Honorary president of the BSA comes out in favor of gay marriage

[scoutingagain]

FWIW I agree with government out of "marriage" approach too. It's the closet libertarian in me I guess.

 

And it seems that's pretty much what Obama said as well, at least at the Federal level. By indicating it should be a state issue, he's pretty much said there is no compelling reason for the Federal government to be regulating marriage. The true conservative approach.

 

I have no doubt the Social Socialists would use the authority of the Federal Government to ban gay marriage if they could.

 

I have found the reaction among conservatives and Republicans interesting though. I did not see the "burn in hell" comment but I did see the Fox Headline: "President declares War on Marriage", which he hardly did. As noted, he was asked his opinion. He thoughtflully gave his opinion and commented on the Federal Government's proper role. Hardly a declaration of war, but that's the kind of spin I've come to expect from Fox and why I discount virtually any information from it.

 

Were there polical considerations? Duh! He's the President in a re-election year.

 

I also find these types of comments from some Republicans and other conservative commentators interesting. The tide is clearly changing and some are beginning to recognize it.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/obama-supports-gay-marriage-shep-smith-warns-gop-203159510.html

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/former-republican-rep-tom-davis-gay-marriage-opposition-164151646.html

 

 

 

SA

[packsaddle]

Hi....BS-87....you, me, Beavah....we're connected!

So after the NC vote to amend the Constitution, Asheville has pointed out that if the argument about local control is valid, THEY have voted as a majority to recognize gay marriage. Therefore, they argue, they should be allowed to. This is going to be interesting. I can see the outcome though. The 'states rights' people are going to slap Asheville down. Can't allow those uppity counties to take power from the State central government, lol. If they let that snowball get started, first thing you know, local municipalities are going to allow alcoholic beverages, gambling, and who-knows-what kinds of other sins.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Packsaddle, I'm way ahead of you. Why stop at the county level? Or city level? Just keep going until you're down to 2 people, and let them decide if marriage is legal for them. That's about as small a government as you can get.

[packsaddle]

The libertarian ideal, I'm with you.

 

Trouble is, there might be some group of other like-minded people who think they've spotted something they don't like about you and because they've formed a government/theocracy/organization or something they might use the power of the majority to take away your freedom. Any such organizations come to mind?

 

Edit: Oops, almost missed this: BS-87, me, Beavah, Merlyn...we're all connected!!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Beavah]

I don't think Beavah sees it that way. He has stated before that Gays can have civil unions as long as they get 0 rights that are afforded a married couple with that union.

 

That's interestin'. I wonder where I said that, since it's never been my position. By and large civil unions accord folks all the same rights as married couples under state law except the word "married". Da issue is that some folks aren't content with only being accorded civil rights, they want to claim da religious title of marriage.

 

So to avoid that issue I'm suggestin' that the state should just get out of the business, eh? Yeh get married in church, and that has no legal effect. Yeh can form any kind of civil partnership agreement yeh want, and that has no religious effect. Partnership dissolution is governed by the terms of the partnership; custody and support are governed exclusively by the best interest of the child.

 

Yep, that would allow a church out there to "marry" gay folks, but it would accord them no civil benefits or rights. Other churches could reject such marriages as invalid, just like some reject each other's baptisms or whatnot as invalid. Similarly, a church marrying two heterosexual folks would also accord them no civil benefits or rights.

 

By eliminatin' state interference in marriage (includin' such things as no-fault divorce), it would allow traditionally-minded religious folks to contract more traditional marriage partnerships where their beliefs are reflected in the civil partnership arrangement.

 

Now, keep in mind, in such a scheme I don't think there's a reason to preference two-person unions, eh? So Islamic and FLDS and other groups can go the polygamy route if they choose to form partnerships of that sort. Historically I reckon most would agree that that has led to the subjugation of women, but why should we be judgmental? Objectin' to the subjugation of women is such a Christian thing, it doesn't belong in civic life.

 

The only real state interest is in providin' a stable environment for the raising of children, because raising children in a stable home environment has clear long-term benefits for the state. So a state subsidy of a stable and supportive family partnership contract would not be inappropriate. Somethin' like a partnership that doesn't allow for dissolution until all children reach age 21 or greater, and that provides both male and female influences and role models in the home environment.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[qwazse]

Co-ed civil unions. There's a controversy on par with female leadership for boy scouts!

[Peregrinator]

So the libertarian ideal is that two people can just get "married" based on their own definition of what marriage is ... by the same reasoning, a business owner (say, a restauranteur) could discriminate against them based on his own definition of what "clean" is ... or perhaps what "reverent" is. Somehow I don't think this is what gay marriage proponents want.

[shortridge]

Packsaddle - What on earth provoked the going-to-hell line at the c-store?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

By and large civil unions accord folks all the same rights as married couples under state law except the word "married". Da issue is that some folks aren't content with only being accorded civil rights, they want to claim da religious title of marriage.

 

No, they want the CIVIL title of marriage. Like I said earlier, marriage predates your religions; they DON'T OWN THE TERM.

[moosetracker]

Well, Beavah that would be fine by me.. As stated about in 3 other posts..

