Politics is never “beneath” a politician. If Obama leads on this issue, he’ll hand the GOP one of the few remaining wedge issues that might actually help them in legislative races across the country (as happened in 2004, mentioned above). So far, he’s managing to advance LGBT rights without stimulating a reactionary reflex from the wingers.
He’s not being careful in order to attract bigoted voters or to avoid alienating bigoted voters already in his camp. He’s trying not to do Republicans’ work for them in rallying their reactionary base.
The GOP is sinking right now, and BHO keeps turning their usual flotation devices into anvils. Sneer at him if you want, but if he comes out strongly for SSM he’ll do more to delay it than he could ever do to bring it about.
I disagree, but I’m an ideologue of democracy. I think that representative democracy should be replaced by consensus and that well publicised debates with neutral framing of the issues should precede every vote of some significance. I’d also support requiring a supermajority (of say 80%) to pass or amend a Constitutional amendment granting or declining rights to minorities.
As for whether this issue can be debated reasonably without resorting to insults: I think this thread provides a good example of that.
You’re right. Please put forth your case for why Jews ought to be required to wear yellow stars, and I’ll be sure to consider it with all the respect it deserves. Or would you prefer to argue that women ought not be allowed to drive?
But the analogy is more inflammatory, as it’s actually comparing the two disparate things. Which is the very objection raised in the slippery slope argument, i.e., “how dare you “compare” SSM to polygamy or bestiality?”, when that is NOT what is being done.
Try taking off you SSM hat and putting on your logic cap.
So, you don’t see that an argument based on the actual rights, e.g., hospital visitation, inheritance, etc., without the noise of cultural labels is a purer moral high ground position?
Yes, I do. Which is why I called for civil unions to entirely replace marriage.
I thought about using that phrase; thank you for understanding.
I’ve said before that in 50 years we will find it as incomprehensible that SSM was barred as we do now that interracial marriage was barred. But that won’t eliminate religious bias any more than racism has been eliminated. It will just shift in an endless series of rearguard actions.
It’s an all or nothing proposition. You can’t say that some get to have a status and others can’t. You can’t say that some get to have a status and others can have that status, but by a different name (both, as far as the law is concerned). Either everyone gets marriage or nobody gets marriage and everyone gets civil unions. Those are the only two “acceptable” answers, with one being more palatable than the other.
The problem is, when it gets put on the ballot in some states, and people get to democratically state what they want about it, the waters get muddied, because then the only one that can step in is the federal government.
It’s an age problem. My generation overwhelmingly approves of it, or at least sees no reason to restrict it. Also, it’s a lot to ask people that are being affected by it to essentially “wait their turn”, especially with regards to basic civil rights issues.
No, I think it’s nonsense - not because I fail to see it, but because I see it’s a waste of time. They already have the high ground. Forcing them toward higher and higher ground is just a way of adding to their burdens and making it harder for them to get what they’re seeking. It’s only pretending to help. They are already correct and already have the high ground. They don’t need more high ground, and they don’t need additional burdens and increasingly difficult standards or smaller demands that won’t get them more votes. We could spend all day making up ways to drum up more sympathy for gays who want to get married, but what’s the point? They’re not asking for marriage rights because they’re exemplary people - they want those rights because they’re people. Straight people don’t have to be exemplary to get married; gay people shouldn’t have to be either. They’ve already proved that to a lot of people, and not that long from now, a much larger chunk of voters will recognize it.
Not sure why it has to be an all or nothing. Wouldn’t it be viable for the government to say we only recognize civil unions between consenting adults. IF you want to get married, that is a religious ceremony and the requirements are up to the various denominations.
You just handed a blank check to every politician on the right. I’m sure they’re very greatful.
A leader leads. He could lead the nation in breaking down on of the last bastions of discrimination in this country. If he’s not up to the task, we should find someone who is.
That might have been true 10 years ago, but I think the time is well past for tiptoeing around this subject. If he wants to play politics with it, he should look at how it will rally the youth vote.
But then what happens to all of those married couples that were married by the justice of the peace, or at a non-religious ceremony, or by a ship’s captain for that matter.
Would all of these couples have to then call what they have a civil union instead of a marriage? Would they still be able to talk about when they were married, or would they then have to refer to that date as when they were civilly united?
That would be saying that you can’t get married if you aren’t religious, wouldn’t it? I’m not sure that’s better really. Ultimately its just a word, but that being the case, why can’t whoever wants to use the word use it? Its not like there are a finite number of marriages available and if teh gays take some, then there’s less available for the straights right?
I think you missed the point, Airbeck. He’s talking about how the law treats these relationships - meaning they are civil unions whether they are between a man and a woman or two men or two women, whether they were performed in a church by a priest or in a civil ceremony without clergy. People can call them whatever they like. Logical as it may be, it’s a non-starter because of what John Mace said: people will say the gays are trying to not only change the definition of marriage, but stop straight people from getting married.
The other side is bigotry and ignorance, and deserves to be mocked and marginalized. There is no valid reason to enshrine this type of discrimination anywhere in the US, yet people do it. Those are sad, hateful people.
You said that like you think that there is no attempt to change marriage. Of course there is, it should be changed. Nothing is gained by pretending that change isn’t wanted.
One argument at a time. The argument is that letting gay couples get married doesn’t change any marriages between straight people, which it doesn’t. Redefining all marriages as civil unions arguably does because it more clearly draws a line between the legal and religious aspects of marriage, and certainly you can see some people would freak out about that. That marriage has changed over time is not really in question and only people with a very limited and flawed perspective on history have trouble with that.
I meant changed existing marriages or those going forward for heterosexuals. That’s the specious claim that is made now, but that would be valid if we followed your suggestion.
Frankly, I think it’s a good idea, but the country as a whole is waaaaaay far from agreeing on that.