John McCain and Civil Unions

[construct]

My error AGAIN Construct - apologies. Too early in the AM when I posted perhaps. I did not mean the 4th Amendment - I was thinking the 4th Article - Full Faith and Credit Clause.

I'm not so sure about the FFC Clause. It might be the basis for a decision requiring a state to recognize another state's divorce decree (and by implication marriage). Unless the marriage had been ordered by a court (which seems to me kind of a stretch), the FFC would not require the recognition of an out-of-state marriage that is against the strong public policy of the state.

I think that if a favorable ruling on gay marriage were to come on federal grounds it would come through either the due process clauses or the equal protection clause or both.

 

[construct]

I agree that government should only recognize civil unions, but you'll hit just as hard and fast a brick wall with trying to remove 'marriage' from the legal language as you will with 'gay marriage'---the argument will probably mirror the disagreement with secularization of government that's been going on for decades. This is, if you guys are arguing for it all to be done within too short a time, and being overt with your goals.

Well, I think it's kind of hard to do any of this covertly or gradually. I don't know how soon it will happen, but when whatever happens happens, it's going to happen on a day, and it's going to come in clear and direct words.

 

[Jannus]

To me a bigger question is if Obama wins and 4 years from now we have neither civil unions nor gay marriage (we know he's not for that) what will the gay community do?

Then we'll vote into power the party that says God hates us, our existence is an abomination, and that a constitutional amendment should be passed to make sure we never get anything.



It is true the Democratic Party doesn't support us. But at least they don't foment hatred against us, try to prevent us from any possibility of ever obtaining rights, and advocate the inscribing of hatred against us into the US constitution.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree that government should only recognize civil unions, but you'll hit just as hard and fast a brick wall with trying to remove 'marriage' from the legal language as you will with 'gay marriage'---the argument will probably mirror the disagreement with secularization of government that's been going on for decades. This is, if you guys are arguing for it all to be done within too short a time, and being overt with your goals.

I think you know that my proposal would be an act "Returning Sacred Marriage to Those of Faith", except with some fancy anacronym that would make everyone want to vote for it. The whole argument would be that marriage belongs to the churches, and they should be in charge of it; marriage licenses would end, and churches could issue marriage certificates, which the couple would take to the court house to register their union.
The words "civil union" would have to be avoided, of course, due to their association with gay rights, so something like "domestic union" would have to do -- note that both those words come from the traditional Christian marriage ceremony!
Then after some period of time, like a presidential term, another act, "Equality in Domestic Relationships", would come along and say that any individuals who were entering a "domestic union" could be issued a certificate that would be taken to the court house, and their union be registered just like marriages. That would cover all the not-quite-church organizations which do marriage, and incidentally cover gay unions as well.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, how calculating and devious.

It comes from having spent several years in a politically-active conservative fundamentalist Christian congregation.

 

[HenryReardon]

I think you know that my proposal would be an act "Returning Sacred Marriage to Those of Faith", except with some fancy anacronym that would make everyone want to vote for it. The whole argument would be that marriage belongs to the churches, and they should be in charge of it; marriage licenses would end, and churches could issue marriage certificates, which the couple would take to the court house to register their union.
The words "civil union" would have to be avoided, of course, due to their association with gay rights, so something like "domestic union" would have to do -- note that both those words come from the traditional Christian marriage ceremony!
Then after some period of time, like a presidential term, another act, "Equality in Domestic Relationships", would come along and say that any individuals who were entering a "domestic union" could be issued a certificate that would be taken to the court house, and their union be registered just like marriages. That would cover all the not-quite-church organizations which do marriage, and incidentally cover gay unions as well.

That is an excellent idea. I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.

On the other hand, the in-your-face activist crowd won't like it.

 

[Kulindahr]

That is an excellent idea. I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.

On the other hand, the in-your-face activist crowd won't like it.

I don't really care what the in-your-face activist crowd would like.

No, wait -- yes, I do: if it's an idea they don't like, then I say that's a point in its favor. If they get upset by it, I like it.

If it weren't for the in-your-face activist crowd, I might have realized who I was back in college, at a time when I still might have had a chance for "young love", a chance to feel redeemed from the gawdawful upbringing I had. They were so obnoxious, so obscene in public, so offensive to people, that I and others who were starting to have stirrings about our identities ran for cover, and distanced ourselves from them the best way possible: by denying we could possibly be anything remotely like them.


I've come to the idea I put together -- in possibly the best explanation I've ever managed -- because it begins with the premise that we ought never fight for our own rights, but ought rather always fight for everyone's; that to do otherwise is to be an oppressor, albeit of a different stripe than the existing oppressors.

That was the genius of the American Revolution and the the Constitution: that we don't fight just for ourselves, but for all; that rights belong to everyone, or they belong to no one; that insofar as the rights of any are restrained, we are all diminished.

 

[Spensed]

Civil unions with the full rights and benefits of marriage is a significant step forward.

McCain has opposed gay civil unions and, unlike Obama, has a lowly rated track record on gay civil rights.

Plus McCain will stack the Supreme Court with anti-gay judges. Work that one out for yourselves.

 

[Kulindahr]

McCain has opposed gay civil unions and, unlike Obama, has a lowly rated track record on gay civil rights.

Plus McCain will stack the Supreme Court with anti-gay judges. Work that one out for yourselves.

And they're willing to steal the election to achieve it.