High schooler spars with Rove over gay marriage.
High schooler spars with Rove over gay marriage.
During his controversial speech at New England prep school Choate Rosemary Hall yesterday, former Bush adviser Karl Rove was challenged by a student “to explain how giving gay people the right to marry would endanger other people.” Rove dodged answering her at first, saying that the issue “should be resolved by a legislature or a referendum, not a court.” But the student, Choate senior Marla Spivack, continued to press him:
Spivack kept pressing. “You never actually answered, how does it threaten anyone?” she asked.
Rove asked, what’s the compelling reason to throw out 5,000 years of understanding the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman?
What, Spivack countered, was the compelling reason for society to allow interracial relationships when they had once been outlawed.
Then Rove invoked the Declaration of Independence before Spivak interjected that its reference to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” seemed to support her claims.
Eventually, Rove wiggled out of the debate by asking Spivack “when she planned to run for political office.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Eventually, Rove wiggled out of the debate by asking Spivak “when she planned to run for political office.â€
So he can start digging up dirt on her, no doubt.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:24 amI was so hoping one of these students would call the Pig on his bullshit.
Congrats, Miss Spivak!
February 12th, 2008 at 10:24 amLeave to students to ask the really tough questions.
The MSM is so fcuking lame!!!!
February 12th, 2008 at 10:25 amAnd marriage GG?
February 12th, 2008 at 10:27 amWith divorce rates between 40 and 50% in the United States, someone should ask Karl why heterosexual marriage is such a threat to the 5,000 year institution of marriage.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:28 amRove apparently used all the wingnut dodges in responding to what is a fair question with no compelling answer from the right. Nobody has yet convinced me that allowing gays to marry will destroy straight marriages, or that allowing gays to marry will lead to people marrying animals, etc. And yes — these very arguments WERE once used to defend a ban against interracial marriage.
Rove’s response of “what’s the compelling reason to throw out 5,000 years of understanding the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman?” is a weak because-we’ve-always-done-it-this-way argument. I believe that argument was once used to defend slavery.
I give Rove points for not having the questioner tased, however.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:28 amIt underscores the fact that “conservative ideology” is just a veneer to cover bigotry. Rove, couldn’t ellucidate his movement’s reasoning for opposing gay marriage, not because he didn’t know why, but because if he gave the true answer, it would reveal the veiled bigotry for all to see.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:29 amThe Architect got schooled by a high schooler. Priceless.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:30 amDaryll arriving here to defend the “sanctity of marriage” in
February 12th, 2008 at 10:30 am3…
2…
1…
Karl Rove gets his comeuppance from a high school student. Whodathunkit?
ROFLMAO!!
February 12th, 2008 at 10:31 amThe real answer is simple. It is against the evangelical interpretation of the bible.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:31 amI guess there weren’t any police officers on hand to arrest Rove~
February 12th, 2008 at 10:31 amThere is no compelling state interest in not granting Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit to civil unions between two consenting adults, even if those two consenting adults happen to be of the same gender.
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 10:25 am
I note your use of “civil unions” instead of “marriage.” Do you believe “separate but equal” is constitutionally valid for marriage, even though it wasn’t for education?
February 12th, 2008 at 10:31 amMaybe this is why Rove doesn’t want the media anywhere his speeches — because somebody might ask him an embarrassing question?
February 12th, 2008 at 10:31 amWhen young people display critical thinking ability and are able to effectively debate the likes of Rove, there is indeed hope for our country.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:32 amgood_golly – Nice to hear you say that.
nanlichi – I don’t think it matters. Civil unions are a way to grant consenting adults a way to recognize their commitment to each other in a legal manner. ‘Marriage’ has been, and always will be, a way for different religious sects to identify a sacred contract between two people in the eyes of that faith. If a faith doesn’t want to call it marriage, they don’t have to. And the government has no right to tell a faith they must. Just like a faith has no right to tell the government what the definition of a civil union is.
Two separate things. Kinda like the whole separation of church and state thing. :)
February 12th, 2008 at 10:34 amRove could care less about preventing gay people from getting married EXCEPT when it helps his politiican win a campaign. He’d be for banning vanilla ice cream if it would have won Bush more votes.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:34 amMarla Spivak, fantastic!!
Keep it up, girl!
February 12th, 2008 at 10:36 amIn my opinion, the majority of the Right is wrong on this one. There is no compelling state interest in not granting Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit to civil unions between two consenting adults, even if those two consenting adults happen to be of the same gender.
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 10:25 am
Good post — it reeks of common sense, and I even gave it one of my rare “recommends”.
One question, though. You use the term “civil unions” instead of “marriage”. I have yet to hear anyone explain the difference between the two in a way that makes any kind of sense at all. Is it just a semantics thing? Or is there some legal difference between the two?
I’m really not being a snark here — I’m genuinely interested in how you differentiate the two. I’m also interested in how anyone else here differentiates the two.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:36 amIt is amazing how simple the arguments are when you tell the truth and use common sense. Even the spin master Rove can’t spin out of it.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:37 amI’m really not being a snark here — I’m genuinely interested in how you differentiate the two. I’m also interested in how anyone else here differentiates the two.
Comment by missmolly — February 12, 2008 @ 10:36 am
“gay marriage” = “having your cake”
February 12th, 2008 at 10:39 am“civil unions” = “eating it too”
bobcat_grad,
Well said and I agree. By the same token if a faith allows persons to marry regardless of sexual orientation, the government has no say in that either.
I would like to have heard GG respond in that manner, the absence of the M word in GG’s answer was loud.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:40 am‘Marriage’ has been, and always will be, a way for different religious sects to identify a sacred contract between two people in the eyes of that faith.
Comment by bobcat_grad — February 12, 2008 @ 10:34 am
OK — this could be a valid explanation of the difference. Except that when two heterosexuals get married at City Hall by a JoP, we still call that “marriage”. Shouldn’t we call any wedding performed outside a religious setting a “civil union” whether the participants are of opposite sexes or of the same sex?
February 12th, 2008 at 10:40 amWhat strikes me is that Ms. Spivak was prepared for the response, which turns the opportunity to ask a question into an actual debate where postions have to be justified, not merely expressed.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:40 amWell done Marla! You just showed the MSM how they should do their job.
“I have yet to hear anyone explain the difference between the two in a way that makes any kind of sense at all. Is it just a semantics thing? Or is there some legal difference between the two?”
