It amazes me how much press has been given to the issue of gay marriage over the past few days. Granted, the President of The United States making a remark about any controversial issue would generate press, but what really irks me is from where the majority of the press is coming. I totally understand and respect a religious organization, like a church or an Orthodox Synagogue being anti-gay marriage. What I cannot understand and do not respect are political groups and candidates for office using this issue as a ploy to help them in their agenda. Homosexuality is NOT a political issue, no matter who is telling you that it is. A cornerstone of the Republican Party is to take power away from the federal government and give it to the states. That is all well and good, but when it comes to a person’s reproductive rights, or a person’s sexual orientation, suddenly this is a national issue and one that needs to be dealt with on a national level. When states vote to allow gay marriage, in comes the Republican Party to squash it by any means. Clearly they are just doing what they need to appease the far right who are militantly anti-gay marriage for religious reasons (which by the way I don’t believe that those arguments hold any weight either, but that is for another day). I sometimes wonder if these politicians truly believed in what they were saying when it comes to these issues.
Rush Limbaugh said on his program “We’ve arrived at a point where the President of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage.” A WAR. Really. That’s quite a remarkable statement. I really, really want to know how gay marriage hurts any other kind of marriage. Truly! I want an answer to this question. What horrible things are going to happen to the world because two men marry? I highly doubt much will change. There are far greater threats to traditional marriage in America then gay’s marrying. How about the very high percentage of divorce in America? That is not happening because women are marrying each other, yet that is hurting traditional marriage. How about how hard our corporate society works their employees? People expected to be at work for 10 or even 12 hours a day while they miss out on all the life experiences of their families. That is REALY hurting traditional marriage. Gay marriage? Where is the harm in that?
Bristol Palin also blasted the President about his statement in favor of same sex marriage. She commented on the fact that the President said his seeing same sex parents of his girls’ friends helped mold his opinion. She suggests that he should not be using his children’s life experiences in shaping his ideas. WOW what a suggestion. She suggests that is like if the President appointed Dora the Explorer as Secretary of State because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox (maybe not a bad idea!) Ms. Palin, I am curious, who’s life experiences we should use when shaping our ideas and opinions. As readers of my blog know, my son Avi is autistic. Should the fact that he is autistic not shape my world view?
I think it is time for politics to get out of the morality policing business. Get back to running the country and dealing with more pressing issues, like the economy and job creation. Perhaps this is why our founding fathers chose to separate our government from religion.
My 2 cents… fwiw.
I am a conservative… without all that religious ‘baggage’ when it concerns politics. The way I see it there is actually 2 components to any marriage: 1) the civil union which makes it legal and 2) the religious ceremony (which, is totally unnecessary for a legal marriage… more of a custom than anything). Most Rabbis, priests clergy, etc. can also perform the civil union, so both steps are typically rolled into one.
I see no reason why 2 people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into a legally binding relationship or civil union, which every marriage is. If that couple wants to call it a marriage, who is anyone to say it isn’t? They can call it a turnip for all I care.
The custom of a ‘marriage’ is a bit more tricky. These are religious customs, and thus the state should not foist its opinions on religious institutions. However, I am sure once the civil union becomes legal as it is in several states already then a couple could find some church that will join them, no matter what they call it.
When you boil it down, the 2 major difference between marriage and civil unions is Taxes and Health Care.
As for taxes, if all deductions are eliminated (as in most conservative plans), then there is no more filing jointly or separately. Everyone is treated equally, gay or not.
As for Health care, all the conservative approaches to health care create a medical savings account from which the individual makes their own decisions as to who and what is covered. If a person wants to cover their gay spouse, or even their Great Aunt Jack, that person can have them covered. Medical decisions, Hospital visitations etc. are based on coverage, not relationships. The end result is everyone is treated equally, gay or not.
And in both cases, government is out of our private affairs completely, as they should be, regardless if you are gay or not.
My 2 cents… fwiw.
I am a conservative… without all that religious ‘baggage’ when it concerns politics. The way I see it there is actually 2 components to any marriage: 1) the civil union which makes it legal and 2) the religious ceremony (which, is totally unnecessary for a legal marriage… more of a custom than anything). Most Rabbis, priests clergy, etc. can also perform the civil union, so both steps are typically rolled into one.
I see no reason why 2 people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into a legally binding relationship or civil union, which every marriage is. If that couple wants to call it a marriage, who is anyone to say it isn’t? They can call it a turnip for all I care.
The custom of a ‘marriage’ is a bit more tricky. These are religious customs, and thus the state should not foist its opinions on religious institutions. However, I am sure once the civil union becomes legal as it is in several states already then a couple could find some church that will join them, no matter what they call it.
When you boil it down, the 2 major difference between marriage and civil unions is Taxes and Health Care.
As for taxes, if all deductions are eliminated (as in most conservative plans), then there is no more filing jointly or separately. Everyone is treated equally, gay or not.
As for Health care, all the conservative approaches to health care create a medical savings account from which the individual makes their own decisions as to who and what is covered. If a person wants to cover their gay spouse, or even their Great Aunt Jack, that person can have them covered. Medical decisions, Hospital visitations etc. are based on coverage, not relationships. The end result is everyone is treated equally, gay or not.
