Posted on 11/21/2003 6:21:43 AM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
NO, just one where marrige can ONLY be between a MAN and WOMAN who have remained in their original gender.
I do not want to criminalize homosexuality, but it should not be accepted because it is wrong just as we as a society do not accept incest.
Would you like a constitutional amendment forcing society to accept homosexuality, to actually embrace it?
Latent? He is quite gay.
You mean, like the one we got back in the '60s or '70's that forced us not to be racists?
My point is, each individual has the right to feel and think about blacks, Mexicans, Presbyterians or homosexuals any way they wish. Each of us is free to voluntarily associate or disassociate ourselves with anyone in these or any other groups. Acceptance of any member of any group for whatever level of friendship or neighborliness does not necessarily imply endorsement of everything that anyone in that group believes. That's the essense of tolerance.
Each of us still can oppose illegal behavior, or feel that behavior should be made illegal. In the meantime, we have rules that require some measure of equality for people engaging in legal thoughts or activities. Our Supreme Court has constantly expanded the definition of who is a full person under the law, with the obvious exception of the abortion law. Just as its my right to add abortion back to the list of prohibited activities, its your right to try add homosexuality to this list.
In the meantime, homosexuals and their activities among consenting adults are legal in the entire United States, and have been in many states for a fairly long time.
Somehow, the people who think their marriages are threatened by this new recognition, and its obvious ramifications, yet were not as threatened by divorce laws, single-parent adoption, and the marriage of infertile heterosexual couples, want to draw the line here. I understand this, and the obvious answer is a "separate but equal" solution of civil unions. Since each state can adopt its own civil union status, or refuse to, each state can determine whether or not it recognizes gay couples. If we provide no alternative, then the courts will force equality in the form of marriage, and will force it nationwide through the "full credit" provisions of the Constitution. Think of civil unions as a kind of firewall that will reinforce the concept of states rights. We had no such alternative when it came to free and easy abortion.
As for a gay marriage amendment, expect plenty of political posturing from both sides, without any substansive relief for either side. All this does is buy time for the issue to work its way through the courts. Even if there were sufficient Congressional support for such an initiative, there are not 3/4ths of the state legislatures willing to back it up. This isn't the electoral college, where each state gets proportional support based on population, each state gets one "vote" for or against ratification. The difficulties that the Equal Rights Amendment had would be even further confounded by this math.
Also, consider the political horse trading that would result. In order to get the vote of a legislator who is "on the fence", what would your elected official have to trade off? Would they have to vote for some piece of pork in the other legislator's district, just to have the courts eventually decide that there will be gay marriage? Will the pork project then be torn down, because the deal went sour? Should President Bush be forced to expend political capital to not have to fight on this issue, in order to show the mushy middle that he really isn't going to impose a theocracy on America? Is it worth getting President Howard Dean when we go on to fight the terrorists, because he could make a civil union argument, and marginalize Bush for having to take a stand on an amendment that won't materialize anyway?
I'm sorry I get your point, but this is pure unadulterated B.S.!!!! What are you saying, just agree to incrementalate and everything will just smoothe out?
C'mon don't be so naive. What do you think liberals have been doing for 40 years and look at where we are at because we've tolerated this incrimentalistic poison they have introduced to society...The selfish ME,ME, ME...What's Gov't gonna do for ME attitudes have gotten us in this sorry assed state we're in today.
The courts can try to force this down our throats, but there will be a time when people will be so fed up they will not take it. The people overwhelmingly did not want Civil Unions in VT, but it was forced upon them by a socialist bastard who could care less about what people want.
The courts can rule against the will of the majority all they want, but it does not ever change the fact that PERVERTED SELFISHNESS is wrong and should not be tolerated in this society.
If it is time to change gov't then WE THE PEOPLE will elect officials who will change the course.
The dems certainly are in trouble right now and I'll bet the people in Mass send the homo Marrige concept foisted upon them by wrongheaded legislated judges right down the drain when they have a chance to vote on it...Do you think that homos would still marry if it was condoned, but without the privelages like health benifits, tax deductions as regular hetro couples get?
No, I'm saying, make some reasonable moderations, and we have a chance of things not going full tilt all at once.
