Political Roundtable - Part VII

[dobrojim]

Kasich seems like a much better candidate than Walker who is also the Kochs' choice which I think
is fair to say carries some baggage even if those bags are filled with money.

But I still think Mitt was the most patently insincere i.e. phoney candidate we've seen in a long time.
Might be a really decent person and friend to have if you knew him personally, but completely insincere as
a public figure (I can't hire illegals for gosh sakes, I'm running for public office).

[nate33]

I'm not sure Walker's bright enough or maybe brave enough.
Doesn't want to say if he believes in evolution but is quick to say people choose
their sexual orientation. He's either pandering or poorly informed.

Walker strikes me as a real scumbag. Completely disingenuous. To say he wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, then have his kids and wife "publicly" disagree with him. Then he says they still live happily as a family despite their differences.

It's the most blatant political bull staging I've ever seen in the U.S.

I don't understand. What's so awful and disingenuous about that? Walker believes one thing and his wife and kids believe something different. Is this not normal in families?

It's similar to the dynamic in my household. My wife and kids are all in on the gay marriage movement. I personally don't support a constitutional amendment, but I sympathize with the conservative stance that marriage is, at its core, a religious tradition rooted in the goal of creating a stable, and more importantly, a fertile family structure. Religious institutions should therefore have the right to exclude homosexual couples. If homosexuals want to get married in a church, then find a church that will marry them. If there isn't one, then they can create their own church.

It's like me demanding to be admitted into the VFW even though I never served. Why should they admit me? And why should I even want to be admitted?

My solution isn't a constitutional amendment. It's to simply separate the religious concept of marriage completely from the legal concept of civil union. You get a married at a church, and it's only for heterosexuals; and it doesn't really convey any legal status whatsoever. It's a religious ceremony before God. If you then want the legal status of a civil union, you go to the Justice of the Peace and sign a document. A civil union would, of course, be open to heterosexuals or homosexuals. With a civil union, you would get the tax treatment, medical visitation rights, etc. that are legally granted to married couples today.

[dobrojim]

Walker strikes me as a real scumbag. Completely disingenuous. To say he wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, then have his kids and wife "publicly" disagree with him. Then he says they still live happily as a family despite their differences.

It's the most blatant political bull staging I've ever seen in the U.S.

I don't understand. What's so awful and disingenuous about that? Walker believes one thing and his wife and kids believe something different. Is this not normal in families?

Maybe I should let Indu speak for himself but it strikes me as kinda wanting it both ways.
To the traditionally minded, you are saying I'm with you. But to the more gay sympathetic,
you're saying I can get along.

It's similar to the dynamic in my household. My wife and kids are all in on the gay marriage movement. I personally don't support a constitutional amendment, but I sympathize with the conservative stance that marriage is, at its core, a religious tradition rooted in the goal of creating a stable, and more importantly, a fertile family structure. Religious institutions should therefore have the right to exclude homosexual couples. If homosexuals want to get married in a church, then find a church that will marry them. If there isn't one, then they can create their own church.

But one clear problem with that tradition is that you presumably are all in on allowing a hetero couple
in their 50-60s get (re)married when there is little to no possibility of children being produced or similarly
you don't require younger presumably fertile couples to agree that they will attempt to have children.

My solution isn't a constitutional amendment. It's to simply separate the religious concept of marriage completely from the legal concept of civil union. You get a married at a church, and it's only for heterosexuals; and it doesn't really convey any legal status whatsoever. It's a religious ceremony before God. If you then want the legal status of a civil union, you go to the Justice of the Peace and sign a document. A civil union would, of course, be open to heterosexuals or homosexuals. With a civil union, you would get the tax treatment, medical visitation rights, etc. that are legally granted to married couples today.

I read an op-ed piece years ago that took that stance. In actuality, that is pretty much where we are now.
I don't believe a church can be forced to marry anyone they choose not to, but a JoP has to take all comers, er
applicants.

