We Must Elect Delegates that Will Put a Pro-Marriage Plank in Platform:

[mdguss]

Bush is going on Meet the Press this week. Expect him to go on about Kerry's record in opposing the Defense of Marriage Act. But Kerry remains opposed to gay marriage.

The war and the economy are both bad issues for the Republicans. We are close to being able to beat them, but then the Massachutes Supreme Court has to raise a divisive social issue that we're on the wrong side of.

Gay marriage is wrong for this reason: marriage is a relgious expression and rooted in religion. Making gay marriages legal forces churches to recognize marriages that are clearly against their religion. Freedom of religion cuts both ways.

Gay Marriage is an issue that the Democratic Party may trip over. We must win this election, and we shouldn't fight on the tilted ground that is the gay marriage issue. The Democratic Party must put a plank in the platform that opposes gay marriage. (Voting for Lieberman's delegates might accomplish this).

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. Marriage has EVERYTHING to do with civil rights.

I will leave the Democratic party if the put a plank in it saying that MY rights are inferior to a heterosexuals. Period.:grr:

[no name no slogan]

82. and you would not be alone, either

many straight folk (like myself) would also take our votes elsewhere, too.

Marriage became a civil right when the government started giving special breaks to married couples. Look at the tax code, for example. Married couples get favorable treatment, while non-married couples are left out in the cold.

Marriage may be a religious institution, but the second that the government gives special priviledges to married couples is when it also becomes a CIVIL institution.

And when it becomes a CIVIL institution, it is available to EVERYONE, regardless of sexual preference, race, religion, creed, color, etc.

[blondeatlast]

100. I'm straight, and I agree 100% to reply #1!

edit: To make it crystal clear that I disagree completely with the OP, but agree 100% with Cuban Liberal.

[DenverDem]

2. Civil rights issue, not a religious issue.

And we are not on the wrong side of it.

[GiovanniC]

3. Your Characterization

of the Mass. Supreme Court's decision (saying that it's against freedom of religion) is false. Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. are not required to perform the ceremonies or legitimize the marriage. But gay couples would be allowed to enter into a civil marriage contract.

The main differences between gay civil marriages and gay civil unions is that other states would theoretically have to recognize the marriage and it would open gay married couples up to the federal benefits of marriage, which would not happen under a civil union.

The Democratic party is certainly not wrong in wanting to extend the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy to homosexuals. In fact, John Kerry's statement that he opposes gay marriage disappoints me a great deal, and I don't live in Massachussetts and I'm not gay.

[aquart]

4. The Democratic party doesn't write discrimination into its platform.

Perhaps you can find a party that will. I know they are out there.

[mdguss]

16. The Simple Fact is:

A church that employs a custodial service (and pays benefits for spouses) would, under gay marriages, have to pay gay couples' benefits. That's materially supporting something that some churches think is a sin. (And I don't think that these churches are right, but they have a first amendment right to practice their relgion).

People question Bush, but people also trust him on values. The fact is most Americans don't support gay marriage, and it is even a divisive issue in Massachutes. This is an issue ripe for Republican picking.

And I personally don't favor gay marriage. Maybe I'll run for delegate and try to get this into the platform.

"We recognize there are issues with regards to loving couples being able to see each other on their death beds. The Democratic Party favors laws that will allow all couples to see each other in times of health crisis. However, we firmly believe that marriage is a religous institution that is between a man and a woman."

[Cuban_Liberal]

23. Tax me more cheaply, then.

If I am to be rendered a second-class citizen, then create a cheaper tax rate for me, since I am to be denied the FULL protection of the laws.

[soleft]

24. hopefully you'll never get elected

[IndianaGreen]

31. If marriage is a religious institution, who instituted it? Jesus?

Bawahahahahahahahahahaha!

I guess that makes bastards out of everyone born prior to Jesus's time!

[BL_Zebub]

92. Actually, he would have made himself one

Since his Dad wasn't married to his mom either.

[youngred]

110. wrong, they were married

but not when he was born. But since Joseph wasn't the father...

[youngred]

108. Jesus never spoke on homosexuality

you have to go back to a shady interpertation in the OT to find what *might* be a reference to homosexuality.

[GiovanniC]

32. "we firmly believe..."

"we firmly believe that marriage is a religous institution that is between a man and a woman."

I certainly don't believe that. Marriage is not just a religious institution, it's a social and legal institution as well.

If it were merely a religious institution, only religious people would get married.

Now, if someone tried to make a rule saying that churches had to support gay baptisms, give me a call and I'll probably be on your side.

[dsc]

122. should Bob Jones' church not have to pay benefits to interracial couples?

what is the difference?

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. What other groups should the Constitution declare as second class?

And what other doctrines of a particular religious sect should replace the separation of state and religion in the first amendment?

[greatauntoftriplets]

30. Women, I suppose.

n/t

[markus]

35. DoM 2 Act

preventing women from making independent decisions regarding child brearing, or from obtaining divorce without their husbands (or father's) consent? I'm sure AshKKKroft would approve of such a bill.

[mitchtv]

6. how about Gays stay home on election day?