What if every woman seeking an abortion had to go through an ethics board to get one? At least couples looking for adoptable children might be able to convince a woman on the way to an abortion that there was an alternative. No, we held our ground, and we've had thirty years of unmitigated murder.
What if back in the 1950's, employers had come up with private programs to hire and train qualified black people? We wouldn't have affirmative action, that disadvantages qualified white people, and makes every black person prove they are not just an AA hire.
The selfish ME,ME, ME...
The underlying value behind capitalism is looking out for oneself, too. Gays looking to marry are not really looking for a handout, just a bit of respect for the relationships they voluntarily commit themselves to. Yes, there's the health insurance angle, but everybody who gets expensively sick without insurance ends up ultimately having it paid for by either government or other payers, anyway.
The people overwhelmingly did not want Civil Unions in VT, but it was forced upon them by a socialist bastard who could care less about what people want.
Howard Dean signed the bill, yes, but like MA, it was the VT Supreme Court that forced the issue. And you can well bet that it will come up in other states, too, especially with overseas gay marriages coming over here looking for recognition. They might not get it in Utah or Mississippi, but they'll get it in Washington, Oregon, probably California, and likely a few other Midwestern states, too. Like abortion, once a half dozen or so states have it, expect the US Supreme Court to make it the law of the land. Civil union is a stopgap measure. It addresses the unfairness issues that trouble moderate voters and the courts, and keeps marriage from "tainted" by gays, to please conservatives. Ignore the concept of "separate but equal" civil unions, and the courts WILL force full gay marriage down your throats.
...it does not ever change the fact that PERVERTED SELFISHNESS is wrong and should not be tolerated in this society.
Okay, the day the courts close down singles bars (for straights and gays), and stop nasty magazines from being sold, and clear the Internet of porn, etc., then perverted selfishness will be eradicated. To me, a homosexual bar-hopping his way around town is more about perverted selfishness than two people who want to commit to each other and build a life together.
Do you think that homos would still marry if it was condoned, but without the privelages like health benifits, tax deductions as regular hetro couples get?
I addressed health benefits above, and we now have a repeal of the marriage tax, and even if you toss out all the hospital visitation, and inheritance rights (those can be handled by a will, anyway) you'd still have homosexual couples that would want to marry. How many heterosexual couples get hitched just for the breaks? Maybe if a green card is involved, sure, but we already have a system (admittedly broken) to look out after that.
I'm sure there are a lot of conservatives who look at the big city drag queen in a gay bar, or the look-at-me outrageousness of someone on a float in a gay pride parade, or some child-snatching pervert, and conclude that is what gay people are all about. It's like saying that Bill Clinton is a representative for straight people.
The question is, how much political capital do we want to expend to prevent a result that is most likely inevitable? The louder conservatives scream about this, the closer everybody watches what President Bush will do, to see if he's the president of all the people, or just of the Religious Right. We'd be far better off all the way around if next year's political debate is about the economy, and national security from Islamunist terrorists. After 9/11, it became obvious to a lot of people that we've got a lot bigger problems in this country than monogamous gay people.
On an issue such as this I do not buy this "moderation" tactic and the thinking of WE must cave in...It will not work and it will only get worse. The radicals are not the ones that worry me it is the laid back barely noticable ones. They are the majority that vote.
This is a culture war, in your maneuver to mince or soften the issue only will exacerbate the problem. You can not be weak on these principled issues, you have to show you stand firm.
You seem to think that the courts have the upper hand, but what you fail to recognize is the will of the people. You think the people are going to stand for the fillabuster tactics of these corrupt dem senators? They're going to be gone next time around and they are too stupid to recognize what is going on right now with the people. The courts will change.
There are two things right now that liberals are going to cause to calapse right under them: This gay issue and the God issue they are incrementally pushing it too far and they will be walloped for it at the voting booths. I realise that on many issues your "reasonable moderation" tactic is the way to go, but not on these serious cultural issues today simply because people have woken up a little and the GOP has the upper hand. (Thank you Bill and Hillary Clinton)I can only conceed that on the abortion issue it might have worked...but repubs were too stupid and scared to do anything. Although Bush did sign the anti-PBA bill and again the liberal courts showed their true colors and that is going to be devestating for the dems...
