13 oct 04
I am so moving to Canada.
You guys don’t have any archaic constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, right?
Bush, you’re killing me.
Andy / 14 oct 2004 / 8:06 a.m.
Would you be happy if the government came up with a civil union that gave the equivalent taxes breaks and similar recognition that married couples get? Governments shouldn’t be able to control something that they didn’t establish to begin with. I have to stand on the fact that marriages are an institution much older than any government, that have always been exclusive of same sex couples. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. If it is recognition that gay couples want, then by all means, let them be recognized and given tax breaks, but do not taint the institution that is older than the laws by which we now live. Why is something bad, just because it is old?
Richard / 14 oct 2004 / 8:49 a.m.
Adan and Steve? That has been floating around for years, best argument that people can come up? Well you changed my mind [sarcasm].
Andy / 14 oct 2004 / 12:45 p.m.
Well, if you don’t agree with it, there are obvious consequences. The convenient part is that today’s society teaches us that we are our own “God” and control our own universe, so if we aren’t comfortable with the truth, we can simply alter it to fit what makes us feel best. So if this is true, then there should be no consequence for me doing what is comfortable to me - without regard to others, regardless of the action.
If you desire to live this way, then by all means do it - the consequences by law might change, but the eternal consequences will never change.
emersongeek / 14 oct 2004 / 2:04 p.m.
That “Adam and Steve” crap is so 1981.
Bush believes in “equality and respect.” Unless, of course, you’re black, gay, fat, non-American, non-Christian, female, or not in his tax bracket. In other words, not the president of the United States.
Maura / 14 oct 2004 / 2:38 p.m.
That’s pretty naive to think your opposition to gay marriage does not affect anyone else.
Also, on the marriage/civil union thing… Does that mean you are also pro separate but equal? Also known as segregation?
Andy / 14 oct 2004 / 3:28 p.m.
Choices affect everyone, good or bad or indifferent. What matters are the good choices - those that benefit the people as well as the establishment, mainaining morality while sustaining reason. It would be nice to please everyone (which is where it looks like we are tying to go) so that we could consider ourselves equal, however by altering what we consider moral, we are not benefiting anyone, including those that are seeking what is opposed. It would be pretty naive to think that you can please everyone, especially when you are only accomodating the few.
You would be incorrectly stereotyping if you were to say that I were condoning segregation based on my view of marriage - that’s way out of context. What I am implying is that marriage by TRUE definition is the union of a man and a woman. The laws of the land might change that definition over time, but a higher authority will disagree. A civil union on the other hand should allow the couple to attain the recogintion and benefits they want without decimating what most people have considered a sacred bond between man and woman since the begining of time.
If gay couples would not be satisfied with civil unions that provided them the EXACT SAME protections that marriages give heterosexual couples, then I believe the agenda is not about rights, but about changing the very morals upon which this country has been so richly blessed. So which is it?
Meredith / 14 oct 2004 / 4:12 p.m.
I am pro separation of church and state.
So if the civil union went through, and it had the “EXACT SAME protections that marriages give heterosexual couples,” why not marriage? It’s the same damn thing.
If the “higher authority” thinks that gay marriage is wrong, good for him. Let HIM (or Her, or It) deal with the two people involved, instead of ANYONE ELSE telling them what is right or wrong, ESPECIALLY if it’s going to be based on religious beliefs.
Andy / 14 oct 2004 / 6:52 p.m.
So long as they are aware of the price tag. If nobody is ever told right or wrong, where does that get us - or is there truly a right or a wrong? As I said before; as gods of our own universe we can live without consequence regardless of our actions.
Jason / 14 oct 2004 / 9:35 p.m.
Jeez Maura, did you give Dale Murphy your blog address?
Andy, Don’t confuse your religion with a secular nation’s politics. You can talk about God, eternity, consequences, etc and the only people that even listen to that jazz are those who believe like you do.
I am a Christian, but I certainly don’t feel comfortable with my government punishing people for being gay, which is essentially what happens when you deny people rights that they could have.
The problem is that you and your ilk have listened to the likes of Pat Robertson and try to combine politics and religion. This is a mistake: stay out of everyone else’s lives!
Pig!
Andy / 14 oct 2004 / 10:41 p.m.
Jason,
Might I remind you, 1 John 2:6.