Civil, meaning secular. No church-sanctioned unions.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:41 amOr as teh kidz would say…”pwned!”
February 12th, 2008 at 10:41 amShouldn’t we call any wedding performed outside a religious setting a “civil union†whether the participants are of opposite sexes or of the same sex?
Comment by missmolly — February 12, 2008 @ 10:40 am
And now from the one word answer man:
Yup.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:42 amThe only way that “gay marriage” would hurt my marriage (or civil union since we were married by a notary public) is my husband would say “yuck” and I would say to him, “your a homophobe”. Then we’d get back to doing whatever is was that we were doing.
Yeah, that’s really going to hurt my marriage.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:43 amHahaha, Carl RangeRover just got told by that shit-head little kid
February 12th, 2008 at 10:44 am“gay marriage†= “having your cakeâ€
“civil unions†= “eating it tooâ€
Comment by toasterhead — February 12, 2008 @ 10:39 am
Perhaps this is why I prefer gay unions be considered “marriage” — if they want to get married, they should be required to put up with all the negatives of that institution, just like straights do.
Yes, they should be subject to the “marriage penalty” when they file their taxes — just like straights are. And if they cheat on their partner, they should be accountable for the consequences of adultery, just like straights are. And their divorces should be every bit as much of a hassle as they are for straight people.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:45 amOne question, though. You use the term “civil unions†instead of “marriageâ€. I have yet to hear anyone explain the difference between the two in a way that makes any kind of sense at all. Is it just a semantics thing? Or is there some legal difference between the two?
Comment by missmolly — February 12, 2008 @ 10:36 am
My understanding is that marriage is a religious term. I don’t have a problem with civil unions or even marriage between 2 people that love each other. The companies that I’ve worked for would accommodate gay people with life partner benefits.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:46 amRove is full of crap, and a pussy.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:46 amThe right’s opposition to gay marriage is is simply wedge politics. They could care less really, but they use all sorts of bigoted comments and scare tactics to drive the simple minded into a tizzy.
If you allow gays to marry then your kid is going to marry their dog. If you allow gays to marry then straight people won’t be able to marry anymore. If you allow gays to marry your might run into them at the courthouse and they might kiss, right in front of you.
Anyone who opposes gay marriage is a simple minded bigot. These are exactly the same kind of people who thought miscegenation was a problem less than a century ago. At one point there was much dithering in this country about diluting our gene pool. In some areas a black man who was seen kissing a white woman would simply be killed.
So, we’ve come a long way. Now, it’s gay people who are strung up to fences to die in the elements. It’s gay people who are knifed or stabbed with broken bottles at random in the more progressive neighborhoods of Seattle.
The fight for civil rights by gays and lesbians is as monumental as the fight for civil rights for all races. I don’t believe this nation will truly live up to its credo (echoing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) until we are willing to respect the civil rights of gay people. People like Karl Rove are anti-American bigots who deny others the American dream in order for personal gain.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:48 amIt must be obvious to all, that anyone wed outside a church, is not married, but just unionized.?
February 12th, 2008 at 10:50 amThe pasty, porcine, puke is near sighted. If gays could marry, then he and Jeff Gannon could tie the knot.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:50 amShouldn’t we call any wedding performed outside a religious setting a “civil union†whether the participants are of opposite sexes or of the same sex?
Comment by missmolly — February 12, 2008 @ 10:40 am
If we’re going to follow this to its semantic conclusion, yes. But then who are “we?” The consequences of what we call such a wedding depends on who we are.
Are we friends or family of the bride and bride/groom and groom?
Are we the clergy in the church of the bride and bride/groom and groom?
Are we the employers of the bride and bride/groom and groom?
Are we health insurance providers of the bride and bride/groom and groom?
Are we reviewing the tax returns of the bride and bride/groom and groom?
Are we the doctors seeking rescussitate/do not rescussitate decisions from the bride or groom when the other bride or groom is incapacitated?
Are we the judges adjudicating divorce proceedings of the bride and bride/groom and groom?
We in the blogosphere can call it what we want, but what matters in a policy sense is the legal distinction.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:50 amStates can’t enforce any racial, religious, or age (escept minimum) test on couples who want to marry, and no-fault divorce has largely taken the government out of the “protecting marriage” business. When our government allows an 18 year-old Atheist to go to the local Justice of the Peace and marry an 80 year old Hindu, then get divorced six months later and marry a Christian who has been married four times before, then get divorced a year later and re-marry the first spouse again, I’d say we’ve given up any pretense to the government protecting the “sanctity of marriage” ideas held by any particular religious belief system.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:53 amKarl never did graduate from college.
[Plus he always has to be right].
February 12th, 2008 at 10:53 amits all in the definition of marriage.
i (God please don’t strike me down) agree (gulp) with (omg) rove (ugh…) the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman. if gay people want to enter into a life long commitment, that is fine and dandy, let them have their CIVIL UNIONS all they want. There is nothing wrong with gays wanting to spend their lives together, but it is impossible for them to be “MARRIED”…..
February 12th, 2008 at 10:54 amIs Turdblossom smarter than a 16 yr. old?
What did Turdy get paid for speaking to a High School? Less than $40K, because it’s not a college?
Why are educators paying liars to continue lying?
If this was a coordinated study on the affect liars have on government, I’d support it. But the idea that Rove is a Patriot or somehow innocent of carnage, mayhem & death of innocent children just isn’t accurate.
C’mon, folks, he’s still blowing shit out of his mouth. Are you OK with educational monies going for that?
February 12th, 2008 at 10:54 amKarl’s not an open debate kind of guy. Karl works best in the shadows.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:56 amI was so hoping one of these students would call the Pig on his bullshit.
Comment by RUCerious — February 12, 2008 @ 10:24 am
Wouldn’t that be pigshit?
February 12th, 2008 at 10:56 amMarriage = religiously ordained ceremony.
Civil union = state ordained ceremony.
The ‘gay marriage’ debate is really about equal civil rights; just as the education/segregation debate was. I’m all for total equality in both regards. However, the distinction here is the Constitutional separation of church and state. Specifically marriage is a religiously based term; it should be preserved as such. All ‘marriages’ outside of a church sanctioned ceremony are really nothing more than civil unions whereby the union is state recognized for civil rights purposes.
I don’t think this is merely semantics; I think the root of the debate is about civil rights; thus civil unions provide the needed equality in civil rights.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:57 amIs Choate or Rosemary a first or last name? Inane question, but just curious…!?!?!?