And in both cases, government is out of our private affairs completely, as they should be, regardless if you are gay or not.
My 2 cents… fwiw.
I am a conservative… without all that religious ‘baggage’ when it concerns politics. The way I see it there is actually 2 components to any marriage: 1) the civil union which makes it legal and 2) the religious ceremony (which, is totally unnecessary for a legal marriage… more of a custom than anything). Most Rabbis, priests clergy, etc. can also perform the civil union, so both steps are typically rolled into one.
I see no reason why 2 people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into a legally binding relationship or civil union, which every marriage is. If that couple wants to call it a marriage, who is anyone to say it isn’t? They can call it a turnip for all I care.
The custom of a ‘marriage’ is a bit more tricky. These are religious customs, and thus the state should not foist its opinions on religious institutions. However, I am sure once the civil union becomes legal as it is in several states already then a couple could find some church that will join them, no matter what they call it.
When you boil it down, the 2 major difference between marriage and civil unions is Taxes and Health Care.
As for taxes, if all deductions are eliminated (as in most conservative plans), then there is no more filing jointly or separately. Everyone is treated equally, gay or not.
As for Health care, all the conservative approaches to health care create a medical savings account from which the individual makes their own decisions as to who and what is covered. If a person wants to cover their gay spouse, or even their Great Aunt Jack, that person can have them covered. Medical decisions, Hospital visitations etc. are based on coverage, not relationships. The end result is everyone is treated equally, gay or not.
And in both cases, government is out of our private affairs completely, as they should be, regardless if you are gay or not.
I think the “state” should eliminate ALL civil marriage and replace it with some sort of domestic/civil partnership (“Partnership” in the business sense) agreement. The rights and obligations of each partner would be spelled out in the agreement, as well as the process for dissolution. Since it is a state-created entity, the state could include all of the rights that married couple enjoy today (estate in the entirety/concurrent estate, rights of succession, health care/insurance, etc). If the state wants to call such a domestic/civil partnership a “marriage” that’s alright, but barring certain limitations (siblings/direct descendants, etc) any 2 consenting adults could enter into such an agreement. If the partners want their partnership to satisfy some religious aspect, they would then need to get married under the auspices of whatever religious group they belong too.
I think the “state” should eliminate ALL civil marriage and replace it with some sort of domestic/civil partnership (“Partnership” in the business sense) agreement. The rights and obligations of each partner would be spelled out in the agreement, as well as the process for dissolution. Since it is a state-created entity, the state could include all of the rights that married couple enjoy today (estate in the entirety/concurrent estate, rights of succession, health care/insurance, etc). If the state wants to call such a domestic/civil partnership a “marriage” that’s alright, but barring certain limitations (siblings/direct descendants, etc) any 2 consenting adults could enter into such an agreement. If the partners want their partnership to satisfy some religious aspect, they would then need to get married under the auspices of whatever religious group they belong too.
I think the “state” should eliminate ALL civil marriage and replace it with some sort of domestic/civil partnership (“Partnership” in the business sense) agreement. The rights and obligations of each partner would be spelled out in the agreement, as well as the process for dissolution. Since it is a state-created entity, the state could include all of the rights that married couple enjoy today (estate in the entirety/concurrent estate, rights of succession, health care/insurance, etc). If the state wants to call such a domestic/civil partnership a “marriage” that’s alright, but barring certain limitations (siblings/direct descendants, etc) any 2 consenting adults could enter into such an agreement. If the partners want their partnership to satisfy some religious aspect, they would then need to get married under the auspices of whatever religious group they belong too.
Dan, while I dont agree with everything you said (the policy stuff) I applaud conservatives who understand that personal issues such as gender identity and marriage do not belong in politics. I just wish everyone felt that way.
Dan, while I dont agree with everything you said (the policy stuff) I applaud conservatives who understand that personal issues such as gender identity and marriage do not belong in politics. I just wish everyone felt that way.
Dan, while I dont agree with everything you said (the policy stuff) I applaud conservatives who understand that personal issues such as gender identity and marriage do not belong in politics. I just wish everyone felt that way.
Unfortunately, as long as the tax code is the way it is, and Obamacare is still un-repealed and then revamped in a sane, constitutional way, these issues will remain a political football simply because these things have identity politics embedded into the code. We have to address both of these in ways that remove identity politics, and the easiest way is doing what I described… by removing all ‘IF’ statements from the tax code and allow an individual to control who/what is covered for their health care dollars.
Unfortunately, as long as the tax code is the way it is, and Obamacare is still un-repealed and then revamped in a sane, constitutional way, these issues will remain a political football simply because these things have identity politics embedded into the code. We have to address both of these in ways that remove identity politics, and the easiest way is doing what I described… by removing all ‘IF’ statements from the tax code and allow an individual to control who/what is covered for their health care dollars.
Unfortunately, as long as the tax code is the way it is, and Obamacare is still un-repealed and then revamped in a sane, constitutional way, these issues will remain a political football simply because these things have identity politics embedded into the code. We have to address both of these in ways that remove identity politics, and the easiest way is doing what I described… by removing all ‘IF’ statements from the tax code and allow an individual to control who/what is covered for their health care dollars.