I don't want to be deleted today, it's someone elses turn. Democrats like this, we don't need.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Why should my rabbi be prevented from marrying a gay couple?

Here is the point of view about gay marriage from rabbis Dennis and Sandy Sasso of Indianapolis's Beth-El Zedeck Temple, the Conservative/Reconstructionist congregation of which I am a member:

Dennis & Sandy Sasso
A different view of Bible's message on homosexuality

January 20, 2004

When Britney Spears marries a young man in Las Vegas on a whim and then quickly files for an annulment, what does that tell us about the sanctity of marriage in our society? When men and women in marital relationships abuse one another, are disloyal and disrespectful, then the holiness of the marital covenant is debased. But when two people of the same or different gender commit to a loving partnership based on trust, caring and commitment then, most assuredly, God blesses that relationship, and society should do likewise.

• The Bible tells us that homosexual relations are prohibited.

Taking the Bible literally, out of its historical and social context, is dangerous. Strangely enough, many of those who claim to take the Bible at its word usually have selective hearing. The same people who listen to what Scripture says in regard to homosexual behavior turn a deaf ear to what it says, for example, regarding the violation of the Sabbath or the observance of dietary laws.

The Bible speaks of animal sacrifice, slavery and polygamy. However, a religious community in search of God begins to understand that these are not eternal divine mandates but historic human constructs. Animal sacrifice ceases; slavery and polygamy are outlawed with good "religious" reasons. The scriptural texts that speak of kindness to animals, of human freedom, of forgiveness and understanding testify against those texts that preach the opposite.

In other words, we must learn to look at the overarching divine principles of love and justice and learn to use sacred texts that teach the values of equality, human dignity and fairness to critique those texts that do not. We must understand the few negative biblical references to homosexuality in light of those verses that counter such statements by affirming that all people are created in the image of God and that celebrate human companionship.

http://www.indystar.com/articles/7/113054-6897-021.html

Discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=5555

[blondeatlast]

127. Amen to that. Very wise words, indeed.

[Iverson]

8. sheerest sophistry

It's another recruitment ad for the Green Party.

[HFishbine]

9. Nobody

is even coming close to suggesting that laws should force churches to recognize gay marriages. The only issue at hand is what the state (in the broad term, as in "government") recognizes.

If the dems come anywhere near an "anti-gay marriage" plank I'll vote for Bush out of sheer spite. (Oh, yeah. I'm straight too. Not that that should matter when it comes to equal rights for all.)

[Options Remain]

10. BZZT - wrong answer next contestant please

no religion holds sovereign claim to marriage. It existed prior to any of the religions who object to homosexual unions. (and honestly the religions dont object to it only extremests within those religions)

Take the bigotry inherent in the ant-marriage platform head on and keep it a civil rights issue. Anything else is a compromise of principle and that is a larger avenue of attack.

TearForger

[soleft]

11. do you support a plank banning straight atheists from marrying?

[Caution]

12. As long as the government codifies into law

rights and privileges afforded to those who are married it is most certainly not a religious affair. And on top of that while your religion may believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman who is to say that mine is the same? Cautionism clearly states that any two people engaged in a loving relationship are blessed under the eyes of the lord (coincidentally named Caution). This is bigotry, plain and simple.

[indigo32]

13. screw that

I will not compromise my own rights or anyone elses for that matter.

[maddezmom]

14. Disagree, we need to insure civil rights for all

The Democratic Party is about going forward, not backwards. Hope you can find a party that fits your needs.

[meatloaf]

15. You are about to be flamed, but I will try to remain civil.

This will ultimtely be a non-issue, because it's not something that most people feel directly effects them, and more importantly doesn't effect their wallets.

Gay marriage forces nothing on religion. Marriage is a social institution, not just a religions one. Millions of people are and have been married by JPs. Churches need not be involved unless they choose to be. Many are already accepting gay members.

As long as many of our social benefits are tied to the institution of marriage, gay marriage will and should be something all decent people fight for.

You couldn't be more wrong on this issue.

[mdguss]

22. Anti-Gay Marriage

Is the wrong term. It should be pro-marriage. That was a mess up on my part.

[meatloaf]

43. Irregardless of what you want to call it, it is ethical

cowardice and shouldn't be acceptable to anyone of good conscience.

Unless we want to dissolve the institution of marriage as a whole and label all couples as civil unions, we have to make marriage accessible to all citizens.

End of story.

[eyesroll]

17. If codifying discrimination is winning, then I don't want to win

Churches will not be forced to recognize anything. The Catholic church doesn't recognize a remarriage if a previous marriage ended in divorce and not annullment -- but the state does.

BTW: Many religions do accept gay marriage. Reform Judaism. Unitarian Universalists. United Church of Christ. Wicca. Etc.

edit: typo

[NoPasaran]

Absolutely not

I support expanding freedom, not limiting it.

Marriage is both a religious institution and a secular one in our society. If churches want to discriminate on one basis or another that is their right. But what secular society does should not require the approval of any religious institution. I think that's why we have seperation between church and state.