February 12th, 2008 at 10:57 amI always find it interesting that those who claim to follow the Bible and use it to support their prejudice against gay people refuse to support the Bible when it calls for divorced people to never re-marry.
I guess SOME verses of Jesus’s words the Bible are less important than the verses that are NOT Jesus’s words!
February 12th, 2008 at 10:57 amWouldn’t that be pigshit?
Comment by toasterhead — February 12, 2008 @ 10:56 am
A turd by any other name, …
February 12th, 2008 at 10:57 amCan we get that smart H.S. Student a job in the W.H. press Corps?
Seriously. Somebody needs to teach those stenographers how to do their job!
February 12th, 2008 at 10:58 amI’d address civil unions as well. “Marriage” in our society has two components. First, there is a matter of contract law. Government agencies including the IRS, the military, social security, our schools, and then even public institutions like hospitals and health insurance providers, all differentiate between married and unmarried persons.
When two people are married they are for many intents treated as a single legal entity. A lot of what gay people are fighting for is this legal status. It means they can buy a house together. It means they can share insurance benefits. It means they can visit their loved one in the hospital after hours. It means they can authorize emergency medical care for their loved one’s children. It means they can file a joint tax return.
Some people have proposed splitting all this contract law off into a new status. A civil union would provide all the legal benefits of marriage, but would not have any religious connotations. The idea is that one signs a civil union contract for the state, the legal aspects, and then goes to get married at your church, the religious aspect.
There are plenty of straight proponents of civil unions. Anyone who has ever married at the court house has essentially been bound in a civil union. There are many people who like to be able to enjoy all the advantages of marriage, but do not desire to marry in a church.
The easiest way to grant the legal aspects of marriage to same sex partners is simply to amend the law so that it clarifies that the gender of the participants is no longer important. One short law can change hundred and hundreds of statutes.
Introducing civil unions is a little more complex because it involved negotiating and making sure that other states and all the government agencies which recognize “marriage” also recognize “civil unions” for all the same intents and purposes.
I think you’ll find that the simple minded bigots who are opposed to same sex marriage are also opposed to civil unions. Their goal is really to ratify their religion as a state religion. The loving same sex couples and their children and all the straight people who want to be able to “marry” without a religious ceremony pay the price.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:58 amMy understanding is that marriage is a religious term. I don’t have a problem with civil unions or even marriage between 2 people that love each other. The companies that I’ve worked for would accommodate gay people with life partner benefits.
Comment by VA Voter — February 12, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Another one with the explanation that “marriage” refers to the lifetime union of two people in the religious sense. I’m sensing a trend here.
I kind of like this concept, actually. “Marriage” would be a union recognized by God and the church, synagogue, or other house of worship. “Civil union” would be a union recognized by the government — applying to gays and straights alike. The government would only be required to recognize civil unions, and the church only recognize marriages. Since a couple would require BOTH a marriage and a civil union to be recognized by everyone, they could have two separate ceremonies (don’t laugh — many couples do, including Prince Rainier and Princess Grace of Monaco), or the marriage ceremony and civil union ceremony could be performed simultaneously in a church by a clergyman licensed to do both.
However, if we are going to refer to heterosexuals who have been legally joined via civil union as “married”, we either need to stop doing that, or we need to refer to gays with civil unions as “married” as well.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:59 amComment by Fan of Man — February 12, 2008 @ 10:54 am
I disagree.
Marriage has traditionally been a word that blurs the line between church and state. Marriage in a religous setting means that two people (traditionally a man and woman) have agreed before the eyes of their god and in accordance with the laws of their church/etc., that they are bound to each other. Secularly, that has always meant that they are now a legally bound unit with all the good and bad that comes with that.
The introduction of the term ‘civil union’ is an attempt to separate marriage from having a dual meaning. ‘Civil Union’ is in reference to the civic legality of two people entering into a binding contract, while marriage is what the religious institution recognizes.
To me, they are two separate things. If one wants to recognize two people being a unit, and the other doesn’t, fine. But understand that you only get the legal stuff if you are joined in a civil union (marriage license – yea, I know the term’s wrong) and you only get the spiritual recognition (for whatever that’s worth) if you are ‘married’ in a relgious setting.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:02 amIs Choate or Rosemary a first or last name? Inane question, but just curious…!?!?!?
Comment by RUCerious — February 12, 2008 @ 10:57 am
Choate is the last name of Rufus Choate, an American politician in the late 19th century, and his son Joseph Hodges Choate who served as ambassador to Great Britain.
Rosemary is an herb in the evergreen family that adds a wonderful, pungent flavor to poultry and fish and is an excellent addition to a sourdough bread.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:03 am“… in the religious sense…”
Which religion would that be, missmolly?
Buddhism? Judaism? Islam? Hinduism?
Oh…. would they mean, marriage as defined SOLELY by Christianity?
February 12th, 2008 at 11:03 amMarriage should be available to all adults, to marry another consenting adult of either sex on an equal basis, or marriage should be banned.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:03 amZimzone-
It seems to me that the students of most of these scholls are largely against having these Bush Administration flunkies come in and spout their shit all over the place. Why the administrators of these schools are so adamant about hosting these criminals AND paying top dollar to listen to their verbal excrement is beyond me. I thought the Republicans were anti-education:
February 12th, 2008 at 11:03 am“As people do better, they start voting like Republicans – unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thingâ€
-KKKarl Rove
MM – I agree; I think the government needs to start using the term ‘civil union’ in all of its paperwork and documentation. The only recognition of marriage is that which is religiously ordained. If that were done this entire issue would be resolved; yet I don’t see something that simple being accomplished any time soon…
And as for two ceremonies and/or one – most churches don’t recognize ‘marriages’ that aren’t performed in/through/by the church itself. With that in mind, this ‘civil’ change wouldn’t make any difference w/in churches – they already simultaneously perform marriage ceremonies that convey both marriage and civil rights.
The solution really is simple; the problem is that the two groups in this argument have positioned themselves at polar extremes such that they will never reach any agreement….
February 12th, 2008 at 11:06 amsorry, s/b “schools” not “scholls”
February 12th, 2008 at 11:06 amsee-the childrens is learning!
If “marriage” is a term exclusive to those who have had their domestic union sanctioned by a religious body, then why do some church denominations have the term “holy matrimony”? The term “holy matrimony” is an acknowledgement that some marriages have been traditionally accomplished without religious sanctioning.
