• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Official 2008 Presidential Election thread - Discuss/Defend/Debate

Who do you support to be the next President of the United States?

  • Joe Biden -D

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Hillary Clinton - D

    Votes: 5 10.2%
  • John Edwards - D

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Al Gore jr. - D

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • Dennis Kucinich - D

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • Barack Obama - D

    Votes: 9 18.4%
  • Bill Richardson - D

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • Sam Brownback - R

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Newt Gingrich - R

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • Rudy Giuliani - R

    Votes: 6 12.2%
  • John McCain -R

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Ron Paul - R

    Votes: 3 6.1%
  • Mitt Romney - R

    Votes: 8 16.3%
  • Tom Vilsak - D

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • other

    Votes: 7 14.3%

  • Total voters
    49

Radio Frequency X

World Leader Pretend
Guitar's Cry said:
Everything is a matter of definition.

Not true.

Guitar's Cry said:
Marriage is defined as one of the most important ceremonies in a person's lifetime. Denying it to a group based on arbitrary gender roles is denying something that is symbolically important to many people.

Marriage ceremonies are traditionally religious in nature and should therefore be precluded from government regulation or oversight. However, marriage benefits recognized by the state should be universally offered to any domestic partnership. Civil Unions should be the immediate focus of the Gay Rights campaign. Then, homosexuals should begin trying to influence their religious institutions to provide them the same ceremonies that heterosexuals enjoy. However, if they belong to a religion that deems homosexuality immoral/sinful/evil or whatever, then maybe they should consider switching religions.
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Radio Frequency X said:
Because marriage is a matter of definition, not civil rights.

Marriage is a fundamental human right, so sayeth the Supreme Court of the United States. You might feel differently if the shoe were on the other foot and you were banned from marrying your wife.

Civil Unions should be the immediate focus of the Gay Rights campaign
But Civil Unions are not equal in weight or legality to Civil Marriage. There is still disparages between the two. Why should we have to take the lesser?
Then, homosexuals should begin trying to influence their religious institutions to provide them the same ceremonies that heterosexuals enjoy.
UUs already do and it has had no influence on public policy.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
Radio Frequency X said:
Marriage ceremonies are traditionally religious in nature and should therefore be precluded from government regulation or oversight. However, marriage benefits recognized by the state should be universally offered to any domestic partnership. Civil Unions should be the immediate focus of the Gay Rights campaign. Then, homosexuals should begin trying to influence their religious institutions to provide them the same ceremonies that heterosexuals enjoy. However, if they belong to a religion that deems homosexuality immoral/sinful/evil or whatever, then maybe they should consider switching religions.

Do you know what the legal difference is between a marriage, a civil union, and a domestic partnership? They are all different states of legal relationships as defined by the government. Don't buy into the misconception that "marriage" is only a religious ceremony, and that civil unions are it's legal, non-religious equal. One does not have to have a religious ceremony to be considered "married" by the state and federal government. All a marriage license requires is identification, a fee, a witness and a justice of the peace to sign the paper. There doesn't even have to be a cleric involved at all.
People get confused because the church and the government both use the same word, but they are two very different things. And, if you don't realize that, then you shouldn't be making judgments on the issue at all.

Gay people are not interested in forcing the church to perform ceremonies for them. There are so many other options that this is not an issue at all - any UU church in the area would gladly do it if it were legal, and there are plenty of ordained ministers who have so such attachment to the idea of homosexuality being sinful. Therefore there is no reason for a gay couple, or the gay community to even want to force any religious institution to marry them if they don't want to. And, even if there are a few, that is thier own personal problem, and not the problem of the entire gay community, since they don't support such a notion.
The marriage that they are talking about is the non-religious government institution that gives a number of legal and living benefits that make life as a couple less complicated when dealing with money, children, insurance, home-owning, sickness, and death, just for example. I can't even begin to speculate how many times this has been said.

I'll spell it out, just in case it's still not getting through - Gay marriage is a legal issue, and not a religious one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ody

Polaris

Active Member
Maize said:
But Civil Unions are not equal in weight or legality to Civil Marriage. There is still disparages between the two. Why should we have to take the lesser?

I honestly don't know a lot about the legal details of civil unions. What are some of the differences that you feel make civil unions a significantly lesser option?
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
From: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm



What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?


Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:
Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.

Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?
No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
From: http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/civilunion.htm

Currently in the U.S., only Connecticut and Vermont allow same-sex civil unions. (See where gay marriage or civil unions are legal around the world).