[nate33]

It's similar to the dynamic in my household. My wife and kids are all in on the gay marriage movement. I personally don't support a constitutional amendment, but I sympathize with the conservative stance that marriage is, at its core, a religious tradition rooted in the goal of creating a stable, and more importantly, a fertile family structure. Religious institutions should therefore have the right to exclude homosexual couples. If homosexuals want to get married in a church, then find a church that will marry them. If there isn't one, then they can create their own church.

But one clear problem with that tradition is that you presumably are all in on allowing a hetero couple
in their 50-60s get (re)married when there is little to no possibility of children being produced or similarly
you don't require younger presumably fertile couples to agree that they will attempt to have children.

I'm not interested in debating down to the last detail of whether there is 100% logical consistency in the concept. We could take it to the opposite extreme and say that if churches condone gay marriage, they must also condone polygamy, bestiality, etc. Where do you draw the line?

The real issue is that churches should be able to include or exclude whomever the hell they want. The Constitution grants us freedom of association with whomever we want to associate with. If a church decided to exclude redheaded midgets, it should be permissible. We're talking about a completely harmless and inconsequential ceremony with no legal standing whatsoever. Why should a redheaded midget care if he is excluded from a ceremony that has no legal standing whatsoever?

[dobrojim]

I've little interest in trying to tell a church who they should marry or not marry.
I'm merely trying to point out that the rationale of fertility is one that has some
problems in being consistent.

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah don't bring out the tired and obviously wrong fertility argument. It makes you look like you're grasping at straws.

If your church will marry you, then the United States of America and all its States are compelled by law to recognize that union, no matter where you are. It's simple and fair. And, by the way, consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Just sayin'. As a Jew.

[nate33]

Yeah don't bring out the tired and obviously wrong fertility argument. It makes you look like you're grasping at straws.

If your church will marry you, then the United States of America and all its States are compelled by law to recognize that union, no matter where you are. It's simple and fair. And, by the way, consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Just sayin'. As a Jew.

You must not have read a word that I wrote. Not surprising.

[dckingsfan]

It's similar to the dynamic in my household. My wife and kids are all in on the gay marriage movement. I personally don't support a constitutional amendment, but I sympathize with the conservative stance that marriage is, at its core, a religious tradition rooted in the goal of creating a stable, and more importantly, a fertile family structure. Religious institutions should therefore have the right to exclude homosexual couples. If homosexuals want to get married in a church, then find a church that will marry them. If there isn't one, then they can create their own church.

But one clear problem with that tradition is that you presumably are all in on allowing a hetero couple
in their 50-60s get (re)married when there is little to no possibility of children being produced or similarly
you don't require younger presumably fertile couples to agree that they will attempt to have children.

I'm not interested in debating down to the last detail of whether there is 100% logical consistency in the concept. We could take it to the opposite extreme and say that if churches condone gay marriage, they must also condone polygamy, bestiality, etc. Where do you draw the line?

The real issue is that churches should be able to include or exclude whomever the hell they want. The Constitution grants us freedom of association with whomever we want to associate with. If a church decided to exclude redheaded midgets, it should be permissible. We're talking about a completely harmless and inconsequential ceremony with no legal standing whatsoever. Why should a redheaded midget care if he is excluded from a ceremony that has no legal standing whatsoever?

Yep, I am in favor of gay marriage. But that said, there should also be religious freedom and right to associate and worship with those that have the same views - regardless of how illogical I might personally find those views. I am puzzled why those who support freedom in this country want to keep those liberties of association from others.

If you take away that core - you could argue that there should be no religious worship if it didn't meet your standard of inclusion. And at the augments heart, religion is based upon inclusion of a like thinking group.

[dobrojim]

maybe I'm not traveling in the right circles

I do not recall ever hearing anyone promote the view that the govt should regulate the
standards that individual churches use to decide who they should marry. I would say that
clearly has 1st amendment issues that probably cannot be overcome.

now that I've said that, someone will probably point me at a link that warns
the sky is falling in that regard.