[JasonDeter]

18. Bold stand there young man. I agree.

The republicans can't win on the economy or the war so they are going to turn this race into sex sex sex. Sex sells. Sex divides. I like Deans stand on this, "We can't let the republicans turn this election into policy differences of god sex and guns. There's too many more important issues facing America!" Paraphrasedofcourse.

[Sandpiper]

25. Following that line of reasoning

LBJ should never have supported the Civil Rights Act as it led to the dixiecrats leaving the party and weakened our overall strength in Congress. :eyes:

Sometimes you have to stand your ground and do the right thing because it's right, not because it's politically popular.

[JasonDeter]

45. First off I could care less if gays get married. I will NEVER effect me

or my family. This is not a civil rights issue with me or anyone I know. This is a moral issue. That is my opinion and it is a VERY unpopular opinion on this board. I understand that and can deal with it. But to let the republicans make this a general campaign issue is to me allowing them to dumb down the issues facing the American people because of this corrupt disgusting bush* cabal. There are far more important issues facing America than two of the same sex ability to stand before someone of authority and get married.

(joke)If they are ever given that ability they are going to find something out real quick, "Happily married is a lie. Your either happy or your married, you're not both."(joke)

[HFishbine]

85. Get back to us

when you couldn't care less.

[OneBlueSky]

90. just out of curiosity, how can you be so sure . . .

that this issue will never effect your family? . . . do you have kids? . . . what if one of them turns out to be gay and wants to get married? . . . or how about their kids, your grandkids? . . . don't be so sure it will never effect your family . . . it just might . . .

[youngred]

113. never effect you?

I hope you have a gay member of your family so you can see the degredation and consinuous insult this nation gives to homosexuals.

There is a difference between legal marriage and religious marriage so there is no moral issue. It is however, a Civil Rights issue, your protestations to the contrary.

[Duncan Grant]

49. JasonDeter, Dean also said...

we don't want to put 'gay bashing' into the constitution.

In avoiding this issue we are complicit in the oppression and discrimination of millions. Now, what's the bigger sin here? :shrug:

[Sandpiper]

50. For some it seems

That winning is all that really matters, regardless of whether we sacrifice our principles and sell our proverbial souls to grab the brass ring.

If I wanted that, I'd be a Republican.

[Duncan Grant]

52. Agreed!

True leadership is seldom found on the path of least resistance. :thumbsup:

[JasonDeter]

55. But my point is, to make it a national campaign issue so stupid*

or to name him, bush* can get on the national stage and act all moral and lean on the podium and moralize is to allow the republicans to dumb down the issues facing America today. bush* has lowered the bar ever since he started running for the 2000 election cycle. Thats my only argument. Lets not fall into the republican trap.

[Sandpiper]

19. If marriage was merely a religious expression

I rather doubt that most gay people would be all that concerned with it. The gay marriage that you have envisioned is the same sort of strawman being propped up by the religious right. No churches would be forced to perform marriages between homosexual couples. No churches are compelled to sanction heterosexual marriages today. For example, as a non catholic, I can't legally compel a catholic priest to perform a marriage ceremony for me.

Marriage, in the eyes of the government, isn't a religious expression, it is a social contract that has hundreds of legal benefits attached to it.

If marriage was a purely religious ceremony, it certainly wouldn't be performed by judges, nor would you have to go to the court house to get a marriage license.

We are close to being able to beat them, but then the Massachutes Supreme Court has to raise a divisive social issue that we're on the wrong side of.

The struggle for equal rights ever was and ever will be a divisive social issue. However, I don't believe that supporting equal rights puts on the wrong side of the issue. Quite the contrary.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

20. That's an incredibly stupid idea

Let the Republicans keep their status as the party of bigotry and not drag the Democratic Party in to such platforms.

How do you feel about Civil Unions? Do you oppose equal rights for gays? Or is it just calling it "marriage" for religious reasons? Is it okay with you for gays to have equal rights where inheritance and health benefits and othe legal aspects are concerned?

[Terwilliger]

21. OK fine...marriage is a religious institution

Well then, I call for an end to all special treatment married couples get under the scrutiny of state and federal governments. No tax breaks, no shelters, no special consideration whatsoever.

If you do that, then I can believe your assertions about how wrong gay marriage is.

[mdguss]

29. How Do Civil Unions:

Not eliminate special treatment for married couples? I don't really think that's an issue. The word marriage is loaded and should be avoided.

[lovedems]

26. That is so wrong! We are making a step in the right direction

and I won't let the republican fundies dictate the direction of this country! They want to take people's rights away or deny people's rights. That is bullshit. I am tired of hearing about the "sanctity of marriage". I am a married woman and if a gay or lesbian couple want to get married, how in the hell does that affect my marriage in any way, shape, or form? If you can convince me that my marriage or my friends marriage would somehow mean less, then maybe we will talk but until then, I am all for heading in the right direction and allowing everyone freedoms instead of discriminating against people who the fundies don't like. That is just wrong. Their arguments are bullshit and it shows how intolerance just oozes from their pores.