If you do not do this, then you are only a Christian by name. As far as religion - I don’t believe in that - sorry. That’s a man made deal that I stay out of. I think you have Dale confused - he’s a mormon, a whole different problem and I can’t say I know who Pat Robertson is.
Are we talking politics or rights? As it stands gays have the same rights everyone else does. Just like I can marry a woman, so can a gay man marry a woman. We do have equal rights. They work the same for both of us, although some want it to work differently. I don’t think it’s punishment - it’s more like protection. As I’ve stated before - what is so wrong with the government creating a union that gives gays the same protection as married couples?
All I ask is where does morality end and the laws begin? Everyday we push that envelope. Can you tell me at this rate where we are going?
I hope my posts are not seen as some sort of attack - I’m just saying my peace just like everyone else. If my opinions aren’t welcome - then I appologize. I have nothing against gay people - they are made of the same stuff I am. I’m no better than anyone else and certainly have my share of shame and sin in my life.
-Self confessed pig.
Your brother / 15 oct 2004 / 1:43 a.m.
Andy,
If you have a problem with gay marriages, go right now to your religious minister (pastor, rabbi, priest, etc.) and make sure that your particular denomination still does not recognize gay marriages.
Republicans are not attempting to make it illegal for gay marriages to be granted by churches. They’re trying to make it wholly illegal. Likewise, proponents for gay marriage are not attempting to force religions to recognize gay marriages.
In a government that at least claims to recognize the seperation between church and state, there is simply no reason, aside from bigotry, to make it impossible for justices of the peace to perform marriages for gay couples. None at all. In the eyes of the law, and the government, marriage should simply be seen as the union of two people in love. Nothing else. Unfortunately, bigotry plagues us, and we find ourselves in this situation.
Equal rights? As a straight man(tell me if I’m assuming too much here), you have the right to marry the person you are in love with. A gay man or woman does not have that right. Your equal rights example…I think it’s more an abomination of marriage if a gay man marries a woman he’s not in love with, rather than to marry a gay man he is in love with.
You also attempt to address the issue of laws and morality. How moral is it to create a law that discriminates against a group of people just because they are of that group of people?
If my opinion is unwelcome…umm..kiss it?
Allen
Andy / 15 oct 2004 / 7:40 a.m.
I don’t think the constitution guarantees complete separation of church and state. It only says that the government shall establish no religion. You are correct, in such a culturally correct nation, making exceptions for one party looks pretty unfair. I completely agree that if you strip away all of the “religion” and put it down to the people, it looks like pure favoritism. I did mean peace when I said peace - and figured that someone would point that out, but yes that was my peace. Next time I’ll denote that I am speaking figuratively. I think we’re all well educated people here. Again, as the law is written currently, nobody is excluded, the rights are the same for all of us. The law is simply going by the definition of the word, which will probably soon change. Allen, in my opinion, your opinion is welcome. As I have said over and over again, I don’t care what the government does, so long as they don’t change the defintion of the word.
Before we elect a new president, I think we’d be best served to completly ensure that he does truly support the requests of the people in which he targets. I’ve heard him say some pretty insensitive things for a guy who is supposed to be on “their” side. It’s hard not to feel equal when someone lumps you into a category and calls you the “gay people”. I honestly think he’s just taking this side to gather some votes myself. Neither candiate is that great in my eyes.
Your brother / 16 oct 2004 / 11:28 a.m.
For the record, I totally agree with you, as far as the election goes. I can’t find myself in total support of either candidate. Neither inspire a whole lot of confidence.
I checked into it, and a current definition of marriage already includes the possibility of same-sex marriages. So the definition has already been changed. I don’t think there’s anyone involved in this that wants to change how religions view marriage- that would be absolutely preposterous. The government would have no right to do that, and the proponents and opponents of the issue would definitely have no right to do that.
And you’re right in thinking that nowhere in the Constitution does it state the goal of seperating church and state. That’s something that has, for better or worse, kind of been assumed based on the wording, and the fact of the amendment to the constitution that gives all powers not exclusively outlined to the federal government to be the states’ or the peoples’ responsibility. So at the very least, the federal government is assumed to be uninvolved in matters of religion, because there’s no amendment or law clearly stating their intention to be involved in changing how religions work.
Definitely agreed about lackluster candidates, at the very least.
deb / 13 oct 2004 / 10:23 p.m.
I am completely incapable of choosing the debates over baseball. Sad but true.