 

You can have your polygamy also, But I will have to argue that spouse abuse, (either male or female) (either monogamy or polygamy) would still have legal issues.. Nor can someone kidnap and force marriage upon an unwilling partner that has no ties with your religious beliefs.. But, if you are all part of some religious belief that your religion says forced marriages are OK.. Well, OK, as long as the person is of age to agree to belonging to that religion.. After all they were a willing participant and accepted the fact that they would get forced..

 

I mean I just can't see religion now taking a turn that Freedom to marry means freedom from all social laws.. So they can kidnap and force people into their religions so that they can force them into their harem.. There comes a time traditional laws have to put a limit on lusty church goers .. Murder so that you can marry someone else still ends up being murder.. Kidnapping is still Kidnapping..

 

Peregrinator - who said anything about discrimination? Beavah just said they would not be considered Married.. So if a Gay married couple walks into your restraunt and you don't believe in Gay marriage, to you they are a Gay unmarried couple because you don't recognize their marriage.

 

Also Beavah, I am pretty sure it was you who was stating a civil union they could call anything but marriage, come up with there own word for it.. But, then there was a list that stated what they would not be entitled to with their "new word" arrangement.. And the list basically made the contract not worth the paper it was written on..

[BS-87]

Merlyn, there's definitely a way to separate a legal contract between two people and a spiritual institution.

 

Let's just put it this way, the state should recognize all contracts made by consenting parties of the age of majority.

 

Religions should recognize what they want to recognize.

 

People who have a spiritual bond should celebrate however they want to, so long as their celebration doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

 

I'm perfectly fine with all of the above because same-sex couples can call themselves married all they want. I never have to actually believe they are, because it doesn't hurt me if they believe they are.

 

Plus, I just want to see the the family in Sister Wives finally be able to live together again and live happily.

[Eagledad]

I'm courious, does anyone know any other country now or in history where marriage was anything other than a man and wife?

 

Barry

[packsaddle]

Shortridge, you're not from the South are you? Down here, telling someone they're going to burn in hell is practically a sport. Someone accidentally spills beer on a photo of Richard Petty's beloved #43..."You know you're going to burn in hell for that, don't you?" Or you accidentally spill your spit cup in someone's pickup...same thing.

There's nothing quite so satisfying as to put someone down based on their appearance or what they think so religion is just perfect for the latter. I've come to anticipate it in certain social circles...often where there's a Unitarian Universalist around to stimulate the Baptists, you can practically 'smell' those UUs, they're so....heretical. It's not all Baptists, though. I have Baptist friends who think very much like UUs (I try not to mention this though) but rather just certain ones that I've stumbled on around here and don't ask me to try to dissect the flavors of Baptists, I doubt that even a Baptist can do that.

 

Anyway, true confession time again...I have a hobby of putting photos onto Google Earth so I almost always have a camera with me. I try to focus on certain types of subjects, especially if it's in my field of study, but once in a while I see something I just HAVE to get onto the record. So I was shopping north of Asheville and just enjoying the mountains, and then I spotted it...there was 'that' banner. I couldn't have been more pleased if I'd found an exact replica of that George Bush "Mission Accomplished" banner. No...actually, that would have been better.

 

Anyway, so I pulled into the convenience store to get something to drink and then to get a photo. When I came out of the store, a guy was in the process of taking it down and saw me scrambling to get the photo. He asked what I was doing so I told him I was just trying to get a photo before it was too late. It was about this time that I noticed that his t-shirt had the name of some church but the only word I could recognize was 'church'. There are so many flavors in that area I have no idea which one it could have been, there was a cross so I'm just guessing Protestant (Catholics are kind of rare and Jews are really rare, not to mention that 'cross' thing).

 

But then he asked how I felt about the whole issue...and I told him I supported the idea that gay people should have the right to marry. There was a silence and then he started in with the arguments and I just responded that since he had won the vote, it's not that big a deal now. Then he asked me "Do you know God?"

 

Normally these kinds of questions 'out of the blue' catch me speechless so I have stored up a few quick responses ranging from 'yes' for a sincere person to 'is his last name dam?' for someone who seems to want to pick a fight (it depends a little on how big the person is and whether I think I can run faster...and I learned a long time ago that you can't run as fast when you're laughing) .

 

Anyway, in this case the guy seemed very sincere so I responded, 'yes', knowing that it was going to bring a flood of 'then how the heck can you think...etc.' responses...and it did. He eventually slowed down and I had my photo so I said to him, "I'll just stick with my opinion, thanks, nice to meet you". And then he suggested, as others have, that I had warmer climes in my future.

And with Global Warming on the way, I guess they're right. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

BS-87 writes:

Merlyn, there's definitely a way to separate a legal contract between two people and a spiritual institution.

 

Exactly. And religion does not own the term "marriage," so there's no reason to change the name of what is already a civil contract.

 

Let's just put it this way, the state should recognize all contracts made by consenting parties of the age of majority.

 

Religions should recognize what they want to recognize.

 

I agree. That's why there's no reason for the existing civil contract called a "marriage" to change its name.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Eagledad writes:

I'm courious, does anyone know any other country now or in history where marriage was anything other than a man and wife?

 

Are you serious? Roughly half of all cultures have had recognized polygyny, and the bible refers to concubinage, for a start.