Sickos like yourself are a drag on the GOP!

Dude, Get a life. You just want to call Bill Clinton a Bigot. I mean really all this article is is just traditional politics. It wouldn't had matter if he was straight. Very little would have changed. This is mild to boot. If this is all it takes to set you off then maybe your the racist Bigot. You really don't have a clue do you?

Pope John Paul II was popular because he truely held God's people in his heart. Politicians and pundits by nature cannot embrace all citizens and like the Clintons, instantly reveal themselves to be hypocritical when their actions are questioned.

this is ridiculous, you chopped up the quote in such a way that it is misleading. here is the actual quote from Bill Clinton, if anyone cares to verify it, search for it on Google:

"That fellow who used to work for Pataki is doing it. I mean, they give you two stories. One is that he went to Massachusetts and married his longtime male partner and then he comes back here and announces this. I thought, one of two things. Either this guy believes his party is not serious and is totally Macchiavellian in its position, or you know, as David Brock said in his great book 'Blinded by the Right,' there's some sort of self-loathing or something. I was more sad for him."

Actually, even the full quote says the same damned thing. He's accusing Finkelstein of being a self-loathing gay......just as David Brock accused HIMSELF of being in his book.

It couldn't POSSIBLY be that he's just a Republican that wants Hillary to lose in '06...there HAS TO BE some sort of psychobabble reason for it.

However....why does Clinton go straght at Finkelstein's sexual preference....his character? I don't think it's a bigotted action at all....just that he's expecting that by outting him publicly (how many people actually knew who this guy was let alone his "preference"?), he can hurt Finkelstein's PAC's future capabilities to harm Hillary's next run for office, whether it be '06 or '08.

Rule #1: Ignore the substance....defame the character.

Why does Clinton.....???? Why not? It seems that you find it difficult to accept his comments as truthful. Finkelstein outed himself. With all the gay bashing done by the GOP, it is a bit difficult to grasp the reason for his action?

The item that caught my eye as I read this, was the copyright footnote. Who in there right mind would want to steal this?

Bill Clinton is 100% correct, the Republican Party has made Anti Gay bigotry a large part of its platform. A person has to be quite twisted to be in its upper echelons and not break with the party.

Ever read parts of FR? Many Neocons absolutely unequivocally hate gays, it would be like being a Jew in Hitler's Army.

Sarge, I believe your disdain for Hillary overshadows your ability to see how asinine this artice truly is. It's obvious that WJC had already given thought to this matter.

Clinton seems to believe a number of things

1 - The Republican Party are anti gay

2 - Anyone who is gay and works for the Republican must have one of two motives:

2a - They don't believe the Republican Party are really anti-gay and are letting the Republicans say this to cash in on anti gay votes

2b - They are so self-loathing that they work in an anti gay party.

Well here's what I think of this reasoning

Point 1 - I don't know enough to say if the Republican Party really is anti gay or not but many/most commentators seem to be of the opinion that the Republican Party is at least more anti gay than the democrats.

Point 2 - I can think of other motives for someone who is gay working for the republicans.

2c - The Republicans aren't that bad and besides being gay is just one aspect of who I - it doesn't define me and I'll take a hit on this issue so that I can get more of my other views met.

2d - Working inside the Republican Party actually decreases the anti gay potential of that party and this is the party I am more naturally in tune with so I'll be a Republican.

Specifically you say Clinton is "Gay Bashing". It depends on what you mean by the term gay bashing.

Most commonly it is used by people to refer to physical assaults on gay people purely based on their sexuality - well he didn't do this.

Well maybe you meant the remark was in some way homophobic. You accuse Clinton of being homophobic so perhaps that's it. Well I can't see anything that was homophobic in my breakdown of his position (perhaps I'm wrong in what I think he is saying).

I don't really see this as either homophobic or gay bashing.

I do disagree with his either or choice - after only a brief consideration I can see at least two other alternatives for why someone might be a Republican and gay. I'm pretty certain talking to a few other gay Republicans would throw up some others.

So homophobic no, gay-bashing no, wrong yes possibly, faulty logic yes definitely.

I'm probably more interested in the implicit argument here - are Republicans more anti gay than Democrats. Since I'm not American I'd frame it as are right wingers more anti gay than left wingers. Certainly if you look at the voting records of gay men in both the US and UK they seem to think that the right wing is more anti gay than the left. Again if you look at the laws passed (in the UK) I think you'd have to say the right wing is more anti gay than the left.

I like the fact that you want to challenge this view Steve, but I'd rather you try to explain why Republicans are better for gays than Democrats. You seem to be adopting the Quintin Crisp attitude of "Why both to keep up with the Jones' when it's so much easier to drag them down to your level".

A gay politician in the UK put forward what I thought was an excellent point - the right should go after the gay vote. There are three reasons for this:

1 - The right are for individual liberty and as such should be the champions of consenting minorities doing what they want.

2 - The left currently has the gay vote so they stand to gain nothing by instigating gay friendly policies whereas the right doesn't have so many of these votes so has more to gain.