We are allowing language to control us, rather than reflect us. When we as a society decide to give full rights to homosexuals, we will develop the language to label the components of that decision.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:08 amIt is believed the institution of marriage originally arose to keep peace w/in the tribe. Once a couple was publicly recognized as joined, they were considered off-limits sexually to the other members of the tribe (keeps the bloodshed down, ya know…), hence the “wedding ceremony”, so’s everyone knows what’s what.
Also, it gave the tribe a way to assign responsibility for raising the young. “You two had ‘em… you take care of ‘em…”.
It is my understanding “romantic love” is a relatively new social construct and that marriages were generally arranged affairs for centuries. How “religion” ever managed to attach itself to the proceedings, I don’t know.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:09 amWhich religion would that be, missmolly?
Buddhism? Judaism? Islam? Hinduism?
Oh…. would they mean, marriage as defined SOLELY by Christianity?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — February 12, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Almost every faith has a ceremony akin to the Christian marriage ceremony… so in my eyes, it matters not.
“Civil Union” = secular recognition of two people joining their assets, liabilities, gaining previleges and rights recognized by all
“Marriage” = a religious recognition of two people commiting themselves to each other spiritually
Honestly, the line seems pretty well defined to me. The right’s hateful divisive tactics only benefit from their intentional blurring of this line.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:09 amThe semantics makes no sense to me. If, what many of you are saying, when I married, I entered into a legal union, as I married in a courthouse. Why, then, did I have to pay joint taxes for 14 years? Why did I have to pay $1500 to end the union? If people want to make that kind of commitment to each other, I say GO FOR IT. Then they have the same plusses – and minuses – as the rest of us. And more power to them!
If it’s legal and done by consenting adults, who are we to determine right and wrong? I’m not into BDSM but should I say to someone who is that I think they are sick, immoral, illegal? No, of course not. Consenting. Adult. Period.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:10 amhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Funny how marriage is defined as a relationship being recognized by the law but there isn’t a single mention of faith or church in there at all. And missmolly makes a great point, a marriage between a man and a woman performed outside of the church is still a marriage.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:10 amAnd as for two ceremonies and/or one – most churches don’t recognize ‘marriages’ that aren’t performed in/through/by the church itself.
Comment by drinkasaur — February 12, 2008 @ 11:06 am
Excellent point. My mother and father divorced when I was eight. As they were married in the Catholic church, it was technically never recognized. Both parents remarried – but neither in the Catholic church because Catholic law prohibits it. Fine – didn’t stop them from marrying someone they love. And guess what – the state of Ohio recognized all of the ‘marriages’ as legally binding.
They are TWO very separate concepts that are blurred by the use of ONE word to refer to both: Marriage. Until that stops, people will be confused as to what they oppose on the basis of faith and what they oppose on the basis of civil liberties.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:13 amThis whole debate must recognize that there are both individual rights issues involved (for the homosexuals themselves) and religious freedom rights as well, given that as it now stands a religious organization is legally prohibited from sanctioning a homosexual domestic union.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:16 amFunny how marriage is defined as a relationship being recognized by the law but there isn’t a single mention of faith or church in there at all. And missmolly makes a great point, a marriage between a man and a woman performed outside of the church is still a marriage.
Comment by ziggs13 — February 12, 2008 @ 11:10 am
Hence my point. If we are all for evolving past traditional concepts and we as progressives are for granting the same right to homosexuals and heterosexuals, we need to realize the traditional definition and contextual use of the word ‘marriage’ may need to be modified.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:19 amComment by Ms_Joanne — February 12, 2008 @ 11:10 am
Only $1500?
Nice…. ;)
February 12th, 2008 at 11:19 amIn most religious organizations, you’re right. In others, you’re wrong. A month ago, I attended a ceremony for two lesbians in their church. It was for friends of my wife and performed in a christian church (the cross tipped me off).
Amazingly, no one was struck down by lightning upon leaving the building.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:22 amZooey, LOL!
It was long, long ago and far, far away (ok, I am in Belgium this week so that counts for far, right? :-) And, neither of us bucked the system. We worked everything out and gave it to one attorney who filed the papers. Over, done with.
People shouldn’t be able to marry, civil, whatever, until they’re 30. How about a law for that! :-)
February 12th, 2008 at 11:24 amGOOD FOR HER!!! YOU GO GIRL!!!
Rove’s inability to answer proves her point. When conservatives are asked to explain exactly how allowing same-sex couples to have civil marriages causes any problems for heterosexuals, they stumble all over themselves looking for an excuse. The whole “5,000 years” argument is bunk; even a casual study of history shows that marriage as we know it today is quite different from how marriage was understood even 100 years ago. When we go back 5,000 years the difference is even more dramatic.
The truth is that expanding civil marriage to include same-sex couples is a “no brainer”. No one will be forced into a marriage, the same rules that apply to heterosexuals will also apply to same-sex couples (i.e., must be of legal age, etc.), and no existing heterosexual marriage will be dissolved or diminished by Adam and Steve having a marriage license.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:24 amComment by toasterhead — February 12, 2008 @ 11:03 am
next time I’ll just use the googles, but Thanx anyhoo!
February 12th, 2008 at 11:25 amor marriage should be banned.
Comment by Zooey — February 12, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Somehow I sense you’re leaning in this direction ;}
February 12th, 2008 at 11:26 amWith divorce rates between 40 and 50% in the United States, someone should ask Karl why heterosexual marriage is such a threat to the 5,000 year institution of marriage.
Comment by toasterhead — February 12, 2008 @ 10:28 am
And, at what point during those 5000 years was it determined (and why) that I had to pay my state $25 for the right to get married?
Sanctity of marriage. Bah!
February 12th, 2008 at 11:27 amWhich religion would that be, missmolly?
Buddhism? Judaism? Islam? Hinduism?
Oh…. would they mean, marriage as defined SOLELY by Christianity?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — February 12, 2008 @ 11:03 am
I suspect that most of these advocates of a Constitutional Amendment defining “marriage” as being between one man and one woman only probably have Christian marriage in mind. However, other religions do recognize marriage as one of their tenets — I know that ceremonial partnering-for-life exists in Judaism and Islam. I don’t know anything about Hinduism or Buddhism, but I’m assuming they have a similar concept.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:29 amHoly Matrimonification, BatCat! Great discussion on this topic, folks, and practically troll free. Fresh Air! Yesssssss!