Listen, I do not totally disagree with your political sympathies. I just think you are failing to recognize what has happened recently with the voting public. let me point these out to you:
'02 Senate changes hands, recall election California, pick up of two more governorships in Miss and Ky. On state propositions they have all gone conservative all the polls indicate the majority votes on the conservative side of issues...catch a friggin' clue!
More people in this country are moderately conservative and what has happened is they finally woke up and will be going to the voting booths unlike before where they didn't pay attention....that has all changed now. Yes, Bush does look like he needs to be Prez of ALL the people and I like his style, but notice he has not waivered in his principled stands on the gay, abortion, or God, issues.
This next years political debate is going to center around these social issues simply because the media will focus on them and the more it does focus on gays and the lib courts trying to corrupt a time honored institiution the better for consevatives.
Like I said I do not totally disagree with you stance. I know exactly what you are trying to convey and it's not that I think you're wrong, I just think it's the wrong time to incrementalate on these issues...A constitional admendment to marrige between only a man and a woman should be put forth. Let society make a stand. The forefathers did.
More than anything else that is the right thing to do.
All it takes is one state to go real on gay marriage, and you've got the meat of a court fight that will go all the way to the US Supreme Court. Yes, a fillibuster-proof majority will be nice to have, when Bush goes to make his first appointment to the Court, but we've got to get there first. We're all hoping that Stevens will croak, but the chances are, it will be O'Connor or Rehnquist who retires early. All Bush will be able to do is to appoint someone at least as conservative as them, and while it can be argued that O'Connor is not as conservative as she started out to be, that seat is a permanent "woman's seat" (just like Thurgood Marshall's was a "black seat") and we have no guarantees that whatever woman Bush nominates will be reliable. I just remember how Souter fooled GWB's father.
In any case, you have the immediate problem before you. Vermont faced this situation, and the civil union thing kept the issue within their borders. No other state has to recognize a VT civil union at this point. If the alternative of civil union is adopted in MA, all you need is one of those four votes in last week's decision to be softened, and its a 4-3 vote to accept civil union as being a solution to the court's order. This also has an effect on every other court in the land, if the option of civil union is out there on the table, the courts can back away from ordering gay marriage, and say that it's up to the legislature to come up with a civil union plan.
Would we be a better country if abortion were only allowed in limited circumstances in the states where it was politically popular, or do you prefer the "any abortion, any time, any circumstances" that we have now? With abortion, you either kill the kid, or you don't, there is no middle step. With civil union, we have the "neutral" place to go to. All it is, is a set of contract rights. It does not compel any heterosexual person to do anything. You can still crack "fag" jokes if you want to, even at work if you live in a place where homosexuals are not a protected class.
I don't agree with your contention that most people in this country are moderately conservative. Many people are becoming fiscally conservative, but that is a far cry from being socially conservative. Please remember that the majority of voters in this country are in the baby boomer years, who remember the civil rights fights of the 1960's as a formative event in their childhood, or their young adulthoods. If the issue can be framed in those terms, gay marriage wins. Another group of people who are potential voters is the generations X and Y, who followed the boomers. They missed out on the Freedom Rides, and they're looking for a way to make their mark on what they see as freedom in America, and to oppose the Establishment. They're the ones showing up at Howard Dean rallies on college campuses.
I don't disagree that most people in your circles, and probably in mine are not comfortable with gay marriage, but I submit to you, that just by being members of this forum, we are not typical Americans. The cities are chock full of people who know, work with, and may be related to openly gay people. An all or nothing framing of the gay marriage issue will put them squarely in the "all" camp. The alternative of civil union will make them feel more comfortable, and the issue takes on less passion for them.
The six month clock is ticking. We don't have any major elections in that time, except for an uncontested Republican nomination process, and a fiercely contested Rat nomination process. The leading Rats really don't want to have to talk about gay marriage, but they can be forced into it. If it gets into the media, look for them to try to capture the high ground, with stories about love and committment, Tom Brokaw is not going to show you scenes of gay pride parades. The left will be able to convince the middle, especially if there is no civil union alternative. Those bitterly opposed to civil union will be portrayed as unyielding Scrooges who would just as soon throw homosexuals in jail. Yes, there was a pretty immediate backlash in public opinion after Lawrence vs. Texas, but it has already subsided.
