also have strong values as a liberal *gasp*:D I believe in hard work, thrift, modesty, personal responsibility, and caring for one another. I believe that sexual relations should only occur in the context of a committed relationship. I believe in fidelity and loyalty and monogamy. I believe in caring for the environment and for the creatures of the earth. I believe in strong families.

 

My 2 cents:)