[TheDonkey]

27. We need to choose our battles wisely, we cannot win this!

during an election.

Once Kerry becomes president it is fair game to blast him for being conservative on the terms of marriage but we cannot expect him to play the mass. liberal game.

Kerry said it brilliantly on CNN, "I am not for gay marriage, but I also voted against gay bashing on the floor of the Senate."

This is a message that can appeal across the board.
Once we are in power then we should battle this issue out, but Bush will get 4 more marriage protections years if we pile on JK and elect Kucinich or Sharpton (who imo have the only correct resposne).

[IndianaGreen]

34. Kerry's double-talk is not a rallying cry

but the expressions of a weasel!

[indigo32]

37. right

so why is the poster suggesting we actively concede this battle before it's been fought instead of waiting...

[LoZoccolo]

28. I kind of agree and kind of don't.

Let's have civil unions for everyone, gay and straight, and get the culture war out of politics and declare this wedge issue moot. Everyone will have recognition of benefits of cohabitation (not just gay and straight couples, but other situations as well), and you won't have anyone complain that the governments telling them how they should define marraige. I think it might be the fastest way for everyone to get the protections and benefits they want, and I think you'll see significantly less anti-gay propaganda run through our election cycles.

[markus]

33. What a lot of hooey

What we need to do is get government out of the marriage business and into the civil union business.

Your statement of the GOP disinformation on this issue is precisly what we are going to be up against.

No one in the party is proposing anything that would force any church to do anything.

[mdguss]

38. I'm a Democrat

Granted, I really liked Lieberman, but Kerry is my second favorite. Eliminating marriage will cause a popular uprising that will drive hundreds of Democrats from office.

I agree that there are things (such as visiting death beds, power of attorney, etc.) that need to be fixed. But rushing headlong into marriage is a way to lose and end up with far less than could be achieved if we stay away from any alteration to marriage.

[Sandpiper]

40. So you advocate a system of separate but equal?

[markus]

71. I repeat: this is RW propoganda-why are we even having this discussion?

No one is proposing forcing churches to perform gay marriages, except Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. It is a straw man that I won't accept as a reasonable proposition of debate.

If we have to give up on civil rights for gays because we're going to let the right wing media define our issues for us, the election is over. So is the Democratic Party.

We can all just move on with our lives, and stop wasting our time here, on campaigns, and in party meetings.

At the end of the day (or post), the only possible source for your information would be some right-wing-nut. Just because you haven't cited your right-wing source, I wish this thread would be locked.

[mdguss]

75. The source of my Post is my brain:

This is my opinion. I think I expressed it in a non-inflammatory way. I'm a moderate Democrat. I am very liberal on some things and very moderate on others. Gay marriage would be an issue I am moderate on.

To win the election in 2004, a Democrat is going to have to win two of these states: Louisana, Ohio, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Georgia, Missouri, or Indiana. Aside from New Hampshire, gay marriage won't fly in any of these states.

Additionally, it is wrong for government to tell religion what to do. Gay marriage comes awfully close to the line (which I believe should always be clear) between church and state.

[Sandpiper]

91. You should read a description of logical fallacies

Because your initial post fits perfectly into the category of straw man.

[w13rd0]

142. ELIMINATING MARRIAGE??!?!

Wha???

Ok, never mind, this is just an out and out stupid thread. Misinformed, apologetic content free rhetoric in defense of "nuanced" bullshit. Pfft.

[BR_Parkway]

36. Putting politics ahead of principles is no longer a Puke thing?

We don't need to adopt their "win at any cost" attitude to beat *. First off, read the commonwealth constitution and the recent court ruling that you are so up in arms about - it would certainly show that this is NOT going to force any religious group into performing a ceremony for me or even liking the fact that I have a partner.

This argument is about CIVIL gay marriage, not religions. The same constitution that they are talking about amending in such knee jerk reaction still says that thing about "make no law proscribing religion".

I wish the word marriage was taken off the table entirely, most Americans are uncomfortable with the concept that gay & lesbian couples are being discriminated against. And that is all civil - dealing with laws, rules and taxes - the only area government should be influencing.

Unfortunately, the sheeple are being led to believe that "activist judges" (who only affirmed what the law of the land was, not creating new laws)are going to force your pastor/preacher/priest/whoever to marry a couple of homos in your sanctuary while your children are watching - anything to promote fear - which has always equaled control and power. I will not stand by and dignify the party being "repuglicized" just to win an election. What we need is education, not a second "fear based, knee jerk reaction.

[mdguss]

39. We don't win this election:

And there'll be an generation full of activist judges on the other side that will likely overturn any gains the gay marriage movement makes. This just isn't an issue we should fight on this year. It'll lose us the election and those costs will be extremely high.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[adriennel]

74. "activist judges??"

I see this a new term coined by the right because I've heard it hundreds of times in the past week.

When BushCo first used the term, I simply thought our "president" sorely misunderstood the basic structure of our government. The Judiciary branch of government is to ensure the law of the land is observed.

