[Erin] Friendly advice to pro-gay marriage Dems

Many(perhaps, most) heterosexual Democrats don't support gay marriage. I think that Clinton is being politically smart by supporting gay partnerships and civil unions that give gays the financial and legal benefits of marriage while opposing what many people view as a religious union. Or, maybe they don't see or acknowledge God in the picture, but they don't feel comfortable changing something that's been one way going back to ancient & even prehistoric time. Like the Republicans, the Democrats have a very large base. Gays in favor of marriage make up a small sample of that base.

I must point out the MAJOR difference. Republicans, like Bush, get elected by opposing stem cell research and abortion. They make promises that they don't keep. Hillary is being up front. She's telling gays that she won't help them to marry, but she'll support other initiatives where they can obtain the financial and legal benefits of a marriage contract. I would trust her to do that, and that's probably the best that can be hoped for by gays at this time.

George and Martha Washington did not have a marriage license. They did not have a civil union.

Maybe it is time to rethink the relationship of marriage and the state. Homosexuals do not need marriage licenses or civil unions; they only need some assurances about insurance, inheritance, and a few other issues.

Perhaps Baldwin and Frank have endorsed Clinton because gay marriage isn't the most important issue on their mind. Perhaps that's also true for most homosexuals as well. While they might think gay marriage would be nice, it's not the most important issue to them. Health care, Iraq, the environment, the economy, etc might rank higher for them. Just like on the pro-life side, I think abortion is an important issue, but there are other important issues as well. And when you have a choice between several candidates who basically have the same position on abortion, you look to other issues as well.

I agree with Watsy, and would add that gay marraige is a fairly young concept as far as political debates go. Abortion, on the other hand, is past the 30-year mark (if you pick Roe v. Wade as your starting point) and is a much more deeply felt issue than gay marraige.

Supporters may not be getting what they want out of Hillary Clinton--or any of the Dem front runners--at this particular point in time. But the do know that none of them will push for regression on the issue (such as floating an absurd constitutional amendment).

Well, who should gay voters support? No politicians actually support full marriage for gays, except for a few gadflies on the fringe.

From a gay's perspective, the leading D's do at least have one major advantage over the R's: they don't actively oppose gay issues.

Several 'birds', one 'stone'...

"Homosexuals do not need marriage licenses or civil unions"

True. What we need is equality. Used to be guaranteed to ALL citizens under the Constitution.

"If heterosexuals and gays receive the same license from the state validating a legallly binding relationship of rights, responsibilities and management of assets, then "marriage" really only refers formally to a particular religious recognition of that legal contract"

Actually, it's the reverse. People (well, heterosexual people, anyway) get married in their Church (Temple, Synagogue, etc.) and the State automatically recognizes it and bestows the benefits that come with it without question. Why the State discrimination?

"Obviously the state cannot force a religion to religiously sanctify a union contrary to its values, but, then, there are churches and faiths that do religiously recognize gay unions."

Precisely. Nor is anyone "forcing" (heck, we aren't even ASKING) any religion to perform marriages contrary to their tenets. But, for those faiths that DO perform them, what is the State's "reason" for withholding legal equality for SOME religious marriages?

"Seems to me that gays would be best served pursuing universal recognition of equal legal rights of union"

Um, marriage DOES that!

"patronize those churches that offer them religious sanctification"

We DO, some of us.

"and leave the empty husk of the concept of "gay marriage" that remains to those still interested in it."

Hmmm, in one half of the sentence you tell us to patronize churches that offer same sex marriage (though you couched it in different words), and in the next half you denigrate them with the term "empty husk". That does not compute, Brad. My legal Church marriage (in Canada) is recognized by our Government. It is in no way an "empty husk".

"is a much more deeply felt issue than gay marraige"

Not for the people involved in the issue it isn't. Fortunately, every child born to a gay or lesbian person or couple that I know is a WANTED child.

"If it aint broke, don't fix it."

Except, of course, it IS "broke" - it excludes some citizens despite their Constitutional right to be treated equally before the law.

"I don't see how we can take a concept like "marriage" and redefine it so radically as to include two men."

So it gets changed to "two people". Not so "radical", imo. Of course, there was a time when women weren't considered people either, but THAT definition got changed.

"The government should have little or no say in how people live their lives. There should therefore be no civil marriage"

Tell that to the heterosexuals and see if they like it. I wouldn't hold my breath.

