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

[shortridge]

"lifestyle choice"

 

/ bangs head repeatedly against wall /

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes, answering packsaddle:

"So what we see is that even in places where gay couples were accorded all of the legal rights of married couples through civil unions..."

Which places are these? Name them please.

 

Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, California, New Jersey, ...

 

Can't file federal joint tax returns

One example is sufficient, but there are about 1,000 more federal benefits that apply to married couples that largely don't apply to these civil union couples.

[moosetracker]

Beavah you forget New Hampsire now allows same-sex marriages.

 

We did have civil union. It wasn't 100% equal though. Wish I could remember exactly what it was, but when I took my son to pass his drivers test, there was some hub-bub.. Something they would not acknowledge for a lady with a civil union that was acknowledge for a marriage. I can't think of what it could be now, but it was of interest while there, and was an interesting conversation on the ride home after the intial, "Yeah.. I passed! This is what I did right, this is what he warned me about being more careful with."

 

Merlyn - I would suspect you know, but just to clarify.. Federal stuff still doesn't apply..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[BS-87]

End the jointly filed tax returns!

 

I'm serious about that, it's prejudiced against cohabiting adults who may have an open relationship yet enjoy the benefits of stable companionship and economic benefits of pooling resources.

 

No special treatment for anyone.

 

We can end it for this reason, or we can end it because there's a good case to be made for ending income taxes. Something tells me people skew extreme libertarian in social issues more than economic though...

[NJCubScouter]

OGE says:

 

I seem to recall Kirk saying something like "Star Fleet learned years ago they could not control love, so they stopped trying" or something like that.

 

I don't remember that, and at times in my life I have been sort of a borderline "Trekkie" to the point where I probably would at least have some idea of the context or something about the episode. I also tried a couple of Google searches and couldn't find it. I also have to say that there were several references in several of the Star Trek series about how officers, especially the captain, should not be fraternizing with his (or her) underlings.

 

On the other hand, and perhaps more to the point of the thread, I do recall one "Next Generation" episode that specifically addressed the issue of "forbidden love", with great sympathy for those who are expected to conform to the norms of society in violation of their own personal feelings. It was a very thinly disguised expression of sympathy for gay people, the disguise being that the inhabitants of the planet in question were androgynous, not of any particular gender. I believe their society forbade them from engaging in intimate relationships at all, and they instead procreated in some more sophisticated manner. So of course one of the people on planet found that her "female side" was winning out, and fell in love with... who else? Commander Riker. Much drama ensued, and in the end the alien (well, she wasn't an alien where she was, it was her own planet) was "reprogrammed" by her people so she was no longer in love with our favorite first officer, who was usually much more successful in the arena of amour. (And it appeared, in a couple of episodes and films, that he adhered to Kirk's philosophy (as reported by OGE) that one cannot always control how one feels about one's subordinate Starfleet officers, either.) It was one of the sadder episodes, I thought. But there isn't too much question of what they were talking about.

 

Then there was the one that, in a way, dealt with the "gay issue" more directly, but not as the central focus of the episode. It was the one with the Trill who fell in love with Doctor Crusher while he was inhabiting the body of a man, and then when the host died, he (it?) was switched into the body of a woman (though in between it was the body of... who else? Commander Riker), and the female host was still in love with Doctor Crusher, who awkwardly mumbled something about... ok, I'll go look it up. "Perhaps it is a human failing, but we are not accustomed to these kinds of changes. I can't keep up. How long will you have this host? What would the next one be? I can't live with that kind of uncertainty. Perhaps, someday, our ability to love won't be so limited." You can't get too much more blatant than that last sentence. There apparently was some criticism, in both directions, regarding the apparent issue of homosexuality in the episode, as well as some hedging by the writers about what they were really talking about, see http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Host_%28episode%29.

 

A lot more than you wanted, I'm sure.

[Engineer61]

Well done for Obama, a very well calculated political move.

 

1) Obama waited for the field of Republicans to narrow to Romney.

 

2) Then, knowing full well that Romney cannot waffle on homosexuality at all, Obama takes his stand.

 

3) So, Romney is stuck between moderates that he has to have to win the election, and the hyper-right (including his primary backer, the LDS).

 

If Romney waffles at all, Ging-the-rich and Sani-tor-ium, will scream bloody murder and the LDS will be breathing down his neck.

 

Well played....indeed....Romney is screwed no matter what he does.

[NJCubScouter]

So, Engineer61, what you are saying is that announcing that he is in favor of gay marriage could help the President win re-election?

 

Wouldn't that be something? It would certainly say something about where the country really is on the issue. I am not so sure myself, but I am sure there will be several dozen polls between now and the election, just on the issue of gay marriage, to give us conflicting and ultimately meaningless information on how it will affect the election.

[packsaddle]

Yeah NJ, I've been trying to place that too. I've been labeled a 'Trekkie' before and I followed it pretty closely back then but I'm not sure I could be called an 'accomplished' Trekkie, perhaps 'avowed' though.

But that episode with Crusher and the Trill...that was just confusing to me, that's all.

 

I'll give William Shatner this much...he is simple..but funny.

Incidentally, I thought Chris Pine was masterful in portraying Kirk as a young man - just perfect. I really enjoyed that film. Even Leonard, who I saw in person here on this campus long, long ago. Nicely done.