February 12th, 2008 at 11:29 amHow timely… there’s an article in today’s local newspaper about yet another attempt by GOOPers, this time in AZ, to push thru a constitutional amendment (at the state level) banning gay marriage.
Oh… those… GOOPers! Once you’ve screwed up every last single solitary meaningful issue you’ve touched completely, just retreat to the tried and true hot-button topic and cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
(Is it just me, or does anyone else think that perhaps the real reason the Feds are finally starting one of the most spectacular terrorist trials yet is because we’re gittin’ closer ‘n closer to tha Presiduncial election?)
February 12th, 2008 at 11:32 amI said: “given that as it now stands a religious organization is legally prohibited from sanctioning a homosexual domestic union.â€
As bobcatgrad pointed out, this is not exactly true. What I really should have said is “as it now stands a religious organization that does not consider homosexuality as a sin does not have equal standing in the law in comparison to a religious organization that does consider homosexuality as a sin and, therefore, the practice of their religious practices is limited by the state.”
February 12th, 2008 at 11:32 amI think you’ll find that the simple minded bigots who are opposed to same sex marriage are also opposed to civil unions. Their goal is really to ratify their religion as a state religion. The loving same sex couples and their children and all the straight people who want to be able to “marry†without a religious ceremony pay the price.
Comment by fletc3her — February 12, 2008 @ 10:58 am
That’s proven to be the case here in Oregon. Several years ago, the simple minded bigots (SMBs) managed to foist a law on us that banned gay “marriage”. Throughout the entire campaign leading up to the vote, their spokesSMBs assured everyone that they would have no objection to civil unions and were only interested in protecting “marriage”. Ha. As if.
So last year’s Democratic legislature passed a civil unions bill that was to take place January 1. The SMBs temporarily blocked the law through a Federal judge, complaining that their initiative from last Fall had been unfairly deemed to have failed to gather enough signatures. Although the judge disagreed, the SMBs are back at it and intend to get an initiative on the November ballot that will roll back the civil unions now being granted by the state.
No matter what they claim, they’re acting out of homophobia.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:33 amReich-wingers keep citing “tradition†as a reason for not allowing gay marriages. But, it has also been tradition that women and minorities could not vote, slavery was the norm, women were 2nd class citizens, children worked full-time jobs, life expectancy was ~50 yrs of age, men married children, and two people could legally face off at high-noon with pistols drawn.
Comment by Dr. Matt — February 12, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Ah, how they must yearn for those good old days.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:34 amShould have asked how his [gay] father was a danger to society.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:34 amI have no doubt other religions do, missmolly. I simply suspect, like you, that the flaks in this country who scream so loudly about the sanctity of marriage are really talking about the sanctity of CHRISTIAN marriage, and that alone.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:34 amPeople shouldn’t be able to marry, civil, whatever, until they’re 30. How about a law for that! :-)
Comment by Ms_Joanne — February 12, 2008 @ 11:24 am
I’m all for that.
Find out who you are before you marry someone else. :-)
Belgium is a lot father away than Butte! It’s so cool that you get to travel so much.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:35 amdusty ~ bingo. Self loathing at it’s shiny best here.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:37 amSomehow I sense you’re leaning in this direction ;}
Comment by RUCerious — February 12, 2008 @ 11:26 am
I should really try not to be so transparent. :-)
February 12th, 2008 at 11:37 amRosemary is an herb in the evergreen family that adds a wonderful, pungent flavor to poultry and fish and is an excellent addition to a sourdough bread.
Comment by toasterhead — February 12, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Prime Rib. Don’t forget the Prime Rib.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:38 amBelgium is a lot father away than Butte! It’s so cool that you get to travel so much.
Comment by Zooey — February 12, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Yes it is…and the chocolate is much better! ;-)
February 12th, 2008 at 11:38 amBelgium is a lot father away than Butte! It’s so cool that you get to travel so much.
Comment by Zooey — February 12, 2008 @ 11:35 am
I hate her!
February 12th, 2008 at 11:38 am#82:
Dead on. Ask a Christian homophobic red-stater about their feeling on protecting the sanctity of nikah. See their head spin, then.
Like I keep saying:
“Civil Union†= secular recognition of two people joining their assets, liabilities, gaining previleges and rights recognized by all
“Marriage†= a religious recognition of two people commiting themselves to each other spiritually
February 12th, 2008 at 11:40 amI hate her!
Comment by gummitch — February 12, 2008 @ 11:38 am
Me too, my fellow green-eyed monster. :}
February 12th, 2008 at 11:41 amno sin Is greater than another.
Comment by Dr. Matt — February 12, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Unless you’re catholic. I was raised as such, but have drifted… far away from it. But I recall there being “mortal sins.” Those were the really bad ones – like killing.
Not sure where God sent down the Sin Ratings Chart in the bible. Maybe Moses missed it in the burning bush.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:43 amSeveral issues that are used for political purposes have no reason to be anything other than a personal choice. The political motives are to bring in a certain crowd that feels religion should be mixed with government.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:45 amHopefully there are more students like this one to start questioning the liars who have been making policy.
Re: Catholic marriages, two friends recently paid the church to abolish their previous church unions so they could be married in the church again. The payment was for “paperwork.” So much for sanctity.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:47 amBet this would make Rove’s head spin…
Several months ago I was watching actress Tori Spelling’s reality show on cable, “Tori and Dean: Inn Love,” in which the camera follows her and husband Dean McDermott as they operate a B&B.
In one episode, she became an ordained minister via the Internet so that she could marry a homosexual couple at the inn.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:50 amHey, speaking of Belgium (and how you can hate me when getting here – and everywhere else I go- means I have to pass through airport security – repeatedly, get felt up by someone whose last job entailed asking if I wanted fries with my order, sit next to the 400 lb man who has breath like a water buffalo fart and who drools on my shoulder when he sleeps on the 8 hour flight but snores so loud there is no way, short of a gallon of vodka, that I would!)…here are some cool facts about Belgium…two highlighted below:
# Belgium is one of the few countries worldwide with compulsory voting (and enforced).
# Belgium is one of the rare countries with compulsory education up to 18 years old (highest in the world).
http://www.eupedia.com/belgium/trivia.shtml
February 12th, 2008 at 11:52 amHURRAH FOR MARLA!!!!
You GO, girl! ;o)
February 12th, 2008 at 11:55 amThe Catholic Church, like the GOP, likes to make their own rules.
Comment by Dr. Matt — February 12, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Ya think?