"religions could enforce their own rules"

They already do. The Catholic Church refuses to re-marry divorced people, despite the fact that divorced people can get perfectly legal civil marriages outside of the Church. Trouble is, the current mal-Administration is discriminating against those faiths that DO perform same-sex marriages. We want that discrimination stopped.

"and religious marriage should make no legal or financial difference."

Again, tell that to the heterosexuals who have benefited from religious marriages. I think they'd disagree with you. I know I would.

"Legal principles should be based on abstract fundamentals, such as those in scripture"

Huh??? Do you mean like putting the victims of incest to death (per Leviticus)? WHICH "scripture" would get this legal heft? Curious minds want to know.

recovering ex-Pentecostal:

""There should therefore be no civil marriage ... and religious marriage should make no legal or financial difference.""
"Tell that to the heterosexuals and see if they like it. I wouldn't hold my breath."

Yes, but, I wasn't actually arguing for this position. Anyway, I have heard some Christians argue for this position. Also, some people are already in this position; eg. people who are in polygamous marriages that are recognised by their own religion but not by the state.

""Legal principles should be based on abstract fundamentals, such as those in scripture"
"Huh??? Do you mean like putting the victims of incest to death (per Leviticus)? WHICH "scripture" would get this legal heft? Curious minds want to know."

I think you have misunderstood me. Again, I wasn't arguing for this position, but presenting it as one of the options.

In a sense, the way the Democrats are treating the gay-marriage supporters is almost identical to the way the Republicans have treated us pro-life Americans for years...

Not really. I see the effects as vastly different. I can easily foresee the next Dem president appointing a liberal justice that would declare DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) unconstitutional. Thus allowing Margaret Marshall (Chief judge of MA high court) to declare, all by herself, a right to same-sex marriage for everyone in the US.

The fact that Rudi’s opinion is a minority one in his own party relative to Clinton’s in hers.

Brad,

"A state licensed union, performed by a JP, is a fully legal and recognized marriage. A religious ceremony alone, without a valid state marriage license"

I never said a "religious ceremony ALONE" (emphasis mine). What of those who get the license and then have the ceremony done in their church? The church officiant is authorized by the State to do them - but only for heterosexuals, and it is this discrimination I bemoan.

Also, in other jurisdictions, (specifically here in Canada, but I'm pretty sure it applies elsewhere) couples can be married in their church via the "Publication of the Banns". It is how all 3 of my (heterosexual) sisters were married (well, their first ones, anyway), and it also applied to me and my husband. No State-issued license was required.

"If you want to be legally "married" [an aside: I AM legally married, no quote marks required] politically force equal rights for gays under the law under a uniform code of civil union for all."

Sorry, but I see no need for a separate, new institution. Marriage works quite well. And why should we have to "politically force equal rights for gays"? Aren't ALL citizens supposed to be equal before the law already?

"If you want to be religiously "married" in the sight of God [second aside: I AM already], find a church that recognizes and sanctifies gays as marriageable"

We already have them. What I contest is why the Gubmint gets to decide WHICH religious marriages they will recognize. I thought it was illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion, even for the State.

"or persuade your denomination to do so since you cannot force it to do so politically"

Thank you for that. So many on the "right" falsely believe we are attempting to do just that.

"But a heterosexual married by a JP and a homosexual married by a JP under the same civil statutes are both equally and indistinguishably legally married"

If only that were true. Unfortunately, except for the State of Massachusetts, it isn't.

"The "empty husk" is simply the pedantic bigotry that remains after the primary legal purpose of marriage is satisfied"

And just what would the "legal purpose of marriage" BE???

ReP, are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?

Maybe you became confused when you conflated my post with two others.

If you have "civil unions", which is what the candidates in question are for while coyly saying they are against "gay marriage", you HAVE legal "marriage" (or you should, if the proponents of it aren't asleep at the switch). What remains, the religious recognition of marriage, has all the same religious value and all the same legal value as religious baptism.

Okay, fine, a heterosexual's civil union, without benefit of clergy, might be called "marriage" by a slightly larger group of people than call a homosexual's civil union without benefit of clergy be called "marriage"--until such time as it's not.

The reason, of course, for these kinds of positions is that, with a two-party system, people have limited choices. If you're pro-gay marriage, the Dems don't really have to worry about you, because what are you going to do, go to the Republican side? The situation with the GOP and pro-life movement is the same; no matter how bad the GOP is on the issue, obviously the Dems are worse.