Just because judges return a verdict that one does not agree with, doesn't mean they are promoting their own agenda! Did you ever consider the fact that the judges are doing their best to interpret the Constitution, which affords equal protection under the law?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

41. Gay Rights and Abortion are the only issues Dems won't compromise on

Everything else is up for negotiation.

[IndianaGreen]

47. Dems already compromised on both

DOMA and the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban are examples of Democratic cowardice and appeasement.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

57. er, well Dem politicians will roll over for *anything*

of course, IWR and all. I mean that the average committed "activist" Democrats - like this board - will fight to the death for social issues, but will hardly lift a finger when blue collar jobs get offshored, and nod in agreement as the DLC tells us unions should just go away.

You reap what you sow, that's all. Solidarity goes both ways, and the socially liberal, well educated white collar Dems might find they don't have the troops they thought on issues like this.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

42. Interesting idea

extemely unlikely but interesting nonetheless.

I think civil unions covers it. Marriage does get into a whole religious realm which needn't be. Rights are rights. Let someone else call it a marriage. Just recognize equal rights.

[Sandpiper]

44. I always thought "separate but equal"

Got tossed out by Brown v. Board of Education. Apparently some people are still comforatble with the idea.

[corporatewhore]

46. Abortion is a controversiol issue too lets have anti roe plank in platform

:eyes:

[Cuban_Liberal]

48. Let's put a plank in supporting repeal of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amend's

That will draw appeal to the KKK and neo-Nazi voters... :eyes:

[jonnyblitz]

53. I am sure the DEM party will embrace your cowardly advice.

:puke:

[mdguss]

56. I think I've made my point, but here is the closing argument:

If we even make this an issue, we lose. Middle America--especially the catholic midwest--regards marriage as a scared thing. We put this issue on the table by expressing an out of control court, Bush will get millions of people in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan to say, "This guy is totally incompetent. But at least he'll protect marriage and my church." That's reality.

Whomever is serving as President over the next four years will get to appoint anywhere between 3 and 6 Supreme Court Justices. Fighting this issue and this time will cause the defeat of the Democratic Party, give us three more conservative justices (at the least), and seriously damage the prospects for ever "winning this issue."

[Cuban_Liberal]

60. Your point:

Your point is that our party should go on record as favoring the continuing disenfranchisement of a segment of the American population, it seems to me.

[jonnyblitz]

61. yeah.

taking a brave stance on an issue is never a good thing. It's all about winning and retaining the bigoted white man vote.

[ulysses]

64. closing argument? In post #56?

Haven't been around long, huh?

[Sandpiper]

54. Maybe we can win back the Dixiecrats

By proposing a repeal of the Civil Rights Act. After all, it's winning and being popular that really matters, right?

[ulysses]

58. **readies the marinade**

Gay marriage is wrong for this reason: marriage is a relgious expression and rooted in religion.

Insofar as marriage is religious expression, no one is talking about forcing churches to perform gay marriages. There already exist those that will do so of their own free will. That said, marriage is also a civil expression, and as such is removed from religion. What we're talking about is not the "right" to be viewed as a married couple by the Baptist, or Catholic, or any other church. What we're talking about is the right to be viewed as married for the purposes of those rights enjoyed by heterosexual married couples - hospital visitation, adoption, etc. Religion plays no part in these.

Making gay marriages legal forces churches to recognize marriages that are clearly against their religion.

No, it doesn't.

Freedom of religion cuts both ways.

True - please let us know when someone actually impinges on your right to practice your religion as you see fit.

[mdguss]

63. Well what can the church do:

About its janitor whose healthcare it provides? Gay marriage would force them to pay for the benefits of gay married couples (which would be, in fact, recognizing the marriage materially).

[Cuban_Liberal]

65. Quit providing health-care.

Problem solved.

[mdguss]

66. Yea so more people:

Don't have access to healthcare and are forced to go untreated. We should stick to expanded healthcare, not reducing it.

[ulysses]

68. such concern over second-class citizens!

I'm touched, mdguss.

[Cuban_Liberal]

69. We should also stick to not institutionalizing bigotry. n/t

[ulysses]

67. you know many gay janitors who want to clean restrictive churches?

To answer your question, they can pay the benefits or ditch the tax-exempt thing and not pay them.

[mdguss]

70. Churches Must Remain Tax-free:

Taxing churches implies government interference in religion. I'm not for school prayer and I'm not for the government telling churches how to run things.

[ulysses]

72. no.

Taxing churches implies government interference in religion.

Not when churches willingly interfere in civil rights.

[mdguss]

73. By Saying:

"Unless you choose to recognize the gay marriages of your employees, we'll tax you," the government is taxing those who believe in a certain (more fundamental) religion more than those who don't. That is wrong in all circumstances.

Government should not be choosing sides on religion.

[ulysses]

77. it already does

Government should not be choosing sides on religion.

It already does by not taxing churches.

If a church is going to stand in the way of civil rights, then it is by definition a political organization and should be taxed like any other political organization.

[mdguss]

81. No it doesn't:

If a group of atheists formed a religous organization, it would be free from taxes. All religious organizations are tax-exempt for a good reason.