As stated before, civil union benefits vary per state. Here is a list of benefits awarded same-sex partners in Vermont:
  • Laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession, waiver of will, survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer (during life or at death) of real or personal property, including eligibility to hold property as tenants by the entirety.
  • Causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop, or other torts or actions under contracts reciting, related to, or dependent upon spousal status.
  • Probate law and procedure, including nonprobate transfer.
  • Adoption law and procedure.
  • Group insurance for state employees.
  • Spouse abuse programs.
  • Protection against discrimination based upon marital status.
  • Victim's compensation rights.
  • Workers' compensation benefits.
  • Emergency and non-emergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification.
  • Terminal care documents and durable power of attorney for health care execution and revocation.
  • Family leave benefits.
  • State public assistance benefits(Vermont).
  • State and municipal tax laws, except for estate tax provisions.
  • Marital privilege and testimonial immunity laws.
  • The homestead rights of a surviving spouse and homestead property tax allowance.
  • Loans to veterans
  • The definition of family farmer
  • Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts by others.
  • State pay for military service.
  • Applications for absentee ballots.
  • Family landowner rights to fish and hunt.
  • Legal requirements for wage assignments.
  • Affirmance of relationship.
  • Parties to a civil union can modify the terms, conditions, or effects of their legal relationship in the same manner and to the same extent as married people can through premarital and other agreements recognized and enforceable under the Vermont law.
According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

  1. Access to Military Stores
    Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
    Bereavement Leave
    Immigration
    Insurance Breaks
    Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
    Sick Leave to Care for Partner
    Social Security Survivor Benefits
    Sick Leave to Care for Partner
    Tax Breaks
    Veteran’s Discounts
    Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:

  1. Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
    Automatic Inheritance
    Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
    Bereavement Leave
    Burial Determination
    Child Custody
    Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
    Divorce Protections
    Domestic Violence Protection
    Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
    Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
    Insurance Breaks
    Joint Adoption and Foster Care
    Joint Bankruptcy
    Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
    Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
    Certain Property Rights
    Reduced Rate Memberships
    Sick Leave to Care for Partner
    Visitation of Partner’s Children
    Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
    Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
Read the full list of legalized marriage benefits

Civil unions provide only about 300 out of 1,049 benefits offered to married couples.
 

Polaris

Active Member
Thanks MaddLLama. I'll respond in the "Gay Agenda" thread since that seems like a better place for this discussion.
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Polaris said:
I honestly don't know a lot about the legal details of civil unions. What are some of the differences that you feel make civil unions a significantly lesser option?
The federal government alone accords 1,138 benefits and responsibilities based on marital status, not on civil union status.
Here are just a few of those benefits:
  • Unpaid leave in order to care for an ill spouse under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act;
  • Social Security — survivor benefits; spousal benefits;
  • Unlimited exemptions from federal gift and estate taxes on transfers to spouse;
  • Marital communication privilege — right not to testify against one’s spouse.
Why aren’t civil unions enough?
Comparing marriage to civil unions is a bit like comparing diamonds to rhinestones. One is, quite simply, the real deal; the other is not. Consider:
  • Couples eligible to marry may have their marriage performed in any state and have it recognized in every other state in the nation and every country in the world.
  • Couples who are joined in a civil union in Vermont (the only state that offers civil unions) have no guarantee that its protections will even travel with them to neighboring New York or New Hampshire – let alone California or any other state.
Moreover, even couples who have a civil union and remain in Vermont receive only second-class protections in comparison to their married friends and neighbors. While they receive state-level protections, they do not receive any of the more than 1,000 federal benefits and protections of marriage.
In short, civil unions are not separate but equal – they are separate and unequal. And our society has tried separate before. It just doesn’t work.
It's simpler to copy a link than type all this out
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
Polaris said:
Thanks MaddLLama. I'll respond in the "Gay Agenda" thread since that seems like a better place for this discussion.

Or, we can always have it split and make a whole new thread out of it.
 

