Blogcritics: Comments on Bush Inaugural: "Equal Rights For Some!"

Comment by bhw

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:22:22 EST

I'm pretty sure that gay marriage is pretty far down the chain of freedoms from basic liberty. But not nearly as far down as the seatbelt law. 8-)

Comment by bhw

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:15:51 EST

But I doubt this will be acceptable to gay-marriage advocates, Or big government social conservatives, either. Our president, our "moral leader," would not like your solution one bit, or would the social conservatives he enjoys as his base. because I don't believe their agenda is to achieve the miniscule advance of rights for civil unions this would entail - they cannot co-opt the banner of "marriage" by going this route. Such crap. Nobody is trying to co-opt anyone's banner. Some people are just trying to be included ON the banner in a legal way. FWIW, I most Americans would reject the idea of marriage as being only a religious thing and not a civil one. Otherwise, why the votes against gay marriage? Right now, religions can decide who can and can't marry in their systems -- if a gay couple gets married by the JP but not in their church, why do people care?

Comment by DrPat

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:00:10 EST

There are plenty of churches who would agree with Dave - that marriage (as opposed to civil union) is a religious rite, and that a state which is barred from performing other such rites should not be involved in performing marriages either. I would go further and say that anyone who was "married" by a JP or other civil official, but NOT in a church as well, should not be termed "married" from this day forth. As one who would not be "married" if this were the case, I think this would be reasonable. It would remove entirely from the equation the gay-or-straight question. With the numbers of people whose unions would then be civil ones, no politician could afford to deny the same rights and considerations (and resposibilities) to civil unions as to marriages. But I doubt this will be acceptable to gay-marriage advocates, because I don't believe their agenda is to achieve the miniscule advance of rights for civil unions this would entail - they cannot co-opt the banner of "marriage" by going this route.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:48:08 EST

>>I'd like to note that YOU're the one who stereotypically linked your percieved opposition to Gay marriage to conservatism - I simply rebutted your argument, with no slur against your political leanings.<< You didn't rebut my argument, you just rejected it and piled on some insulting questions based on the assumption that I was some sort of racist, fundamentalist moron. Maybe read and respond to my actual post, not to what you assume I'm saying and cut the insults out and I'll take you seriously. Dave

Comment by Andrew

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:49:16 EST

Oh, that's right. It's my "ideological assumptions" that are forming my opinions for me. I'd like to note that YOU're the one who stereotypically linked your percieved opposition to Gay marriage to conservatism - I simply rebutted your argument, with no slur against your political leanings. Whose judgement is being by assumptions again?

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:32:20 EST

Apparently, being unable to read my post through his ideological assumptions, Andrew mistook me for a conservative. No, I don't think marriage is a basic human right. I think that everyone, regardless of race or gender should be allowed to enter into a contractual relationship to live together, share responsibilities, etc. No problem at all with that as a basic right. Marriage, on the other hand, is an institution originating in religion, and should be kept that way and taken completely away from the states. Churches can then decide who they will and will not allow to be married under their auspices, and those who want to get married can shop for a church which will welcome them. This marriage would have no legal standing unless linked to a state-recognized contractual arrangement as described above. Seems like the perfect solution. Dave

Comment by Andrew Quinn

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:18:48 EST

Should we, then, not allow blacks to be married while we "think through the issue?" We could entertain arguments from KKK people who would be delighted to argue the evils that black reproduction unleashes upon society. Would you consider hetero marriage a basic human right, Dave? Would you like it if states only allowed homosexuals to be married? If not... it's a basic human right.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:45:50 EST

I'm pretty sure that gay marriage is pretty far down the chain of freedoms from basic liberty. The question on any issue of freedom is whether the particular activity or presumed right does harm to others when it is exercised. President Bush and others would make the argument that Gay Marriage harms society and harms the institution of marriage, and therefore harms everyone who is married, or who wants to be married, or is part of a family, in the pursuit of giving a right to a small group Ok, the logic of this is debatable, because it presumes that the legal recognition of gay marriage would do harm to marriage as an institution, and that is not a proven fact. But don't go after Bush for violating a right that does not yet exist. Find some facts about the non-harmful nature of Gay Marriage and use those to prove that Bush's basic premise is not correct. Remember, Bush is not opposed to same-sex unions and relationship contracts between people of the same sex. Those would provide all of the functional rights associated with gay marriage except the right to call it a 'marriage'. IMO the government should just deal with this problem by getting out of the marriage recognition business alltogether regardless of the gender of those involved. Let churches decide if the civil union is a marriage or not. Dave