[Sandpiper]

87. Religious organizations are tax exempt

Provided that they do not devote significant time or resources to:

Endorsing or promoting political candidates

and

Attempting to influence legislation

The IRS revoked Pat Robertson's Christian Coaltion's tax exempt status in 1999 for these very reasons.

[Sandpiper]

97. Atheists forming a religious organization?

Atheism is the anithesis of religion.

[ulysses]

104. ?

If a group of atheists formed a religous organization, it would be free from taxes.

If pigs flew they'd be birds. I'm not sure what your point is.

[Cuban_Liberal]

78. Churches must obey the law of the land.

Freedom of religion does not extend to disobeying the law.

[Sandpiper]

83. Discrimination against a class of employees

Is a violation of federal labor law. Sorry, but churches don't get a free pass on the law of the land.

[markus]

94. Yes, actually, they do

if the basis of discrimination is religious, and the job is related to their church functions.

But this is really a brand new straw man, isn't it. Churches will be taxed (sez who) if they don't recognize gay marriages. Sez who?

Once again, this is a very inflamatory post, and I'm the one on the hair trigger of saying something that would get me a nasty smack down warning from the mods.


G-r-r-r-r-r-r.

[mdguss]

102. I never said that:

I said that churches should not be taxed. Period. In response to a suggestion from another poster.

[ulysses]

112. and that poster agrees with you

as long as churches are not engaging in restricting civil or human rights.

[Toucano]

59. No, thank you. n/t

[genius]

No.

That would cost us votes. We need to remain neutral on the subject so no one uses it.

[adriennel]

62. only if you want to lose liberal votes

go for it! promote inequality and ignorance. Then I won't be voting Dem, and I'm not the only one.

PS Kerry's statement that he does not support gay marriage should raise a red flag for those Dems in support of equal rights.

[markus]

76. First, this is inflammatory flame bait that should be locked

The only people suggesting the Democrats want to force churches to perform gay marraiges on Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. Just because you haven't cited your ridiculous right-wing source doesn't make this any different than a post linked back to one of those guys.

Second, if the party adopts a pro-DoM plank, you can bank on a third party movement and four more years of Bush. This is just what the GoOP is hoping for. 1) The disinformation you choose to help propogate will dissuade some swing voters and 2) this issue will energize their base.

We can't do anything about 2) but we can do something about 1): point out that anybody who suggests any Dem is advocating what you claim is, well, something the rules prohibit me calling you or any other D.U. Member. (Memo to Mods: Can I call someone a Big Fat O'Rielly? Checking rules in another window. Nope, nothing about calling somebody a Big Fat O'Rielly, or a Limbaugh, or a Hannity for that matter).

No one, not even the Massachusetts Supreme Court, can or will compel any church to do anything it doesn't want to. And I don't believe anyone on this board would advocate any such lunacy.

If you want to talk about how we go about answering your scurrilous assertion, fine. Otherwise, let's just lock this thread now.

[mdguss]

79. This is a legitimate issue:

The Democratic Party depends on a moderate--and often socially conservative--religious vote in areas of the northeast and midwest. Many Democratic leaders voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, the last Democratic President signed the bill.

So it should be talked about. One may not like the issue, but what should we as a party do. Many members of the party oppose gay marriage, many other members want gay marriage. How to resolve the issue is what should be talked about. I am firmly in the oppose gay marriage camp for the reasons I have stated--I believe it is state meddling in church affairs. No where did I say that the law will force churches to perform gay marriages. I stated about tangential economic recognition of gay marriages that churches might be forced into. Further, I stated my opposition to taxes on churhces under any circumstances. They must be free of government intrusion into their affairs.

[markus]

86. Who in the party is advocating Forced Gay Marriage in Churches?

other than Limbaugh, Hannity, et al?

No one.

[TexasSissy]

93. It wouldn't matter if anyone advocated it. Govt cannot force churches

either to marry anyone or disallow them from marrying anyone.

Gays can, currently, get married in some churches in the U.S. All it takes is a minister willing to perform the ceremony. The government cannot stop it. Separation of church and state.

But that is a religious marriage, not a legal marriage. Two different things.

Even if gay marriage is allowed under civil law, a church still would not have to perform such marriages, if it did not want to. A church at this time can refuse to marry a couple just because they don't like the way they look. Separation of church and state. The couple have civil avenues for obtaining a legal marriage. They have no RIGHT under civil law to get a "religious" marriage.

It's all about separation of church and state. People often seem to get this issue confused.....the issue deals with CIVIL marriage under the law, NOT religious marriage. Two different things. None of us has a RIGHT to the latter. That's what separation of church & state is all about.

[mdguss]

96. But what about the effects of Civil Marriages:

on churches. There are concievable situations where a church could be forced to recognize (and materially support) a gay civil marriage. That would be contributing to something that is against their religion. That's the government crossing the line of church and state.

[Padraig18]

101. No, it's forcing them to obey the law.

Tough shit.

[mdguss]

114. A law that forces:

Some churches to recognize things they teach against. That's not right. It's a government intrusion into religion. I don't like it when the right tries to impose their values on us, and we should not try to impose our values on the right.