Flappycat

Well-Known Member
Gay marriage is just a battleground for a larger issue. The real issue is something that can be traced back to the time of Christ, probably further. The question is whether the mighty deserve to dominate or take special rights over the weak or the few. This is why Christianity is so popular; for, though much of the Church has soured into everything that its founders fought against, its symbolism remains strong. It still resounds with people. What...did you really think that people were truly foolish enough to buy that nonsense without some deeper, more intuitive motivation? Would the Jews have hung in there as long as they have if not for their ancient struggle for freedom from slavery? Have more faith in the human mind. They believe in these irrational things because of the significance of these beliefs to the greater path of humanity. Every human mind has the ability to realize that religious faith does not have a logical foundation. They just don't want to. Logic doesn't count when deeper, older parts of human nature come into play.

If you support a politician based on his or her support for the gays and the lesbians, don't do so merely for the sakes of the gay men and women in our society. Do so because you believe in immortal love between two people. Do so because you believe that true marriage transcends the superficialities of flesh and bone. Do so because you feel that every human being in the world is good and worth being given the right to find happiness. When faced with scorn from the cynical and the embittered, find in them, as you have with your gay and lesbian countrymen, a spirit worth loving. This is the true culture war.

In the end, this is why I support Obama over Hillary. Obama wants to restore what we truly stand for. He wants to build bridges and reignite the flame of hope in American society. All that I can see in Clinton is someone who has become as angry and scornful as the Republicans, lashing out at them with the same tactics that they employ on their own behalf and thereby helping to tear down what we truly stand for.
 

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
We already redefined the traditional view of marriage by making multiple wives illegal. Besides, tradition is hardly an arguement to begin with. :D
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
No one consider this guy?

powell3.jpg
BIOGRAPHY

Colin L. Powell
Secretary of State,
Term of Appointment: 01/20/2001 to 01/26/2005

He became the highest ranking African-American in the executive branch and was the highest ranking African-American in the military in the history of the United States.
He was opposed to the majority of George H.W. Bush Administration officials who advocated the deployment of troops to the Middle East to force Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to withdraw his armies from neighboring Kuwait, believing the dictator could instead be contained through sanctions and a buildup of forces around Kuwait.
Reports have indicated that Powell himself was skeptical of the evidence presented to him. Powell later recounted how Vice President Cheney had joked with him before he gave the speech, telling him, "You've got high poll ratings; you can afford to lose a few points." Larry Wilkerson later characterized Cheney's view of Powell's mission as to "go up there and sell it, and we'll have moved forward a peg or two. Fall on your damn sword and kill yourself, and I'll be happy, too."[
A moderate Republican, Powell is well known for his willingness to support liberal or centrist causes. He is pro-choice regarding abortion,[15] in support of affirmative action, and in favor of "reasonable" gun control.
Powell was the subject of controversy in 2004 when, in a conversation with British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, he reportedly referred to neocons within the Bush administration as "******* crazies."[16] In addition to being reported in the press (though generally, the expletive was censored in the US press), the quote was used by James Naughtie in his book, "The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency", and by Chris Patten in his book, "Cousins and Strangers: America, Britain, and Europe in a new century".
 

PetShopBoy88

Active Member
I want a Libertarian to be the next president. On the other hand, voting for third parties can often lead to the major party candidate who is closest to your beliefs losing to somebody who's even further from what you believe. Back on the first hand, if everybody feels enslaved by and powerless in the two party system nothing will ever change.
 

Radio Frequency X

World Leader Pretend
I don't understand why the government can't define civil unions as the secular rights and benefits of a domestic partnership and then apply it across the board to all domestic partnerships. Anyone who thinks that marriage is not religious in nature is simply lacking historical perspective. Marriage should be handed over to the religions and domestic partnership laws should be 100% secular and apply universally to everyone.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
Radio Frequency X said:
I don't understand why the government can't define civil unions as the secular rights and benefits of a domestic partnership and then apply it across the board to all domestic partnerships. Anyone who thinks that marriage is not religious in nature is simply lacking historical perspective. Marriage should be handed over to the religions and domestic partnership laws should be 100% secular and apply universally to everyone.
You're still missing the point. From a legal standpoint, Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships are 3 very very different things, and only one provides the full benefits of marriage (guess which one), which is what the GLBT folks want.
"Traditionally" is a very weak argument, because it ignores the here and now. "Traditionally" in history most marriages were arranged, or were made up of one man, and many women. Since it's traditional and historical, maybe we should go back to that? Wouldn't want to ignore tradition, or lack historical perspective.
Marriage can be religious in nature, but you are ignoring the semantic issue - marriage is not just about religion. Basically what you're arguing is that the government shouldn't call legal partnerships "marriage" because it's somehow offensive to the religious ceremonies of the same name. Why does that make a difference? Besides, even if you have a religious marriage, it means little until you combine it with a legal, government provided marriage license.
Is this really where the heart of the objection to gay marriage lies? Because religions feel some sort of entitlement to the term "marriage"? So, then what do you propose we call it, other than marriage? The government can't call it a Civil Union or a Domestic Partnership without completely doing away with it - all three things have very different purposes and legal benefits. Should we just nix one, and add all of the benefits of a legal marriage to the other just to placate the entitlement complex of the religious?
Frankly, I think it would be easier for everybody to understand that religious marriage ceremonies, legal marriage licenses, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are all different things. Why oh why is this such a difficult concept to understand? There's nothing wrong with being informed.