3 - If the left have strong pro gay policies (they usually don't) it can frighten some genuine homophobes away from their party and into the arms of the right. Whereas if the right has strong pro gay policies the genuine homophobes don't really have any place to go as the left are generally perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being pro gay also.

If Republicans are open minded why haven’t they done this? And why don’t more gay people vote for them and split proportionally across the parties?

WB, you pulled out the stops on this one and you made some good points I might add.

To date, the history of the GOP has been anti-gay and gay bashing. If in doubt the posts on PME speak loudly.

Is the left-wing pro-gay? I don't think so, but I do believe the idea is pro-choice. I don't have to believe in something to acknowledge that someone with differing views and lifestyle have rights to make choices also.

The right-wing view is; "if you are not for me, then you are against me."

Russ....my "disdain for Hillary aside"...I DID make it clear that I don't think WJC was "gay-bashing" being "homophobic" or ANYTHING of the sort.....and I left my disdain for Rodham and Clinton at the door. Of course, I DID use "CAPS" some...so UY might make some lame claim that I'm adding emotions into my thoughts....emotions that don't exist there.

If you know the Clintons...you'd know that they are both master politicians with really great political advisors and NOTHING comes out of their mouths that hasn't been clearly and POLITICALLY thought out.....not for homophobic reasons, not for gay-bashing reasons....for POLITICAL reasons. Finkelstein has said he's gonna be the thorn in Hillary's side for '06 (if she runs)...translate that to '08 (if she runs)...and Bill has said something totally irrelevant to what's at hand that has nothing to do with anything...but a lame attempt at defaming Finkelstein's character...for FUTURE reasons. They'd do it with ANYONE that is a threat to their career. They are great politicians.

I amend my previous comment to be POLITICAL Rule #1: Ignore the substance...defame the character. ALL high level politicians do this....it's a negative side of politics, and it works quite well....sometimes.

Answer this: What's the point of bringing up Finkelstein's sexual preference and making a lame and baseless claim that he's a self-loathing gay guy?

If Clinton's not anti-gay (and I don't believe he is), then the only CLEAR reason is the political one.

Funny...I'm considered by liberals to be in the "far-right-wing"...yet I don't have a "if you are not for me, then you are against me" mentality, am not anti-gay, am not a gay-basher......must be something in the Boston water.

YANKEES SUCK!!!! (no UY...there's no emotion there) ....except Rivera's alright.

I think WJC was trying to divert attention from his wife and focus more attention on Finken-heimer-stein or whatever his name is. Clinton wasn't questioning whether homosexual relationships are right or wrong. Like Steve, I'm sure Clinton doesn't really care about anyone's sexual preferences. The point I think Clinton was trying to make is that this is a Republican Senator and the Republican party's stance is in opposition to gay marriage, and yet this Republican Senator just went out and married his same-sex partner. I think this is a legitimate question. Why is a Senator marrying his same sex partner while his own party is telling everyone else that same-sex marriage is not right? I use the term "marriage" generically here to mean civil unions as well. I think everyone here knows that my stance is in favor of civil unions so that gay couples can enjoy all the benefits of marriage.

As far as the purpose of WJC's statement..., I don't believe he was "gay bashing" at all. I think he was simply trying to shift the spotlight away from his wife and onto this Senator. Typical political games.

I am always amazed how people can make such a stink about someone stating the obvious. I have seen it so many times before. The people who are uncomfortable with their sexuality are seeking approval of those who condemn them the most. Many times it appears they want reasons to drive them further into the closet so they will not have to deal with reality. When I lived in Tampa Florida, a priest who was spearheading a drive against domestic partner benefits for city workers was caught going down on a policeman. He said he had too much communion wine and did not know what he was doing. Oops! What is this thing in my mouth? The real bigotry is subtle in the language people choose. Your use of "sexual preference" is a good example. Most straight people would believe that they were born that way. "Sexual orientation" is the innate attraction that people have to either the same sex or the opposite. When people use the term "sexual preference", they are reducing the most major part of a human being's existence to the same thing a preferring cream and sugar in your coffee. Your agenda is clear. You hate Hillary so much that you will find anyway to put her and her family in a negative light in the news. There is nothing to see here folks...move on.

I don't think the Republican Party is anti-gay. The real issue at hand is gay marriage and it is this issue that has some people believing the Republican party hates gays. In actuality, the Republican party is trying to protect the institution of marriage, which is historically a religious union, from change. Keep in mind that the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as wrong. To allow gay marriage would be to break with the traditional Christian values that have shaped this nation. Most Republicans that I have spoken with are willing to concede civil unions to the gay community as long as the institution of marriage remains a union between one man and one woman. Many in the gay community are not happy to leave it at that and as such, they vote democratic. Also note that many in the gay community vote democratic because of this one single issue regardless of whether they stand with democrats on any other issue.