Bush doesn't need to make the outcome of the 2004 elections dependent on finding the most comforable things to say about gay marriage. He needs to make the issues into the economy, which is recovering, and terrorism, which many voters blame for tanking the 2001 recovery, anyway. He needs to make the mushy middle comfortable that he's in charge, and that Howard Dean is a hothead, full of himself, and the Rats that run with him as obstructionists that are not good partners in rebuilding this country. He can fight gay marriage better with clear majorities in Congress, who were elected because the mushy middle didn't fear a theocracy. If the fight against gay marriage is winnable, then the President needs every tool he can get in his belt, and he needs there to be relatively weak cases for gay marriage working their way through the courts. He doesn't need a "full faith and credit" Constitutional case to have to fight, just a bunch of gay rights groups claiming unfairness. He needs to have courts that can see a middle ground available, so that tradition can be maintained.
It's way too late for Vermont, I think we will both agree. I contend that it's also way too late for Massachusetts. Do we contain this decision there, or do we set up a situation that gets us, Roe vs. Wade style, gay marriage in all fifty states?
I just do not believe the legislature or the people of Ma have the will the go thru with gay marriage. For goodness sakes it 99% catholic how are they going to reconcile? There is going to be other fights that come up on this issue and I don't want to afford the Lib courts any slack so it is clear cut which way they should rule.
It's no different than giving drug addicts needles, teenages condoms, or smokes for votes. We need to be trying to change hearts on this and you're not going to do that by setting up some guise which is supposed to act as a middle ground. Your idea will only strengthen their movement.
I really believe it would be in the repubs and the country's best interest to stop this now! The culture war is huge...and the gay issue is the main root cause of it's decline.
I really don't think conservatives will have any problems in MA because the people are gonna blow this gay marriage issue to smithereens...
If the MA legislature does anything besides allow gay marriage, or civil union, then the MA Supreme Court will simply order subordinate courts to issue marriage licenses. Since there is no residency requirement, and only a three day waiting period, including Saturdays and Sundays, look for gay couples from all over the United States flying into MA for an extended weekend. Then, look for all of them to fly back to their home states with a marriage certificate in hand, and a court challenge brewing. Gay activists have way too much at stake here, and if you think that only conservatives will rise to the occasion of this situation, you're wrong.
There's no way that anything can be brought up to a vote of the people of Massachusetts before November, 2004, minimum. And that wouldn't even be a Constitutional amendment. Look for large amounts of money to be spent by both sides, money that should be wasted on Howard Dean on their side, and money that should be used to elect Republicans across this country on our side. This fight needs to be in 2005, not 2004.
For goodness sakes it 99% catholic how are they going to reconcile?
There are Catholics, and there are Catholics. Some are the in-church-every-Sunday-do-everything-the-pope-and-bishop-say kind, and some show up at Christmas and Easter, then vote for a Kennedy on Election Day. One thing that is clear in the minds of Massachusetts Catholics, they remember stories told by their grandparents about what it was like to be a fresh off the boat immigrant from Ireland, and be persecuted for it. All the media has to do is frame this as an issue of compassion, and you'll find the same kind of Catholic that opposed Ronald Reagan when his bishop told him that strength was not the way to win the Cold War. I know, I used to be Catholic around that time.
It's no different than giving drug addicts needles, teenages condoms, or smokes for votes.
I've suspected that a lot of conservatives see this as a "permission" issue. If we grant civil unions, then we say, "gay is OK". Well, gay Americans really aren't waiting for society's permission to decide their sexual orientation. Besides, how much "permission" do you think they're going to take from a Supreme Court ruling that takes one state's gay marriage laws, and essentially makes them the law of the land? Having only a few very liberal states grant them civil union status is not a lot more than they have right now, especially since we have already crossed the bridge into that territory. Blame Howard Dean if you want, but this thing's been headed for the courts for at least a decade. Now, we're here, and we need to decide what to do about it. We can contain this to Massachusetts, where it's six months away from some sort of fruition, or think that there are enough numbers to prevent this from erupting all over the country.
The culture war is huge...and the gay issue is the main root cause of it's decline.
Worse than the smut marketed on TV and the movies? When I was a kid, in order to see a nasty film, you had to go into a theatre in a sizable city. Now, every country store in the boondocks has R rated movies on the video rental shelves, and those are for people too poor to afford a satellite dish.