Do you know why priests can’t marry? It’ because back in the day when they could, the church would have to split the estate with the wife. Better to do away with any possible wives so the church gets it all. (From the Dark Side of Christianity.)
February 12th, 2008 at 11:56 amMs. Joanne – great airline story and so true.. and Bingo on why the church doesn’t allow priests to marry. Also, think how much more it would cost to support a husband and wife. Guess it is easier to provide payouts for the child abusing priests.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:04 pmGay marriage – talk about making mountains out of molehills! My personal feelings about marriage aside – I can’t see any reason whatsoever why two people of the same sex can’t get married. A relationship is a relationship – love is love. The only ones that really get their panties in a bunch about all of it are the fundies. Since there is no empirical reason why same-sex couples should not get married there is no reason for a law against it. I mean really, marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution let alone defined. Not that the US Constitution means anything to BushCo – just thought it was worth mentioning.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Comment by Ms_Joanne — February 12, 2008 @ 11:52 am
There is also a real possibility that Belgium will cease to exist as a single country.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pmGummitch..INTERESTING! Since we’ve discussed American politics alot this week, you betcha this is on my list of TO TALK ABOUT’s tomorrow! Thanks!!
February 12th, 2008 at 12:08 pmMarriage, abortion, steriod use are these really issues our representatives should be spending time on ? We have a faltering economy, we have a military that is so weakened, we have NO Homeland Security. And they are arguing about steriod use? Good grief !
February 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pmWe caused this problem a long time ago by making marriage an exception to the establishment clause. I’ll make it really easy for you.
Marriage is a religious contract recognized by the state. To be fair, it should not apply to any two people outside of a religion. If you are a member of a church, then you abide by the laws of that church. END OF STORY.
Now, having said that, there should be a contract for the rest of us that is legally the same as marriage, and (here’s the important part) should be allowed between any two consenting adults regardless of sex, race, cultural identity, etc, etc. We do it this way because we have this little document that says we’re all equal under the law.
Why is this so hard for people to accept?
I think it is outstanding that Marla both asked the question and pressed Rove for an answer, but I also noticed that dispite that, he failed to finally answer her.
We have to not only ask the tough questions, but also demand answers.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pm“My understanding is that marriage is a religious term.”
There are two problems with this statement: 1. “Marriage” was not, originally, a religious term, rite, or ‘institution’ in any meaningful sense. So, while it may be correct to state that “Marriage is a religious term TO ME or IN MY CHURCH,” it is patently NOT correct in an across-the-board, true for all people at all times sort of way. At all. And 2. If you are granted, for the sake of argument, that “marriage” is a purely religious term, then you must allow any “religion” that wants to marry same-sex couples to do so. You can’t say, “MY religion forbids this, so all others must, too.”
February 12th, 2008 at 12:20 pmCome to think of it, why have marriage anyway. It’s all about the family, so why not use the old Clan structure and allow people to bring in whoever they want to into their family. They become legally responsible for those people and it gets gender out of the way. Anyone can be a member of your family. What role they play in your family is up to you. Legally, there will simply be a “head of household” and that’s it. Religions can have any wierd sort of rituals and contracts they wish and honor them however they wish as long as they don’t break human-rights laws.
Again… everyone is happy, and we can start worrying about REAL problems, like is there going to be air to breath in fifty years and social security and health care when I need it, and will my investments still be worth something next year?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pmAs an alumni of Choate Rosemary Hall and friend of Marla, I cannot help but beam with pride for the mature and educated dialogue that students had with Mr. Rove. I only wish I could have been there to join in.
Regarding the “Is Choate or Rosemary a name” discussion…
http://www.choate.edu/aboutchoate/history.asp
February 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pmBrava! Where could I send Marla Spivak a valentine?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:32 pmGood on her.
High school student: 3
“Bush’s Brain”: 0
I’ve got a little more on this over here.
Cheers,
February 12th, 2008 at 12:36 pm#76 Dr. Matt:
Reich-wingers keep citing “tradition†as a reason for not allowing gay marriages.
The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed such “tradition” in the aptly-named Loving v. Virginia case. See my link above.
Cheers,
February 12th, 2008 at 12:42 pmThat smart assed high school kid ought to show a little repect to the boy genius. He’s gay isn’t he?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pmChange marriage as it’s been for that last 5,000? Does Rove or the religious right realize they’re calling for polygamy? That’s by far the most common and most traditional form of marriage across the planet for the last 5,000 years. Even when there was a 2 person marriage it was an arranged family/political marriage (as it still is in many countries). This idea of hippy dippy new age one-man-one-woman marriage of for love is a very very modern idea. If we’re going by the most common form of marriage throughout history, it’s one man and many women…especially if we’re concentrating on the middle east the Egyptian/Roman/Jewish cultures.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pmRove takes it up the butt from Jeff Gannon.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pmAnd so what if it’s “not traditional”? How DARE you outlaw someone else’s life just because it’s not what you like. SO f**king what? I don’t want to life like the Amish…but I don’t want to outlaw their ‘non-traditional’ American life. I don’t want to drink, gamble and whore around all day, but I don’t want to outlaw Las Vegas either. Remember “freedom” you right wing nutbags? What happened to that…the thing our troops (sniffle) are dying for? They dying so we can have freedom to life like the Amish…or like Las Vegas, or anything in between. So long as I’m not stealing from or hurting you, it doesn’t matter if you don’t like my life or want to life like me. It’s none of your damn business. Thank god the Amish aren’t as much jerks as the Republicans and always trying to outlaw electricity or dancing for EVERYONE else….or the Jews aren’t trying to outlaw bacon for everyone just because they don’t eat it.
Don’t like gay marriage? Then don’t marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:11 pmIt is heros like this young student that give me faith in the future of journalism. Perhaps they will not let another war happen while they kiss the ass of the people starting them for access.
Wolf Blitzer could learn a thing or two…or a thousand.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:15 pmSomeone should’ve nailed him in the head with a rock.
I’d risk expulsion for an opportunity like that.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:37 pmIt is fantastic to think of how far we have come as a civilization in the last 5000 years. Wiki has a great summary of our progress…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium_BC
Highlights:
Metals are used in Northern Europe.
Chinese record a comet.
Building of the Great Pyramid of Giza (26th century BC).
