What name would you have them use? There are “domestic partnerships” that are not equal to marriage but are nonetheless available in many places. You might call them “civil unions” and grant them equal status before the law as “marriages”, but would opposite-sex couples be prohibited from being “civilly united”? Many same-sex couples I know would be happy (or at least content) to be legally “shmarried”, so long as it provided the same rights and privileges (the EXACT same) as being “married.”
Whatever name you might give it, if it is not equal in every respect to “marriage” it is not sufficient, and if it IS equal in every respect than having two words for it is redundant. Marriage laws concern the civil aspects of marriage, not the religious aspects, and having to rewrite every federal, state, and local law, statute, regulation, and government form to replace “married” with “married or civilly united” is stupid, wasteful, and expensive.
Plenty of evidence that gay marriage has been around for centuries, and some assertions by historians that they were solemnized by the Catholic Church — yes, THAT church — in the Middle Ages. So they’re entitled.
“My only issue with them is they should pick their own name for their partnership. Marriage is taken…”If the word “marriage” is taken by religious institutions, then secular government should not use it for any union, hetero or homo.I’ve always advocated religious and legal marriages/unions be separate entities. Legal unions should be called “civil unions” and religious institutions should not be forced to recognize them. Religious unions can be called “marriage” but should not be recognized by the state. It would be the couple’s option to obtain one, the other, or both.
Was he heck as like! He just didn’t need to rock the boat any more than the conservative voters could take when he was running for election the first time. He was never against it. He was sensitive to the public mood. And he had several other things to battle through first such as fiscal and health policy. He was always “pro” legalising gay-union, he just answered questions diplomatically and this time around he decided to be more pro-active. I think he handled it all very well. JMO.
Not complete. His earlier position was “I’m opposed to it, but it should be for the states to decide.” His current position is “I support it, but it should be for the states to decide.”
I think that’s an over-simplification of the situation. The only real change or debate is about using one term: the word “marriage”. This is because marriage has both a colloquial meaning and a legal meaning.Here’s your quote in context:
WARREN: There’s a lot more I’d like to ask on that. We have 15 other questions here. Define marriage.
OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me – for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. But -
WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?
OBAMA: No, I would not.
WARREN: Why not?
OBAMA: Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.Every single action he has made has supported legalising gay unions and equality.“What I’m saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I’m less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, [in] an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don’t want to play their game.” ~ Obama 2004
The various accusations of flip-flopping etc come from all sides, but they are somewhat out of line & mostly self-serving hyperbole. No one should pretend that this isn’t a hot potato of an issue so he should get some praise for approaching it with integrity and caution. He has never gone off course in his pursuit for equality. Most, if not all, pandering has been to the conservative luddite vote, to the people who effectively want to prevent equality.But these people should have a say in their own society, so I am not going to say his pandering was wrong. His job was to get into a position where he could effect change. If anyone thought he wouldn’t back same-sex partnerships, or that he would back a nationwide legal definition of marriage that would ban same-sex marriage, then they simply did not listen to what he has been saying.My personal opinion,btw, is that same-sex marriage is the future – no doubt about it. Whether Obama, I, or you approve or not, it’s the logical extension of equal rights. So it’s not about the end goal at all, it’s about the journey it takes to get there, and about bringing as many people as possible on that journey, even if it means walking slowly.That’s what Obama is doing. That’s democracy.
walruscarver2000 almost 12 years ago
The cows represent the IQ of the owner.
lisak157 Premium Member almost 12 years ago
Really Luckovich? Official statement says they aren’t, but whatever you hatch in that little leftist mind of yours that justifies your ‘cartoons’……
fritzoid Premium Member almost 12 years ago
What name would you have them use? There are “domestic partnerships” that are not equal to marriage but are nonetheless available in many places. You might call them “civil unions” and grant them equal status before the law as “marriages”, but would opposite-sex couples be prohibited from being “civilly united”? Many same-sex couples I know would be happy (or at least content) to be legally “shmarried”, so long as it provided the same rights and privileges (the EXACT same) as being “married.”
Whatever name you might give it, if it is not equal in every respect to “marriage” it is not sufficient, and if it IS equal in every respect than having two words for it is redundant. Marriage laws concern the civil aspects of marriage, not the religious aspects, and having to rewrite every federal, state, and local law, statute, regulation, and government form to replace “married” with “married or civilly united” is stupid, wasteful, and expensive.
Motivemagus almost 12 years ago
Plenty of evidence that gay marriage has been around for centuries, and some assertions by historians that they were solemnized by the Catholic Church — yes, THAT church — in the Middle Ages. So they’re entitled.
Jason Allen almost 12 years ago
“My only issue with them is they should pick their own name for their partnership. Marriage is taken…”If the word “marriage” is taken by religious institutions, then secular government should not use it for any union, hetero or homo.I’ve always advocated religious and legal marriages/unions be separate entities. Legal unions should be called “civil unions” and religious institutions should not be forced to recognize them. Religious unions can be called “marriage” but should not be recognized by the state. It would be the couple’s option to obtain one, the other, or both.
Sandy Shore almost 12 years ago
Was he heck as like! He just didn’t need to rock the boat any more than the conservative voters could take when he was running for election the first time. He was never against it. He was sensitive to the public mood. And he had several other things to battle through first such as fiscal and health policy. He was always “pro” legalising gay-union, he just answered questions diplomatically and this time around he decided to be more pro-active. I think he handled it all very well. JMO.
Sandy Shore almost 12 years ago
lol!
walruscarver2000 almost 12 years ago
National Pop-a-wheelie Day?
fritzoid Premium Member almost 12 years ago
Not complete. His earlier position was “I’m opposed to it, but it should be for the states to decide.” His current position is “I support it, but it should be for the states to decide.”
Sandy Shore almost 12 years ago
I think that’s an over-simplification of the situation. The only real change or debate is about using one term: the word “marriage”. This is because marriage has both a colloquial meaning and a legal meaning.Here’s your quote in context:
WARREN: There’s a lot more I’d like to ask on that. We have 15 other questions here. Define marriage.
OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me – for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. But -
WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?
OBAMA: No, I would not.
WARREN: Why not?
OBAMA: Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.Every single action he has made has supported legalising gay unions and equality.“What I’m saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I’m less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, [in] an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don’t want to play their game.” ~ Obama 2004
The various accusations of flip-flopping etc come from all sides, but they are somewhat out of line & mostly self-serving hyperbole. No one should pretend that this isn’t a hot potato of an issue so he should get some praise for approaching it with integrity and caution. He has never gone off course in his pursuit for equality. Most, if not all, pandering has been to the conservative luddite vote, to the people who effectively want to prevent equality.But these people should have a say in their own society, so I am not going to say his pandering was wrong. His job was to get into a position where he could effect change. If anyone thought he wouldn’t back same-sex partnerships, or that he would back a nationwide legal definition of marriage that would ban same-sex marriage, then they simply did not listen to what he has been saying.My personal opinion,btw, is that same-sex marriage is the future – no doubt about it. Whether Obama, I, or you approve or not, it’s the logical extension of equal rights. So it’s not about the end goal at all, it’s about the journey it takes to get there, and about bringing as many people as possible on that journey, even if it means walking slowly.That’s what Obama is doing. That’s democracy.
Sandy Shore almost 12 years ago
I don’t think you have one.
Sandy Shore almost 12 years ago
Come come, no need for sour grapes. :)