Of course, the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Guiliani is kind of ruining that whole dynamic, isn't he? :-) Some Republicans may wind up going to a third party. It would be interesting if gay marriage advocates left the Dems, but, as Erin said, I don't think they realize they're being played yet. And besides, in reality it doesn't matter if Hillary pushes for gay marriage or not, does it? All she has to do is not fight it, and there's a chance it will be able to pop up on its own as it did in Massachuttes. This makes it somewhat different from pro-life issues, since the Supreme Court has pretty much destroyed any concept of states' rights on those.

God bless.

I think the difference between abortion and gay marriage is the type of controversy.

Abortion is controversial because most people have strongly held views about the issue, which are diametrically opposed to one another. '

Gay marriage is controversial because old people are grossed out by gay sex. I am not talking about the principled, traditional and religious ideologies that under pin opposition to gay marriage, such as you or Rod's. I do think those views are wrong and profoundly bigoted but that sort of debate is really beside the point because that's not what we are talking about, the electoral issue is and that is what we are talking about right? Not the rightness or wrongness of the issue but the politics of the situation.

So politically speaking, when old people die off, gay marriage will be legalized. I doubt you could say the same about abortion. So the reason Democrats support everything but gay marriage is that they think that that is a wining strategy. 20 years from now they'll be supporting gay marriage because anyone who opposes gay marriage will be such a small part of the electorate that their votes will be irrelevant.

I look forward to that day.

Erin my dear, please inquire among the 20-somethings of your acquaintance. They think we're all nuts to discriminate against the gays.

My daughter (23) and her friends are all, "What is THAT supposed to be all about??"

My 40 year old (married with son) is the same. "What exactly is the problem here?"

I'm at something of a loss to make this comprehensible to these young folks.

You are welcome to try this out.

In California, "civil partnership" provides some but not all of the benefits of marriage.

The differences are mostly tax-related. This is VERY important, obviously. (If you don't think so, then ignore your income tax liabilities and find out what happens to you.) Sometimes health insurance hinges on legal marriage, but of course that's a whole other topic.

I have a bit more to add about my conservative (as opposed to libertarian or nomocratic) opposition to gay marriage.

I don't think that the (im)morality of homosexuality is necessarily relevant. I think the issue is whether it is legitimate to radically redefine words and institutions. If we can say that people do not need to be the same sex to marry, why should we insist that a marriage should have only two members? (polygyny is, after all, much closer than gay marriage to the broad global cultural mainstream)
Why should we insist that someone's sexual relationship is their most important relationship? (there must be lots of people who are either not into sex or have casual sex, but also have close long-term friendships)

I can see the case for libertarianism. By that, I mean that there should be no civil marriage, and religious marriage should have no legal or financial impliations. Alternatively, everyone, on reaching maturity, could state someone to be their "Other" for legal/financial purposes, and could change that Other at any time, with no assumptions made about the nature of the relationship.

What I cannot see, however, is how one can radically extend the meaning of marriage, and yet still make such weird value judgments as "polygamy and group marriage are unacceptable", and "the heart and purse must follow the genitals".

Hi Brad,

"ReP, are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?"

Nope. I'm arguing because I think you are wrong.

"Maybe you became confused when you conflated my post with two others."

Not at all. Every single point I addressed in my post of November 19, 2007 1:18 PM is in response to points YOU made in your post of November 19, 2007 11:41 AM. No conflating involved. No 'confusion' either. Try again.

"If you have "civil unions", which is what the candidates in question are for while coyly saying they are against "gay marriage", you HAVE legal "marriage" (or you should, if the proponents of it aren't asleep at the switch)."

"[S]hould" being the operative word. No, unfortunately we do NOT have marriage if we have civil unions. Which is why the New Jersey "civil union" experiment has failed so badly and is being contested.

And what of the several States that, in addition to 'amending' their Constitutions to prevent gay citizens from EVER marrying, tacked on verbage to the effect that we may NEVER have any of the benefits that come from marriage, nor any institution that resembles marriage???

"What remains, the religious recognition of marriage, has all the same religious value and all the same legal value as religious baptism."

Sorry, but only HETEROSEXUAL 'religious marriages' have ANY "legal value". Otherwise, all those wonderful 'blessings of relationships' (puke) in gay-friendly Churches and Synagogues would BE marriages, and those couples legally married in those Churches and Synagogues (eg. in Massachusetts, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.) would have the SAME "legal value". Delusional as usual, I see.