[dckingsfan]

maybe I'm not traveling in the right circles

I do not recall ever hearing anyone promote the view that the govt should regulate the
standards that individual churches use to decide who they should marry. I would say that
clearly has 1st amendment issues that probably cannot be overcome.

now that I've said that, someone will probably point me at a link that warns
the sky is falling in that regard.

Just to clarify - my comments weren't targeted at you

More of a context of logical vs. faith based and right to group with those of similar views.

[nate33]

maybe I'm not traveling in the right circles

I do not recall ever hearing anyone promote the view that the govt should regulate the
standards that individual churches use to decide who they should marry. I would say that
clearly has 1st amendment issues that probably cannot be overcome.

now that I've said that, someone will probably point me at a link that warns
the sky is falling in that regard.

I think it's largely a semantic argument.

Explain to me the difference between a marriage and a civil union. I can't define the difference other than to say that marriage is a religious term defined and enacted by the church. Because of the influence of the Church, marriage became the historical default arrangement for enshrining a union between a man and a woman. At some point along the line, the government began to grant special treatment for married people. Over time, the term marriage somehow got associated with a government definition, rather than a religious one. Then some people demanded gay marriages be permitted. From a government perspective, that makes perfect sense to me, but from a religious perspective, it does not. It undermines the religious concept of marriage between a man and woman.

If we can go back to defining marriage as a religious term, and civil union as a government term, we wouldn't have this problem.

[dobrojim]

If we can go back to defining marriage as a religious term, and civil union as a government term, we wouldn't have this problem.

I don't have a problem with that.

That said, maybe the term marriage license should be abandoned since it tends to confuse
rather than clarify the issue. Is it a legal document issued by the govt or a religious certification
issued by a church?

[nate33]

That said, maybe the term marriage license should be abandoned since it tends to confuse
rather than clarify the issue. Is it a legal document issued by the govt or a religious certification
issued by a church?

Yes. Exactly!

A "marriage license" should be a called a "civil union contract".

[dckingsfan]

That said, maybe the term marriage license should be abandoned since it tends to confuse
rather than clarify the issue. Is it a legal document issued by the govt or a religious certification
issued by a church?

Yes. Exactly!

A "marriage license" should be a called a "civil union contract".

Which you may obtain at that same time that you get "married"... ah, more unintended consequences

[dobrojim]

I like the old cartoon, possibly first in Playboy (yeah I read it for the articles)
which shows a young couple at the marriage license desk with the caption,
"We'd like a learner's permit" and a non-pleased look on the face of the matronly
woman at the desk.

[Induveca]

That said, maybe the term marriage license should be abandoned since it tends to confuse
rather than clarify the issue. Is it a legal document issued by the govt or a religious certification
issued by a church?

Yes. Exactly!

A "marriage license" should be a called a "civil union contract".

Why does this matter? Semantics?

I assure you the past few generations who rarely attended church don't see marriage as a religious term.

----
the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.
---

[nate33]

That said, maybe the term marriage license should be abandoned since it tends to confuse
rather than clarify the issue. Is it a legal document issued by the govt or a religious certification
issued by a church?

Yes. Exactly!

A "marriage license" should be a called a "civil union contract".

Why does this matter? Semantics?

I assure you the past few generations who rarely attended church don't see marriage as a religious term.

Yes, but the past few generations who do regularly attend church DO see marriage as a religious term and they are outraged by homosexual unions being put on the same level. This solves the problem.

[dckingsfan]

I think the other choice is that churches change their language.

But yes, civil unions should be granted by government - something else by religions - and there you have it the conflict that is semantics - which do in fact matter

[Induveca]

Honestly if they're outraged at same sex marriages, I think they need to travel more.

Never expected to take up the gauntlet for same-sex marriage but it's just so common in NYC/LA/Miami and any major European city I've lived in.

There is no separate term for marriage in any of those extremely religious EU nations either, and no one seems to care.

This is just an instance where people will get used to it, like mixed race marriages which really seemed to piss people off in the 80s/90s. Or should we call those "mixed race civil unions" to not upset an aging/ignorant/isolated congregation somewhere?

[dobrojim]

another day in America, another shooting.

if only something could be done