[ulysses]

115. ...

and we should not try to impose our values on the right

When by "our values" we simply mean "equal protection under the law", you bet your ass we should.

[Padraig18]

117. What if they don't believe in smoke detectors, or sprinkler systems?

Should they be allowed to ignore those laws, as well? Workmen's compensation? Unemployment insurance? :eyes:

[mdguss]

118. Some are:

The Amish come to mind. And if it wasn't for religion (specifically the Joviah's Witnesses), students would be forced to recite the pledge in school. That was found by a court to be an infringment on their rights to freely practice their religon.

[Padraig18]

120. I happen to live in Illinois' Amish country.

The Amish obey the laws of this State.

[Sandpiper]

119. Just what values are you speaking of when you say

and we should not try to impose our values on the right.

The only "value" we're promoting is equal rights under the constitution.

The right on the other hand really does want to impose their values on everyone and want to have the constitution amended to codify discrimination against homosexuals.

[mdguss]

123. Gay "Marriage"

Is specifically against the teachings of many relgions. By passing a law that would make gay couples legally recognized as "married," churches would be forced to recognize something that many (though certainly not all) churces don't believe in. By recognize, I mean force the churches to treat gay couples as married for business purposes. A gay marriage law, in my estimation, would be the liberal left--which supports gay marriages--imposing its values that marriage is a "civil" and not "religious" right on conservative christains. It's not right to have a prayer in school, and it's not right for us liberals to tell churches how to run their organizations.

[Padraig18]

124. Churches must obey the laws of the US and the State

This is not a radical concept.

[mdguss]

126. And my point is:

That if this becomes a law, they will be forced to obey a law that interferes with their practice of religion.

[Padraig18]

130. It doesn't interfere with their practice of religion.

It interferes no more than Roe v. Wade interferes with their practice of religion.

[Sandpiper]

128. Still sticking to the straw man, I see

It's not right to have a prayer in school, and it's not right for us liberals to tell churches how to run their organizations.

[oldcoot]

131. Religion and discrimination

Many states have an equal rights amendment in their state constitutions. According to your logic, all churches located in those states would be forced to ordain women. Yet no state forces the Catholic Church or any other church to ordain women. Now if these states do not require that any church functioning within their borders ordain women, why do you think that churches would be forced to recognize or materially support gay unions if gays and lesbians were allowed to marry?

I also do not believe that the Democratic Party should define marriage as a religious institution because that might insult those voters who decided to skip a church marriage and go to a justice of the peace. Moreover, single people might wonder why they are subsidizing this "religious" institution with their tax dollars. After all, they are not required to subsidize baptisms and other religious ceremonies, why should they subsidize marriages?

[Sandpiper]

80. GOP debate tactics 101

Step 1: Create a straw man

Gay marriage is wrong for this reason: marriage is a relgious expression and rooted in religion. Making gay marriages legal forces churches to recognize marriages that are clearly against their religion.

Step 2: Attack straw man repeatedly and relentlessly

[no name no slogan]

84. Don't like gay marriages? Then DON'T HAVE ONE! (nt)

[adriennel]

89. haha don't like gay marriage part 2

if you don't approve of gay marriage, then do not marry a gay person.

[TexasSissy]

88. Actually, marriage is rooted in property rights. Men, not women,

came up with marriage, I have read, as a way of establishing property rights over the woman, and legitimacy and parental rights to the children she may have.

Getting married in a church has nothing to do with the issue being discussed today. Because this country has separation of church and state, the government can neither force a church to marry anyone (regardless of gender), nor disallow a church to marry anyone.

Religion only enters into it for the far right. They're not going to vote for the Dem., anyway.

Middle America is opposed to using the word "marriage" because of tradition, universality of definition of marriage (which has always been a union between man and woman), and sanctity of the specialness of the man-woman marriage, which in their (our?) view is somewhat different from the same gender marriage.

I agree that this is a divisive issue, and it may well lose the election for us. But what to do. What to do.

[Padraig18]

95. My head just exploded!

I would expect to read something like this over at FreeRepublic, but not at DU. :puke:

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mdguss]

99. I'm probably not voting for Kerry:

I'll probably still vote for Lieberman, who is my favorite of the candidates. I will certainly vote for Kerry in the general election, but since he hasn't filed delegates in my district, I'll probably vote for Lieberman.

[corporatewhore]

103. FUCK THAT SHIT!!! BACK AWAY FROM MY CIVIL RIGHTS

[mdguss]

111. I'm not saying back down:

I'm saying pick your battles wisely. Death-bed visitation is an issue that is much more sympathetic than marriage. I personally would support an effort to allow hospital care visits for gay couples, give tax incentives to companies that give domestic partner benefits, and depending on the specifics, I could probably support civil unions.

There's a real chance that this will turn into a disaster for the Democratic Party and the left if we fight on the marriage issue. (There is NO chance that we can win on that issue).

[youngred]

105. No, we don't

Selling out a strong base which votes for the Dems by a big margin is not acceptable.