 

Beavah, OK show me the data. I'll pay attention.

[DLChris71]

"So, Engineer61, what you are saying is that announcing that he is in favor of gay marriage could help the President win re-election?

 

Wouldn't that be something? It would certainly say something about where the country really is on the issue. I am not so sure myself, but I am sure there will be several dozen polls between now and the election, just on the issue of gay marriage, to give us conflicting and ultimately meaningless information on how it will affect the election."

 

I would be very careful about making that distinction though. An Obama loss being possible one would hope that it wouldn't be blamed on the racist homophobes infecting the independent vote. Especially considering the results of the last election. I don't think the independent voters are really that fickle, and will instead be more swayed by a broader spectrum of the political debate.

[moosetracker]

Well with all that is wrong with this country today, if this is the biggest issue everyone concerns themself with.. I don't know if it doesn't say much for the canidates in that no-one trusts a word they say with their campaign retoric, or if it doesn't say much for the population in that we can't vote on anything more complex then if we are for or against equal rights for homosexuals (or gay marriage depending on which side you are on.)

[NJCubScouter]

DLChris says:

 

I would be very careful about making that distinction though.

 

I didn't make any distinction, and I agree with you, one should be careful. As I said, I think there will be all kinds of polls before the election telling us what issues are affecting the election, and I think it will be mostly nonsense. And then after the election "they" will tell us what made the difference, but that will be mostly nonsense as well. The fact is that in a close election (which this will most likely be) it is really impossible to tell what made the difference, because every issue contributes to the result in some way. Personally I think the election will be determined mainly by (a) peoples' perceptions of how the economy is doing, (b) peoples' perceptions of whether Romney really has any answers to the economic issues, and © which candidate people decide they "like" more. I think that's what determined the 2008 election, and in my opinion © does not get enough "credit" from most people. I think a lot of people listened to McCain and said something like, "This isn't really a nice guy. Do we really want to listen to this guy talk every day for the next four years?" I sure didn't, though that isn't why I voted the way I did. If you notice the absence of any real ideological issues on my list, that's correct. Although you wouldn't know it from a lot of the discussions in this forum, I don't think the majority of people, and certainly not independents, vote that way.

 

So no, I don't think the gay marriage thing is going to be a big issue. I think Obama made his comment because he is trying to generate more enthusiasm among the "Democratic base," and his apparent opposition to gay marriage was annoying to some. I think he also figures that almost everybody who would vote against someone because they support gay marriage, wasn't voting for him anyway.

[Oak Tree]

The libertarian standard of getting the state out of the business of recognizing marriage seems like a fine solution to me.

 

I'm sure there could be a fairly standard contract that two parties could sign that would convey all the rights of marriage.

 

If the state has any interest in marriage, it would seem to be in favor of supporting children. In that sense, joint tax returns might be filed only by those couples who have children under 18. Raising children together might entitle you to some portion of your partner's salary, benefits, social security, etc. I don't see any good reason why being married without children should give you these benefits.

 

Seems like we have a pretty libertarian board here.

 

There are a number of rights that now go along with being married. Some of these could be dealt with in a contract (e.g., my spouse will inherit at least 50% of my estate upon my death). Others can't be and would require government to change the laws - entitlement to benefits, and I'm not sure what all else.

 

If four people want to form a communal family, I'm not sure why the government should stop it. I would think that the government would need to make sure that someone has responsibility for children (presumably the mother and father, for some definition of those terms).

 

It's surprising to me that there is such a general support on this board for the idea of separating government from marriage. That position wouldn't have much traction in the general society.

 

On topic: how long will Barack Obama be willing to be the honorary president of an organization that so directly contradicts his personal belief?

[scoutingagain]

"So, Engineer61, what you are saying is that announcing that he is in favor of gay marriage could help the President win re-election? "

 

Yep, more than one talking head has implied Obama came out in favor of gay marriage because it was politically expedient to do so and distracts voters from the real issues of a sluggish economy. And it's the Republicans that want to get the campaign discussion back on the economy and away from social issues.

 

That speculation alone indicates a sea change in societies outlook on gay marriage compared to how the gay marriage issue was viewed during the mid-term election in 2004.

 

And I see while Mitt doesn't support gay marriage he seems to think they would make fine parents of adoptive children. So if he believes they can be parents, how would he feel about a gay scout leader?

 

SA

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Oak Tree writes:

I'm sure there could be a fairly standard contract that two parties could sign that would convey all the rights of marriage.

 

Good luck with creating spousal testimonial privilege with a standard contract.

[Peregrinator]

moosetracker:

But I will state I do predict if I discussed my views with and Arch-Bishop I would be surprised if he said he agreed with my viewpoint.. So with the upper-clergy, there I will say I could be prejudice.. Although if we do not broach the subject matter, I have no idea if we could get along or not.. I see little opportunity to sit down and shoot the breeze with them guys though.

 

Well, I did not find your posts anti-Catholic at all. It is hardly "anti-Catholic" to disagree with the Church, nor is it "anti-Catholic" to expect Catholic priests and bishops to uphold the teaching of the Church (would that that were true in all circumstances!).