Worse than the throwaway value of human beings, after thirty years of free and easy abortion? We have a whole generation of people who realize they are here only because they were not expendable at the time of conception. If we don't reform Social Security, then that generation, and the ones following will feel no restraint about putting a bullet through our heads to avoid paying us. The "you're nobody unless somebody loves you," crowd has convinced them that the right to life is circumstantial.
Worse than the "something for nothing" attitude that our governments engender with state lotteries? Don't work, don't save, and just wait for your ship to come in. After all, the world owes you a living, right? You can add the "affirmative action" mentality to that. We've got a whole generation of black kids who are thinking that "the man" has to pay reparations, then they get their bling-bling. I could go on, but I won't.
I really don't think conservatives will have any problems in MA because the people are gonna blow this gay marriage issue to smithereens...
I doubt it. I'm surprised you have so much faith in the people of a state that has sent a Kennedy to high public office for over fifty years. A state that votes for so many liberal spending programs, that the only way to pay for it all is to raise revenues to the point where the state is known nationwide as "Taxachusetts."
What if you're wrong? What if there is a total breakdown in getting the MA Supreme Court to back down? Gay marriage takes a giant step to becoming the law of the land, and the media fight over the whole thing stuffs the chances of not only victory for President Bush, but control of both houses of Congress, too. What place do you think gay marriage would have in a Howard Dean (or any other Rat) administration, and Rat-controlled Congress? They might not establish it, but they won't oppose the courts on it, either. You'll have Breyer and Ginsburg justices, who will look to the precidents set last summer. And all of it will be avoidable if this decision can be contained within the borders of the state that spawned it.
The definition of marriage has been changing for the last couple of centuries. Most marriages did not last much beyond the couple seeing their last grandchildren born, and being able to help financially with that, then one member of the couple was deceased, centuries ago. Now, we have infertile couples because they have survived long past their (and their children's) childbearing years. They may not need the protections afforded to them by society that made it easier for them to raise the next generation, but no one would think of taking those rights away. So, societal sanction of marriage solely to aid procreation has gone by the wayside. Other reasons to marry besides bearing and raising children are considered as valid.
Marriage used to be about a man taking a wife as property. He "owned" all the children of that marriage, so if there was a divorce, he got them. Glad we've advanced beyond that notion, even though we've swung too far the other way.
As Sirchtruth has properly pointed out, Hollywood and the entertainment business have morphed marriage from an arrangement made by one's parents, into a search by the individual for a soulmate. Admittedly, TV and the movies do a poor job of preparing us for that search, but the fact remains, each person gets to choose, whether they do it for good or bad reasons. That's even extended to living-together relationships, perhaps you openly scorn people who are in such relationships, but not many people will frown on it anymore.
Living together is precisely the only choice left to people who are homosexual, and want to have a committed relationship. I'm sure that you think they can all be converted, but we know this isn't going to happen. What then, do we do about their existence?
US Supreme Court says we can't throw them in jail anymore. Besides if we wished to stamp out their homosexuality, we need to throw a gay guy in the same cell with a lesbian. That didn't even happen when you could jail them.
Now, we have a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision saying that the Massachusetts legislature and governor MUST do something about them. This, of course, is the same legislature and governor who saw this case coming, and simply hoped that the MA Supremes would keep them from having to argue about the issue. Now, they have to.
The Court did leave them an out, however. Just like in Vermont, they can adopt a "separate but equal" civil union statute, that will stave off the eventual US Supreme Court case, maybe for the day when a couple of President Bush's justices are hearing the issue. Or, conservatives can charge headlong into the battle, butting up against Massachusetts famous liberals, who would really like to see nothing done. Six months, and boom, you've got gay marriage ordered by the courts in one state of the US. Not just any state, but a state that has no residency requirement for marriage, and only a three day waiting period. I suppose that the MA legislature can change that, but all it does is increase the tourist dollars spent by homosexual couples waiting out the period of time. They might even get contributions from fellow gay people in their states, knowing that the marriage certificate that the traveling couple comes back with, will be put to the test in the home state.