Sails used on ships (20th century BC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_millennium_BC
Highlights:
Wheeled chariots and wagons appeared
Development of the alphabet
Oh, you get the point…
February 12th, 2008 at 1:47 pmMany say that marriage was instituted by GOD in the garden of Eden. I beg to differ. It was Adam who said, “This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh….â€
These X-tians need to wake the f8@k up and READ their bibles!
Genesis 2:23-24 – 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
And you get “marriage†out of that how? Marriage is a man made ceremony. Anyone could interpret those verses that Adam and Eve where to live together in sin.
Adam stated something and GOD supposedly said, “O.K.”
February 12th, 2008 at 1:48 pmAnd you get “marriage†out of that how? Marriage is a man made ceremony. Anyone could interpret those verses that Adam and Eve where to live together in sin.
Adam stated something and GOD supposedly said, “O.K.â€
Comment by NthAvenue — February 12, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
This following is Christ speaking in answer to a question asked about divorce. Here he quotes the Genesis account of God presenting the woman to the man.
Believe this interpreter should be considered authoritative – at least for all Christians.
Many conservative Christians consider marriage to be the oldest human institution in existence – older than government and older than religion. And as you can see from the quote, Christ says marriage was the intent of the Creator.
Marriage is a man made ceremony.
A marriage is not made by a ceremony – religious of civil – though a ceremony is often involved.. Notice that Christ doesn’t refer to a ceremony though the New Testament does record that He attended a wedding feast. A marriage is made when a man and a woman declare that they intend to live together as man and wife, and this declaration is often done during a wedding ceremony.
Usually in the Old Testament marriage means the man and woman start having sex, and their exclusive husband and wife relationship is recognized by others. This is one of the reasons that marriage will continue to be a relationship between a man an a woman.
No government on earth can force someone to recognize a same-same relationship as a marriage.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:48 pm#121 – “No government on earth can force someone to recognize a same-same relationship as a marriage.” Comment by bitblt — February 12, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
And until you begin to follow the REST of Jesus’s words, and support outlawing re-marriage after divorce, exactly as Jesus said, YOU are only picking and choosing the verses of the Bible that support your prejudice!
No government on earth can force someone to recognize your ‘pick & choose’ approach to the Bible as consistent!
February 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pmnewsflash – everyone in the US is not a christian
newsflash – this is not the “United States of Jesus” nor should it be
newsflash – fighting dark ages battles over superstitious bs is one sure way to screw everything up, for everyone, for good
can we please move forward from the 60’s, and stop distilling everything down to a simpleton’s battle between “god-fearing patriots” and “dirty hippies” – that stuck record’s getting mighty old – in fact it’s been playing my whole damned life, and all it demonstrates is that Americans, on the whole, are kinda slow.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:32 pmComment by Democrat Soldier — February 12, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
If you’re referring to Matthew 19:
bitblt believes these verses and has no trouble believing and teaching these words of Christ.
However, “outlawing re-marriage” in the twenty-first century would seem to imply a theocracy.
I don’t think the U.S. is, or has ever been, a theocracy. It is a nation for a Christian people, but not a theocracy.
Commentators on these verses often say that what Christ means when he uses the phrase, “hearts were hard.†is that some men were killing their wives to get out of the marriage. Likely, if “re-marriage,†under the above conditions, were outlawed some men would start killing their wives to get out of the marriage.
Since “outlawing re-marriage†is highly unlikely, doesn’t it make sense to put marriage back in a position of ultra-respect.
Note the phrase, “But it was not this way from the beginning.†where Christ alludes to his previous remarks on the Creator’s intent.
bitblt believes what Christ says here is the authority on marriage.
Do you believe that DS?
February 12th, 2008 at 3:32 pmMyth, superstition, tradition and the alleged words, of alleged people, who allegedly existed 2,000 years ago; are not viable criteria for the establishment of law.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:14 pmSomeone should point out to Rove that “the understanding of the institution of marriage” has changed socially, culturally AND legally MANY times in the 5,000 year period that he refers to.
Like many others have pointed out, there is no legitimate answer to the intelligent question the young lady asked so, typical of the right-wing when they get on their high horse about something, they obfuscate, confuse, straw-man and joke until people just give up.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:16 pmMyth, superstition, tradition and the alleged words, of alleged people, who allegedly existed 2,000 years ago; are not viable criteria for the establishment of law.
Comment by pete — February 12, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
You must have missed that part about how much influence Judeo-Christian beliefs have had on the U.S.?
Many people believe that without the influence of Christianity and the Bible, there would not be a United States of America.
Checkout the facade of the SCOTUS if you’re interest in what is consider a viable criteria for the establishment of law.
Without accountability to the Creator, the biggest guns establish the rule of law.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:58 pmSo was Hammurabi a Jew or a Christian?
February 12th, 2008 at 5:27 pmMany people know for a fact that, were it not for the French Revolution, there would have been no American Revolution and therefore no USA.
The biggest guns establish the law without respect to anything else.
Give that King James a break and get an actual history book or two.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:28 pmAfter reading this thread, I must say, props to Marla!
Seems like this whole thing is a war of words.
“Oooh, don’t say Marriage! That’s our word”
“Oooh, Civil Unions not that, we want Marriage!”
People not wed in a church consider themselves
as married. I have a Marriage License to prove it.
Gays should have the same chances.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:27 pmIn the scheme of life, it don’t really matter.
of all things to protest Karl Rove for, Gay marriage should be at the bottom of that list. Way at the bottom.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:56 pmTypical Right wing rhetoric: Invoke the Constitution they spurn, the Christian version of God, etc… to justify the continued religious persecution of homosexuals.
The U.S. Govt has discriminated against it’s own people before as our history shows. But in the gay marriage issue, it is a religious war using the “State” to carry out the war.
The Constitution, 1st Amendment, grants religious freedom to practice whatever faith you prefer, even Atheism.
This nation WAS NOT founded on Christian pricinciples. Get your historical facts correct. The Founding fathers, who were of DIFFERENT religious faiths, forsaw what a Tyranny of a Majority or a Minority could do to it’s citizens and wrote the 1st Amendment.
This student was correct and a true American and the real heart of what America is supposed to be in asking this question. Rove is not a Patriotic American.
So, if homosexuals cannot bond, Civilly, I could give a crap about a church sanctioning my vows, I will stand out in the open and ALLOW God to officiate, not revealed religion, then why do the Religious Zealots and self righteous TAKE OUR TAX DOLLARS?????