It does not FORCE religion's to accept it. That's pure bunk. There is a difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage.

[Sandpiper]

106. The Straw Man Fallacy

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

[JVS]

107. Yes, retreat on all fronts is clearly the path to victory!

:eyes:

[ibegurpard]

109. So it would seem

eom

[CO Liberal]

116. You Are WRONG!!!!

People were getting married before there was religion. It's just another tradition the Christians co-opted from the pagans.

[MAlibdem]

121. Religious marraige and civil marraige are two different institutions

"Gay marriage is wrong for this reason: marriage is a relgious expression and rooted in religion. Making gay marriages legal forces churches to recognize marriages that are clearly against their religion. Freedom of religion cuts both ways. "

Making gay marraige legal does not force churches to marry gay people (note how the Catholic Church does not have to marry divorcees).

On local news reacting to the ruling a few minutes ago (in MA), they had two churches across the street from each other, one will be marrying gay couples, one will not.

The issue is about labeling, do we call people entering into the same thing legal, and make them integral parts of our CIVIL society, or do we exclude them? I say include, and I say let each state decide to do what it feels best for its own people. In a poll, 50% of MA citizens supported the MA SJC ruling, with the rest split undecided and opposed.

[mdguss]

125. My critcism:

Is NOT that churches will be forced to marry gay couples. It IS that churches will be forced to recognize civil gay marriages in their business affairs (and all churches hire outside contractors to do business be it janitors, plumbing, repair or construction services). Gay marriages would force those firms to give the same benefits to all married couples. Church money--raised through member donations--would be forced to be expended on something that some churches teach against. That's wrong and that's why I don't support gay marriage. Gay marriage crosses the line between church and state.

[ulysses]

129. many churches teach against many things.

dsc brings up the point of Bob Jones "university" above in the thread - should we ban interracial marriage so that Jonesers might never have to have their tithes go toward supporting such a marriage via insurance?

[blondeatlast]

138. So, they can legally reject contractors that:

are divorced, atheist, onanists, don't observe the Sabbath, covet their neighbor's wives and property, etc.

Let's see those of us Christians who are "threatened" by the "death" of marriage protect us all from annulment--a total sham, and especially so for women, quickie divorce (Britney Spears, Bennifer, Michael Jackson), and marriages that die when the ceremony is over (I've seen way too many of those, twice as bridesmaid).

If the Dems don't stand up for happy marriage between consenting adults, I quit them.

I'm a straight, female, proud Christian, btw.

[blondeatlast]

132. Churches must give employment benefits to the divorced, atheists,

onanists, and those who don't observe the Sabbath.

What makes this "sin" different?

BTW, I'm a proud, straight, female, Christian, Kucinich supporter who wants everyone to be able to enjoy the happiness I've found in marriage.

[mitchum]

133. What a terrible and wrong idea

[RetroLounge]

134. You are so wrong it's amazingly sad

to hear a Democrat call for separate but equal...

I'll let Howard Dean speak:

Governor Dean commented on the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision to support same-gender marriages:

"I believe firmly that we must do everything in our power to assure that all citizens of the United States are afforded equal rights under the law -- and that includes gay as well as straight couples. As Governor of Vermont, I was proud to sign the nation's first law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. Today's decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court represents a different approach to the same goal. One way or another, states should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

"Some in Washington will use this decision to justify the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This would be the first constitutional amendment to authorize discrimination, and I oppose it. Marriage is a matter of state law, and gay bashing has no place in the Constitution."

[mdguss]

136. I never said anything about an amendment:

I said we shouldn't fight this issue now. I think going for broke now will backfire. I think the thing to do now is to talk about things like the lack of visitation rights between dying partners. That's sympathetic. Once, you convince people of that, move on to domestic partner benefits (which I support). Once you do that move onto civil unions. (This is where I desert the cause) Once that is accomplished, move on to marriage.

[ulysses]

135. how's this for a pro-marriage plank?

"We firmly believe that a marriage is the lifetime bond of love and mutual support between two adults. Further, we firmly believe that marriage is a positive influence on society and seek to strengthen it by expanding access to it and defend it against attack by those who would limit its rights and duties to one segment of our society."

Needs some work on the definition of marriage, but whaddya think?

[mdguss]

137. It's good,

But if the words man and woman are not in there, expect the Republicans to hammer away until Nov. 2nd. The simple fact is that this is an issue which will spell disaster for the Democratic Party and for the cause of those who support gay marriages.

[ulysses]

139. let them hammer.

Not as if they're not going to anyway. The best defense is a good offense and all that.

[mdguss]

140. But then we let them:

Appoint and confirm up to six Supreme Court Justices that will roll back any progress that is being made towards the legalization of marriage position. And do many other things that I wouldn't like to see happen.

[ulysses]

141. not if we make the point effectively.

Sorry, but torpedo a gay-rights stance and you run *precisely* the same risk of losing the election.

[Moderator]

143. Locking.......

1. If you start a thread in this forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. The moderators have the sole authority to decide whether a thread topic is inflammatory.




DU Moderator