McCain's GAY Chief of Staff...

[construct]

Since everyone already knows that this guy is gay, who are you going to out him to?

Then we aren't really outing him, are we? We're merely excoriating him.

 

[HenryReardon]

Now there's the philosophy of a Jesuit - the end justifies the means

 

[construct]

Now there's the philosophy of a Jesuit - the end justifies the means

If the end doesn't justify the means then, by God, nothing else will.

 

[HenryReardon]

Any gay who thinks the issue through won;t support "gay marriage", because it's a sellout to a system of discrimination.

That's more or less what John Barrowman said, ie, Marriage is a religious thing, and most religions don't like gays, so why should we want to do a religious thing.

Properly framed, a system of civil unions or partnership contracts could accomplish the same thing.

It's kind of interesting - the way people get hung up on single issue politics. The religious right on abortion, and the gay community (or some of them, at least) on gay marriage.

I'm putting on my asbestos suit now.

 

[construct]

Any gay who thinks the issue through won;t support "gay marriage", because it's a sellout to a system of discrimination.

That's more or less what John Barrowman said, ie, Marriage is a religious thing, and most religions don't like gays, so why should we want to do a religious thing.

Properly framed, a system of civil unions or partnership contracts could accomplish the same thing.

It's kind of interesting - the way people get hung up on single issue politics. The religious right on abortion, and the gay community (or some of them, at least) on gay marriage.

I'm putting on my asbestos suit now.

Mr. Buse's unseemly relationship with Sen. McCain has little to do with gay marriage. It has more to do with ENDA than it has to do with gay marriage.

 

[HenryReardon]

Mr. Buse's unseemly relationship with Sen. McCain has little to do with gay marriage. It has more to do with ENDA than it has to do with gay marriage.

That's a stretch isn't - calling it unseemly for a man to take a job working for a candidate.

Gay marriage seems to be uppermost on everyone's mind these days.

I don't like McCain, I don't like Palin, and I don't like Obama. This election offers voters two very bad choices.

That being said, Mr. Buse (whoever he is - I haven't looked him up) is not running for public office, and is not fair game for outing.

 

[construct]

Mr. Buse's unseemly relationship with Sen. McCain has little to do with gay marriage. It has more to do with ENDA than it has to do with gay marriage.

That's a stretch isn't - calling it unseemly for a man to take a job working for a candidate.

Gay marriage seems to be uppermost on everyone's mind these days.

I don't like McCain, I don't like Palin, and I don't like Obama. This election offers voters two very bad choices.

That being said, Mr. Buse (whoever he is - I haven't looked him up) is not running for public office, and is not fair game for outing.

Don't look now! It's even worse than you expected! Mr. Buse is not working for Sen. McCain's campaign--at least, not as far as I know. Mr. Buse is chief-of-staff in McCain's senate office. So he's the one who advises McCain on legislation and supervises the other office staff. He's the ultimate insider. If he can't convince the senator to support gay-friendly legislation, just imagine how ineffective your run-of-the-mill Log Cabiner is.

 

[HenryReardon]

That's tolerable but it echoes the "separate but equal" mentality of the 60's

That's not a valid analogy. Marriage is a religious thing, and the gay marriage thing requires that the government get in bed with religion to accomplish it.

History shows us, over and over again, that government in bed with religion is never a good thing.

 

[HenryReardon]

You're ignoring the fact that non-religious people get married. Whatever your point is, it's missing a HUGE chunk of reality.

Sure, and as a Notary Public, I once performed a wedding ceremony, but I used the language from the Book of Common Prayer to do it.

Like it or not, marriage is a religious Sacrament, and it is viewed that way by most people.

 

[HenryReardon]

If we have to use a "religious" practice as an ally, so the fuck what, it brings us closer to equality which brings us closer to tolerance. Both of which are cool in my book.

Closer to tolerance? Surely you jest. The obdurate insistance on gay marriage by the activist crowd has set gay rights back twenty years. The backlash has already begun, see Prop 8 in California, and Amendment 2 in Florida, for example.

Of course the activist crowd doesn't give a rat's behind about marriage, all they care about is donations, and constant agitation is what brings them in.

 

[HenryReardon]

Do you have some sort of poll to back this up? Some people never even see an open bible until they're standing in front of the pastor doing their ceremony.
.

I realize that you are merely being disingenuous, but try this one on for size:

How about an ABC news poll which shows that 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christian?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html

 

[HenryReardon]

Now you've gone from disingenuous to sophistry, but it won't work.

 

[naked gent]

Like it or not, marriage is a religious Sacrament, and it is viewed that way by most people.

Like it or not its also a legal union which the state can recognize with or without religious approval.

If it were only religious divorced catholics could not remarry with state sanction but they do.

Its not necessary to bring any religion into the marriage ceremony and for those that do it is only a tactic.

 

[HenryReardon]

But it is the religious aspect of gay marriage that has everyone's knickers in a twist.

 

[HenryReardon]

Why do you think that is? If it is?

To quote a favorite author, the answer to your question is self-evidently obvious.

And it doesn't much matter what I think. It's what millions of Americans think.

 

[HenryReardon]

Sophistry? Yeah, how dare I ask you to explain yourself. Sorry, but it doesn't help your argument to call names as soon as you hit a roadblock. What I asked was a very valid question but I understand your desire to avoid it. The whole "inconventient truth" deal.

Go back and read what I wrote very carefully. Names were not called. Big words were used, however.

 

[Spensed]

But it is the religious aspect of gay marriage that has everyone's knickers in a twist.

I suspect it's more the gay sex.

 

[Royal Heart]

That's not surprising. The Republican Party is full of self-hating and/or closeted gays.

 

[Kulindahr]

Then we aren't really outing him, are we? We're merely excoriating him.

Ooh -- "excoriating" is a kool word!

EXACTLY marriage is a social or religious contract that joins two people to live, love, and be together of the rest of their lives(or how ever long they last).

Like it or not, marriage is a religious sacrament only among those who believe god gives a rat's ass.

A majority of Americans view marriage as sacred -- I thought the Pew Center had figures on that, but I'm not finding them; at any rate, it can be derived from the fact that two-thirds of Americans regard some book or another as holy/sacred, and nearly all those books define marriage as sacred.
Not all, however, consider it a "sacrament" -- which illustrates the fact that there are different views of marriage, all of which regard it as sacred.

The crux here is that the entire "defense" of marriage is based on it being sacred. Defining it as male + female is done from religious texts; defining it as two people is done from religious texts. So the definition of marriage as currently held in federal (and most state) law is at root religious, in fact if not in name.
So in actuality, government is already in bed with religion on the matter. And by wanting to tack on one additional, narrow definition of marriage, those who support gay marriage are aiming to get in bed with religion, too -- and it won't be a comfortable bed.

So the proper solution is to get government out of the marriage business, and let everyone define their unions however they wish: let those whose religions approve polygamy follow their religions -- and let those whose religions approve same-sex unions follow them... and let those who aren't religious enter into whatever unions they wish.

Personally, I'd ditch the term "civil union", though, and call them "registered unions", to indicate that the only function of the government would be to record -- register -- the unions into which citizens declare that they have entered.

 

[White Eagle]

I found out why Mark Buse works for McPain. Found in thread "October Surprise comes Early ?"
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=233267
OtownDWB's post #4 says that Buse:

Mark Buse, Mr. McCain’s chief of staff for his Senate office, also is a Freddie Mac alumnus. He and his former lobbying employer, ML Strategies, registered to lobby for the company in July 2003, and received $460,000 before the association ended after 2004.

It's third paragraph from the bottom of the post.

It must be nice.