If homosexuals are denied CERTAIN rights under the Constitution, then WHY DO WE HAVE TO PAY TAXES that have a way of being funneled to religious organizations which is a Constitutional violation of the “Separation of Church and State” clauses.
This student is far more intellignet than Rove or his bigoted “good ‘ole white boy” mentality who run America.
Religion in this world, all faiths, have destroyed the “Eden” that the one true God has planted the seeds of life upon. History merely repeats itself with religious wars and control of the masses.
You are free in America to practice your chosen faith, but the Constitution FORBIDS religious persecution of people who do not believe in the “revealed” God, namely the Christian movement.
The “State” has no power to enfoce a Constitutional Ban on same sex marriage just because a tyranny of the majority(Christians) demands it. If America were all Christian but for a lone Atheist, the Constitution would still guarantee that Atheist freedom from Religious persecution.
Christians “HATE” the Constitution because it interferes with their tryannical agenda. God will judge those by their own criteria.
Finally, the Christian Bible warns it’s readers that they will be “deceived.” Who better to deceive than Evil who controls all the world’s religions, creating battles between civilizations, or jihads. Maybe that is something to ponder.
STOP the insane Religious wars and return to reality. Gays POSE NO THREAT to “religious marriage.” It’s a fear tactic Bushco used to win the White House and then flipped their finger at those cowardly religious who got them elected.
STOP the religious IDOLATRY= Religion and it’s symbols!
February 12th, 2008 at 8:32 pmVery briefly — Marriage in Western culture originated in Europe as the city states and small kingdoms began to form larger political units. The problem was that “marriage” was not “regulated.” If a couple said they were married, they were married. And when the decided they weren’t married, they weren’t. This created all sorts of trouble–particularly with respect to inheritance rights, etc. They political units tried to regulate it, but given the lack of an overall system of law over large areas, this was just as confusing. So the political elites tried to get the church to take on the function of deciding who and who was not married. The church resisted–they wanted people to focus on heaven, not on earthly things. But eventually they agreed, although it took roughly 500 years for the Church’s responsibility for marriage certification to take hold through most of Europe.
Over time, both in Europe and the US, the religious elements of marriage and the civil aspects of marriage became fused (except in Massachusetts Iwhich is partly why we have gay marriage in that state, but that’s another story).
A study in 2005 by the GAO reported to the Senate that to make civil unions and marriage identical from a legal standpoint would require revisions (and votes) on over 2,000 pieces of federal legislation alone. One simple “statute” to make the two identical from a legal perspective would not work, according to the GAO. So civil unions would remain less than legally identical to marriage.
Beyond that, what it a church was willing to marry two people of the same sex? How would the state handle that without recognizing marriage as between two people, regardless of sex?
The only answer if marriage for all couples, gay or straight. And it wouldn’t be the first time in Western history that a society recognized “gay” marriage; it goes all the way back to Rome (but that’s yet another story).
February 12th, 2008 at 11:49 pmThe “Defense of Marriage Act”…. passed by Bill Clinton, supported by Hillary Clinton.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”… Bill Clinton’s “solution” to gays in the military, supported by Hillary Clinton.
Hillary’s current answer to these betrayals of the gay/lesbian community?? “It was the right thing to do at the time”.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:38 amHas anyone here actually bothered to look into what consitutes a civil union?
It’s not marriage. Close, but not exact. It’s also not recognized by different states, as is marriage.
There are important practical and legal implications. Try making a life/death decision on behalf of your CU partner in a state that doesn’t recognize it if you need an example.
FOr those commenters who think ‘marriage’ is a religious term, please tell me why the state issues marriage licences? Why churches don’t adjudicate divorces and property divisions?
It is foremost a civil institution, and as such, should be available to all citizens. Separate but equal is so Jim Crow.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:40 am#124 – “Since “outlawing re-marriage†is highly unlikely, doesn’t it make sense to put marriage back in a position of ultra-respect.
Note the phrase, “But it was not this way from the beginning.†where Christ alludes to his previous remarks on the Creator’s intent.
bitblt believes what Christ says here is the authority on marriage.” Comment by bitblt — February 12, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
Bitbit claims to follow the words of Christ when Bitbit complains about same-sex marriage.
Bitbit ignores the words of Christ that don’t support Bitbit’s prejudice. How can Bitbit claim taht Christ is the authority of marriage, but then refuse to follow the dictates of that authority? Bitbit seems to be intentionally blind to Bitbit’s obvious hypocrisy.
Bitbit has proven that Bitbit is a pick & choose “c”hrisitan when it comes to which words of the Bible that Bitbit decides are important.
As for you claim that outlawing re-marriage after a divorce would impose a “theocracy”, that is exactly what is currently happening.
When extremists use some portions of religious texts to suppress same-sex marriage but refuse to follow the other religious texts that outlaw their own behaviour, this makes them one thing, and one thing only: hypocrites.
When marriage was extended to inter-racial couples, marriage was neither reduced in importance nor in respect. Including same-sex couples in the bonds of marriage will only increase the importance and respect for marriage, it will not reduce it in any way, shape, or form.
The truth will set you free, but first it’s going to tick you off.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:36 amMarriage for gay couples is just a plain slam-dunk on 14th Amendment grounds.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:33 amFor all marriages to be equal before the law, they need to be referred to by the same name. Did we have to come up with a different term for inter-racial marriages?
I’d have no problem with calling same-gender ‘marriage’ a ‘civil union’…IF opposite-gender ‘marriages’ are also called ‘civil unions’.
Who’s kidding whom here? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, what’s the point in calling it a ‘goose’? Separate, but Equal doesn’t cut it. These Democrats who try to slither out of taking a principled stand on the issue are just blowing smoke when they say they believe in EQUAL rights for same-gender couples and then try to convince the LGBTQ community that ‘Marriage’ and ‘Civil Union’ mean the same thing are really speaking to the homophobic community by differentiating between “real” marriage and some kind of “make-believe” partnership.
EQUAL rights means EQUAL rights…not SIMILAR rights. People like Clinton and Obama need to be challenged on their hypocrisy. The only candidates who advocated for GENUINELY Equal rights were Kucinich and Gravel.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:36 amtired arguments. why bother with a non issue? just adopt each other as next of kin and be done with it.
Comeuppance isn’t what Rove needs (although it’s fun and should be continued).
It’s a war crimes trial, water torture, and capital punishment without nerve deadeners and while having the US Constitution read at 130 decibels 24/7 up until the execution.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:43 pm