I remember your screen name, and know that you and I have tangled in the past over homeschooling issues. I hope I've tried to make sense, and not be insulting. I've tried to describe the realities that I see, and I hope that my fellow conservatives will not get into a quest for a victory that may be Pyrrhic at best. The damage, if you see it as that, has been done, and remember that the people who will vote on any gay marriage legislation are predominately products of the public school system that you work so long and hard to keep your kids away from.
Think of it this way: One of the houses in your neighborhood has been infected with an incurable disease. You might want to mount an attack against the disease by killing all of its germs, but the only way to do that is to kill the occupants inside, which will bring the wrath of the law down upon you. Rather, the best way to deal with the disease, is quarantine, until a cure can be found, if ever.
Plessy vs. Ferguson is the 1898 US Supreme Court decision that established "separate but equal" as the law of the land for establishing separate facilities for whites and blacks. It was only after two world wars, the right of women to vote, and a half century of aviation that this system was dismantled by the Court in 1954. Even then, for another ten years, the country was treated to the sight of George Wallace standing in the doorway of an Alabama college, demanding continued segregation. By that time, the battle for segregation had been long lost. If fifty-six years from now, our children's and grandchildren's generation has gay marriage as the law of the land, then the teachings of your religion will not have held sway. If civil union does not get adopted as a compromise, it will be much sooner.
Our difference right now is in the voting public and you're distrusting the voters. If you're wrong, if we just automatically breakdown and give them CU it's permenent no matter what the outcome!. MA would have permenent gay CU, ah, when would that be repealed? NEVER. I am just not willing to say that gay CU or marriage is acceptable and for the majority that know it's perverted selfishness and will only lead us down furthur into the cesspool we are not going to be willing to go there.
What about those town clerks that religious beliefs and seared consciences prevent them from issuing CU permits, will they get fired like they did in VT? I love the discontented gays now that want to get out of thier CU and can't because no other state recognizes it...You're suggesting more convolution.
I sense that just like the dems you do not recognize what is happening out there. People are just getting sick and tired of this crap and the more the deviant/Atheist/God haters (and those that side w/them..dems) push the more of a ground swell it will cause among just your avg joe to purge this country of all this crap! It's happening, but some are not going to have the visionm to see.
Allow me to make this last point. What is happening in this country is much larger than this gay issue, but the gay issue is a direct contravention to how this republic was founded and meant to be and will only continue to prevent us from prospering. The larger and most important issue is God. And I don't care if you're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddist, Mormon, JW, new age, solipsist, or Atheist...If you remove God and do not recognize his authority in this republic, it will cease to exsist. This is exactly what this gay issue is a symptom of, some trying to remove God altogether from public life so there is no CHANCE of higher accountablity or responsibility for their selfish actions. A God we recognize in our DOI and those legislators who founded this country put above and showed reverence towards.
Leave him and lose a country.
I'm just pointing to the political reality that gay marriage or gay civil union has less opposition in some states than in others. Twenty years ago, the advantage was to those who opposed gays, today, the balance has shifted. And its shifted farther in some places than in others, I contend MA is one of those places.
MA would have permenent gay CU, ah, when would that be repealed?
Even if MA repealed gay marriage at the ballot box as would need to be done with a state constitutional amendment, there would still be thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of gay couples all across the US holding MA marriage certificates in their hands, looking to get them recognized by their own states' courts. Can you absolutely state with certainty that all other 49 states will slam the door on these challenges? Just as its too late for Vermont, its too late for Massachusetts. Speaking of Vermont, I would expect at least one gay couple to go to MA to get a real marriage certificate, then come back to VT to get it recognized as a full marriage. What do you think the VT Supreme Court would do once it got THAT case? There's a very serious chance that full gay marriage would be legalized in VT, and you have this problem all over again, even if MA repeals.
What about those town clerks that religious beliefs and seared consciences prevent them from issuing CU permits, will they get fired like they did in VT?
It's possible. Taking a government job means following the civil law even when it conflicts with one's religious beliefs. I once refused to do a title examination on an abortion clinic. My boss had another person handle it, but if I had lost my job over it, then that would have been the price of serving my conscience. As a non-religious person, I wouldn't have even been doing it to "make points with God."
I love the discontented gays now that want to get out of thier CU and can't because no other state recognizes it...You're suggesting more convolution.