"if Daniel is correct, just above, that "civil union" does not provide entirely all the legal benefits of legal marriage"

"IF"???!!!

"if heterosexuals and abstract mathematical entities like corporations both have afforded to them the benefits, rights, and obligations of legal union and inheritance under civil society, then there is no reason gay unions should be shorted or denied."

I'm tempted to say "IF"???!!! again, but it seems that you are finally realizing the truth of our reality - we do NOT get those same "benefits, rights, and obligations of legal union and inheritance". We ARE "shorted" and "denied". Oh, and in addition to "abstract mathematical entities like corporations", you omitted (forgot?) the GOVERNMENT.

For once, I would love to hear a single argument from your side stating the obvious benefits of having a "civil union" instead of a marriage, or of why the creation of an entirely new institution called "civil unions" is even necessary. Any takers?

"For once, I would love to hear a single argument from your side stating the obvious benefits of having a "civil union" instead of a marriage, or of why the creation of an entirely new institution called "civil unions" is even necessary. Any takers?"

ReP, I don't have a side; this is your battle to fight and win or lose. Pitching the issue to me as "my side" against "your side" does not increase my interest. You may properly conclude from this that I may not care sufficiently about you.

Accordingly, I don't follow these things as closely as you do, and I was obviously under the wrong impression previously that the civil unions legalized were not only the equal of heterosexual legal marriage, but also that they were a done deal or in process in more places than they are. (Why they were accepted in spite of not being a full loaf, similar to accepting something like "85% liberty", is an obvious question still outstanding that perhaps you should put to your own proponents, for it becomes something of an internal sellout, the value of incremental pragmatic advances notwithstanding.)

My initial comment proceeded from these bases, and concerned what I perceived, if incorrectly (and which perception others may also share), as a peripheral, political-semantic niggling around the edges about having gay civil unions that were the equal of legal heterosexual marriage also called "marriage" merely in name.

I think my perception might still be strategically valuable to you. It doesn't matter if a gay marriage is termed "marriage" in name if it still doesn't deliver full benefits, as appears to be the case you apparently have so far settled for. By the same token, it really matters little if a "civil union" that does deliver full benefits and might be more feasible politically isn't called "marriage" on Thursday; on Thursday a year hence it likely will be. If I were fighting your battle and I could weaken my opposition by calling it "civil union" instead of "marriage" while still securing the substantive equalities I sought, I would. And in all cases, as before, (as far as I know) religious recognition remains an issue only of secondary importance: religious rites of passage do not dictate legal recognitions, other than indirectly through politics.

From my standpoint, this sounds more like a sale that needs to be made, at least from your position of interest and your political strengths, rather than a battle to be pitched. OTOH, if there is a political battle to be pitched, it would seem to be involved with the equality of all individuals--as individuals--to marry whom they wished (while dodging such distractions as incest laws, polygamy, etc.) rather than anything perceived as a wholesale campaign on an entire cultural institution, meaningless as the ultimate distinctions might be.

If I have an opportunity to vote for such equalities for you, I will.

Good luck.

"Here's a question: how is Rudy Giuliani substantially different from any of the Democratic front runners on gay marriage? He takes a pretty identical position..." Erin

Here's the answer: Rudy does NOT take a pretty identical position. In fact, he keeps reiterating his promise to nominate strict constructionists like Bush has--judges Rudy knows won't lie inre the fanciful Constitutional right to kill an innocent human being even after its head has bid the world "hello". You know very well, Erin, that the judges Slick Hilly et al would nominate would be ACLU Ruth Bader Ginsburg, pro-death types.

Rudy --who is not my first or second choice--knows he has to throw us an abortion bone to get the Republican nomination.

All this talk about the "right" to marry, and how that "right" isn't in the Constitution for the homos (I guess it's not in there for str8s then either, eh?), but what about the FREEDOM to marry? What about the right to the pursuit of happiness? Are those gone too now?

By encouraging people to take a "my way or the highway stance" with politicians, aren't you encouraging the increasing polarization of politics (almost all the Republicans who are retiring this year are moderates) to ultra-right and ultra-left that I thought crunchy cons AND crunchy libs should oppose?

Cleveland,

"Only after a legislature creates such right can the judiciary become involved."

I doubt you're (or anyone is) reading this anymore, but in light of the fact that the California legislature has TWICE now voted to approve same-sex marriages, you may want to revisit that thought.