There is an entire discussion devoted to the issue of
Same Sex Marriage. Perhaps people would like to continue that debate there.
fishin wrote: "The point is that he didn't expend any political capital contrary to his assertions that he disreguarded any possible future political implications of his actions."
I'm not so sure. It may be that he was ordered to do this, AND he believed in doing it, AND there was/is definite political risk involved.
It's not a "popular" stand. Some people, though fair and open-minded, just don't yet understand it - perhaps in time with more information, they will; some are uncomfortable with it - again, perhaps in time they will recognize the need for this (IMO) just and fair legislation; some, unfortunately, are just hate-filled - odds are they'll never support it. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that there was and still is definite political risk involved in taking the stand Dean took, and he took it anyway.
If I've missed your point again, I apologize.
The prohibition of the establishment of a state religion obviously protects us from religion determining law. That doesn't mean that religion may not agree with law (as in the prohibition against murder). In the matter of civil unions, if one removes reference to gender and "tradition" (supported by religion), it seems pretty obvious to me.
Tartarin wrote:The prohibition of the establishment of a state religion obviously protects us from religion determining law. That doesn't mean that religion may not agree with law (as in the prohibition against murder). In the matter of civil unions, if one removes reference to gender and "tradition" (supported by religion), it seems pretty obvious to me.
Tartarin - I think you'd be hard-pressed to defend the notion that our prohibitions against and societal view of murder are not rooted in religious doctrine. Alternatively, one could also claim that "religion merely agrees with law" in the case of same sex unions. You can argue it either way, but not both simultaneously.
Tartarin wrote:In the matter of civil unions, if one removes reference to gender and "tradition" (supported by religion), it seems pretty obvious to me.
Without getting into a discussion of Constitutional law, my only quibble with this is the idea that the only basis for the continuation of this tradition is religious. IMO, it's a false assumption that allows for simple dismissal of all arguments against same sex marriages. There are plenty of non-religious (or religiously ambigous (sp?) ) people that oppose same sex marriages.
along with that fishin' to say that prohibitions against murder are only rooted in religious doctrine is more than a bit off the wall. all societies and religions, even us heathens have prohibitions against murder. well, possibly the exceptions would be christians, jews and muslims when "enrapturing" the infidels at the tip of the sword.
Agreed dyslexia, that was the point of the comment. We have thousands of laws that may trace back to various religious beliefs but to say that those religious beliefs are the ONLY reason for any of them is, IMO, a mistake.
Whether one believes that religion-based objections are the ONLY objections to same sex civil unions or just ONE source of objection, the objection(s) (IMO) are wrong for reasons (which I won't repeat) stated here and in other threads.
i may be simple minded but it seems pretty obvious to me that this is a mere civil liberties issue and should be devoid of religious influence
Okay, it sure seems like some of you are trying to make this into a debate about same sex marriage/legal union. It ain't. This will be the probably very rare occasion where I will agree with Tresspassers, and humbly request you all start a thread and have at it there.
I'm tempted to say, Fishin, that religion repeatedly tries to seduce legislators! But no, I see tradition as influenced by but not subsumed to religion. But when either finds itself head-to-head with blatant injustice, it has to lose. See slavery (justified by selected Bible verses). See women/vote (ditto).
If life-long partners -- hey, they could be a couple of sisters or brothers or old friends sharing a home and an economic partnership -- want the same treatment from banks and insurance companies as two heterosexuals forming the same socioeconomic partnership, they should have it. Their precise sexual (or absence of sexual) relationship should not be an issue, or frankly any of our business. Taking note of the presumed sexual relationship smakes no sense. It only indicates that you indulge in religious OR traditional prurience and insist that others (and the law) share that prurience with you. Why does one need to know their sexuality? Why does it matter? It is, as Dyslexia points out, a civil liberties issue, pure and simple.
Hmm, going to look for my avatar. Where'd it go??!
Oh good, it's back! Thought something might have happened when I changed my quotation.
This is will by last comment on this particular issue as, as has been said, it's off topic here..
Tartarin wrote:It is, as Dyslexia points out, a civil liberties issue, pure and simple.
If that is the case (and I think it is..) then why is the issue of civil liberties being fought only for a small portion of the affected population? Supporting same sex marriage as a way to gain civil liberties is a fraud! Civil liberties are SUPPOSED to be the same for ALL. Why should anyone have to be "married" to gain a basic civil liberty? If, as I said earlier, all of the laws were changed to reflect equeally based on the person instead of their marital status, the issue would be largely irrelevant and the dispute would be minor. Instead there is a push to extend those civil liberties to a small portion of the total population and, at the same time, ignore everyone that is unmarried.
Fishin -- Not sure quite how that applies in specific cases, but agree with your sentiment! Also agree that we should bop back to the topic at hand and I also know that Dean doesn't want that issue to be his defining issue.
snood wrote:Okay, it sure seems like some of you are trying to make this into a debate about same sex marriage/legal union. It ain't. This will be the probably very rare occasion where I will agree with Tresspassers, and humbly request you all start a thread and have at it there.
However rare it may be, it goes to show that anything is possible!
Oh, and a discussion on same sex marriage already exists:
Same Sex Marriage
As Tartarin said:
"But no, I see tradition as influenced by but not subsumed to religion. But when either finds itself head-to-head with blatant injustice, it has to lose. See slavery (justified by selected Bible verses). See women/vote (ditto)."
Since I am a recent arrival to the Bible Belt here in South Carolina from the Northeast, I wish I could agree with you. But it it obvious to me, now, that I can't. In these locales, traditions, including laws, are subsumed to religion. Pure and simple. No escaping that conclusion.
It breaks my heart.
Oh, and to get back on topic: Since I have lived in South Carolina for lo these past seven years, I can tell you flat out that there ain't no democratic contenders from these here parts, y'all hear?
c.i.