And this is a problem for conservatives in what way? Somebody makes a committment that they want society to recognize, and they can't casually break it? I thought that was the goal of religious folks who decried the easy divorce laws.
I sense that just like the dems you do not recognize what is happening out there.
On the contrary, the Rats know exactly what is happening. They get to give something to a constituency without doing anything but blocking what the other side wants to do, a far easier job than trying to enact something. They see this as a no-lose proposition, because if the Republicans move heaven and earth to get around the MA Court, they can portray it to their base (and those sympathetic to their base, including the news media) that the Republicans are trying to "steal" something, like they contend happened to the last Presidential election, and the recall in CA. There's a serious chance that the Republicans can be cast as overreaching in their efforts to defeat this. Civil union postpones the fight until the Republicans are stronger.
People are just getting sick and tired of this crap and the more the deviant/Atheist/God haters (and those that side w/them..dems) push the more of a ground swell it will cause among just your avg joe to purge this country of all this crap! It's happening, but some are not going to have the visionm to see.
I have no doubt that the people you talk to, and know, who are willing to talk about this issue are steamed. But I've seen Christians who refuse to vote for a Republican who is not "pure" enough, the last time that was significant was in 1992. Did this country get a better moral climate during the reign of Prince Slick? No, some of us had to explain events in the news that we'd rather have not had to explain to our kids, if you get my drift.
I have no doubt that in Utah, nearly all of the Southern states, and most of the Midwestern states, there is enough outrage to keep gay marriage from being a near-term reality. Will those people get the chance to go through the arduous and time consuming process of amending their state Constitutions before their state Supreme Courts have this issue before them? Not all of them will, if there are MA marriage certificates being submitted for approval. MA civil union certificates are easier for the courts to ignore.
I go back to the abortion battle. It took a LOT of us by surprise that the US Supreme Court would rule that free and easy abortion would be the law of the land, since it was so unthinkable. It's our job as clear-headed conservatives to think the chess game through, and not just rely on common sense of our fellow man, or God, or whatever to prevent us from getting what we don't want. While I detest abortion with every fiber of my being, I still think this would be a better country if abortion were limited only to the places where it was politically popular thirty years ago. Civil union is the only possible way to quarantine this to Massachusetts and Vermont, and the few other states where the outrage you express is not as widely felt.
Leave him (God) and lose a country.
That kind of rhetoric in the political debate is what tells the mushy middle that GWB and the Republicans really want a theocracy. It's the only thing that really scares people who are with us on tax and spending cuts, and would push back the gay rights movement when it calls for full marriage rights. The civil unions option makes these folks comfortable that justice is being done, and the hard left cannot inflame them with this issue.
I saw a thread on FR a few days ago, about God having one foot out the door, when it comes to supporting this country. Will the same posters pronounce the other foot as having left when MA gets full gay marriage in less than six months, when a firewall could have been built around the state? The left is more than willing to use the "all or nothing" mentality of the Christian Right to defeat it, not only on this issue, but on everything else we want.
Cut our losses on MA, if there is the strength to repeal the MA Supreme Court's ruling by amendment, there is the strength to repeal civil unions. And if there is not, at least the problem will not spread beyond the borders of that state, at least not immediately. It buys time for the outrage that you feel to express itself in the places where it will be most effective. When the issue gets to the US Supreme Court, as it surely will, will the Court be able to say, "We can't give you what you want, go back to your states and lobby your governments for civil union." The chances of that happening increase if there are only two, or just a very few, states that have adopted that option. The chances look very different if the issue is being decided by Justices Estrich and Tribe on the Court.
..And this is where the fight is. It's about the whole cultural and moral decline. Why would trying to bring this country back to a moral base that has been so debased scare peole? Bush is doing it right now and it's slowly working. People are starting to get involved because they know if they do nothing then the left sweeps in and it's all over. Practically anything goes now, just encouraging gays with civil unions will embolden them to strike for more and deprave young minds more.
Cut it off now! I'm not saying to not respect people or throw them in jail...just make it clear society will not tolerate corruption of a sacred tradition.
I don't care about making people comfortable just to gain political points by destroying goodness with pervertedness and if your willing to go there then you will not have me or the majority of this nation behind that kind of cheap whoring.
This is about the way we live and the freedoms we are endowed with, abuse those freedoms and lose those freedoms...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.