It's just a word. Why does it matter if the government uses it?
 

Radio Frequency X

World Leader Pretend
MaddLlama said:
It's just a word. Why does it matter if the government uses it?

You aren't understanding where I am coming from here. I'm not trying to reduce rights. I don't want that. I want homosexuals to have the same economic and political advantages as heterosexuals. However, marriage is a religious act. It is a civil union with the implications of some moral context. Government has no business here. I want government out of marriage. I want there to be one standard. Civil Unions. Not just to satisfy homosexuals, but to cover everyone under a single secular law.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
Radio Frequency X said:
You aren't understanding where I am coming from here. I'm not trying to reduce rights. I don't want that. I want homosexuals to have the same economic and political advantages as heterosexuals. However, marriage is a religious act. It is a civil union with the implications of some moral context. Government has no business here. I want government out of marriage. I want there to be one standard. Civil Unions. Not just to satisfy homosexuals, but to cover everyone under a single secular law.

The government doesn't interfere in the religious ceremonies of couples. The government isn't interfering in marriage - the government institution of marriage has nothing to do with the religious one. The only connection is that if you want both a religiously recognized and a federally recognized relationship, you have to get a cleric to sign a piece of government paper. Aside from that, they don't overlap at all. So, you already got your wish. As far as gay marriage is concerned, the government isn't telling the church what it can and can't do, the church is telling the government that it can't do something.

If you want everyone to be covered under a regular secular law, then why do they need to change what it's called? Really, all you're arguing is semantics - "Give them what they want, but don't call it marriage!". Why is that unacceptable? Why does religion have to have a monopoly on "marriage"? Is it just confusing to you that the church and the government use the same word? Plenty of people understand the difference.

Today, marriage is more of a social institution than a religious one. Maybe years and years ago it was solely the domain of the religious, but that isn't the case now. I don't see a problem. To me, it looks like the semantic argument is creating a problem where none exists.
 

PetShopBoy88

Active Member
MaddLlama said:
the government institution of marriage has nothing to do with the religious one. ... they don't overlap at all. ... If you want everyone to be covered under a regular secular law, then why do they need to change what it's called? ... Is it just confusing to you that the church and the government use the same word?

You can't give two seperate things the same name. This is confusing, and it can lead to huge legal problems down the road. Have you ever read the text for any laws? They're exceptionally wordy. That's because they have to find different words for different things, and if such a word doesn't exist they have to call it by a phrase instead of just a word. This isn't just because law makers like to feel superior, either. It's necessary for different things to have different names in law, government, etc.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
PetShopBoy88 said:
You can't give two seperate things the same name. This is confusing, and it can lead to huge legal problems down the road. Have you ever read the text for any laws? They're exceptionally wordy. That's because they have to find different words for different things, and if such a word doesn't exist they have to call it by a phrase instead of just a word. This isn't just because law makers like to feel superior, either. It's necessary for different things to have different names in law, government, etc.

So, then everyone who has received a marriage license from their state, and didn't participate in a religious ceremony for the same purpose, shouldn't be considered "married", and instead should call themselves "Civil-Unioned"?

Inside the government, marriage is one thing. However, the only reason it's confusing is because the non-government related area of religion also uses the same word. And, I'm sure this wasn't a conicidence either. So, there is no legal problem. Marriage is defined in a very specific way by the government, and imparts specific benefits, which are different from the relationship benefits of a civil union, and a domestic partnership. The issue isn't that "the government shouldn't interfere with marriage", the real issue that's being brought up is "the government is using our word, and we want it back". And, frankly, I find it a silly position.

I also find it strange that nobody complained about "the government regulating marriage" until the gay marriage thing popped up. Why is that?
 
Top