Well, they've got a point. If the argument is that it hurts unit cohesion, and I believe that that is the argument, then isn't it more important than ever right now to get those gays out of there? Hmmm...so if they are good enough in a time of war...
Chris
I believe sexual orientation is a private matter. I am not a big supporter of people who make their point by shouting, "we're here, we're queer." I like this guy. I like how he is standing up for what he believes in and I like the way he's doing it. This is a good story and it is through people like him that laws and perceptions will change. I strongly suspect that the conservative media has already begun to label him a left-wing cook and look into his background so they can "swiftboat" him--(yes, I used it as a verb. I am succumbing to peer pressure.)
Chris
I simply don't have a problem with this. Here is where my "social liberalism" comes into play..so go ahead, Matt and Bombtruck, beat me up. But in my opinion, any gay couple in a monogomous relationship, who wants to make a life long commitment, should enjoy the same benefits as the rest of us.
It ain't rocket science, folks...but I'm sure some of you will tell me where you think I'm wrong.
Lisa
With all the things going on in the world and all the things that need our attention, it blows my mind that we are going to do this again. Of course, we are going to do this again because midterms are rapidly approaching and gay marriage worked nicely for the conservatives last time. Instead of the Republican controlled Congress and White House actually getting their act together and doing something else--anything else--they are going to resurrect their favorite wedge issue. Oooh, what fun--not!
The President has suggested we re-write the Constitution to limit the definition of marriage to between a man and a woman. This is supposed to re-energize his conservative base and apparently it does. Now, all you conservatives out there get your butts over here and explain to me how this fits in with your smaller government-states rights-leave us alone philosophy.
Because to me, it seems like conservatives should not like this. It seems to me that in order to be philosophically consistent they should oppose this amendment in that isn't necessary. It seems to me, that conservatives should agree with me...
Stop groaning and laughing. Hear me out first.
The state has an inherent interest in the contract aspect of a marriage. They have an interest in the property, financial and welfare of children aspects of it. It doesn't have an interest in the sexual aspect of it. It doesn't have an inherent interest in the love aspect of it.
This definition of marriage crap doesn't deal with that and admittedly stems from Judeo-Christian Values. It is a religious aspect of it. Now, liberals don't want religion in government and conservatives don't want government in religion. These two positions are actually very similar.
So, let's take the State our of the business of marriage. Let's have the state issue licenses for civil unions? Call it what you will...but the state grants permission for people to enter into the contract part of marriage. Then, license in hand...if you want to be married...off you go to find a church that will agree to do it. No one is going to make churches marry people if it is against their religious beliefs. They get to say no now. Hell, try to find a Catholic priest and a Jewish rabbi to perform a ceremony together--childbirth is easier. Nothing changes there...
If we do it my way, the government stays out of religion and the right of churches to not participate in same-sex marriage is preserved. Religion stays out of government and the liberals can be happy because the State is not participating in what they view as defacto discrimination...and everyones private life is preserved.
Take the State out of Marriage, unless it is going to cook dinner on Fridays and clean my windows.
Chris
Others on this topic: Overlawyered, Think Progress, Anklebitingpundits,