Therefore, it doesn't seem fair to label the Republican party as anti-gay when, in actuality, their real intent is to preserve the institution of marriage from change. Aside from that one issue, I don't think Republicans take issue with anything the gay community says or does... least of all what they do in their bedrooms.

The institution of marriage as I understand it, and I refer to "My" marriage, belongs to me. If a million gay couples were married tomorrow my relationship would not change. If the institution of marriage is held in the same light, and a million heterosexual couples were divorced tomorrow my relationship would not change.

To dictate to the gay couple that they can't marry, or promote a constitutional ammendment making gay marraige unlawful is anti-gay. That is the Republican, conservative, right-wing stand on this issue.

Put any label on this that you wish, it's still anti-gay.

Call Clintons comment political (of course it's political), but it makes sense if you look at the Republican platform.

Hi Russ,

I looked up GOP and it seems to be used as a term in it’s own right – I realise it’s party of the Republican Party and if its anti gay I’d like to see some examples.

Actually by using the term pro gay I was using what you define as pro choice. I don’t expect any political party to say “hey go out and experiment.” The best I hope for is tolerance at the moment.

Hi Sarge,

I’m pleased to hear you say Clinton is not anti gay. If you are called far right wing I’d disagree with those people. I’ve discussed gay in the forces with you before. Your opinions were that gay would disrupt the unit cohesion but should be allowed to work in the military where this wasn’t an issue, ie in non combat areas. Not once did you resort to insult or bigoted views and I acknowledge that now.

Most of your comments are about the political situation about the Clintons and not living in the country I can’t really comment on that.

However, you do raise the issue of whether Clinton should look to the mans sexuality. I think that’s fair enough. There is an expectation that gay people will not side with groups that put them down. Explicitly this man “married” his partner which seems to be a big no no in the Republican Party. It is a legitimate question to ask how this squares with your political support and in this case activism.

JNE

Looking at the word marriage people seem to be using it in two distinctly different sorts of ways.

First – a union consecrated by God and a religious thing.

Second - a civil union whereby the state acknowledges the joining of two people officially.

Should gay people be allowed to marry? No to the first meaning and yes to the second.

No to the religious meaning because religious groups have the right to make up their own rules.

Yes to the civil union meaning because the state should offer a level of equality to all groups.

Sarge you asked why you couldn’t marry your sister in a thread some months ago. You didn’t want to sleep with her, have children and so on – but you loved her and didn’t see why you shouldn’t get the tax breaks and other benefits too. I think that was a good question. The real question you were posing though was why should people who sleep together etc have tax breaks and other advantages. I don’t know and its an interesting point.

JNE – so I disagree with you on moving between the two meanings of marriage. Marriage means to some a holy ritual. OK I accept that, but why then don’t these people campaign against the use of the term marriage for people in a civil union. There must be plenty of couples in the US who haven’t been married in church – married while sky diving, married by Joey from Friends, married by Elvis in Las Vegas. None of these have a religious component. If you want to preserve the word married to be a religious thing then tell people. The bible speaks out against sex before marriage a hundred times more than between people of the same sex – so why don’t those who are against gays from a religious point of view campaign against them more?

Lets get religion out of “gay marriage”. Civil Unions seems fair. No religious organisation should be forced to accept gay marriage – it’s their club they get to make the rules.

As for the words – if you want marriage to mean a religious union fine argue for that. If you want marriage to be a civil union then ok gay marriage seems acceptable to me.

Does anyone actually doubt the fact that Republicans have uh made their bed so to speak with anti gay bigots?

Dude - As someone who opposes gay marriage, you have just declared to the world that you are a homophobe.

So sorry - but you have zero authority to speak up on gay rights.

Russ, the institution of marriage was originally a religious union between a man, a woman and God. Marriage has evolved over the years and it is no longer necessary to involve the church in a marriage. Certainly you can seek out a judge or a JP if you choose to do so, but those who choose to do so are still "borrowing," so to speak, from a religious practice. Conservatives are trying to preserve the traditional idea of marriage. And what is wrong with that? They're offering, in turn, civil unions which entitle same-sex couples to all the benefits of marriage. The only difference is in the terminology. An apple, by any other name, is still an apple. This accomplishes two things. It protects the tradition of Holy Matrimony and it legally recognizes the joining of same sex partners. It's just assinine to call that anti-gay. The Republicans would take the same stance if it were a brother and a sister trying to get married.

I have argued on here until my head hurt in support of civil unions. I don't believe gay couples should be denied the legal benefits that married couples are entitled to. I also believe gay couples are as good at parenting as heterosexual couples..., in fact, I might even say they make better parents because gay parents are under so much scrutiny that they must succeed.

JNE,

Conservatives are not offering civil unions as a compromise. Civil unions are what gays want. They are not looking to be married in the eyes of any church, just the state, which is a "civil union."

I mean, you can argue semantics, but a marriage by the state is a civil union.

Conservatives are not offering that a "compromise," and may of them are in fact against civil unions.

And concerning what Clinton said, it's obviously not gay bashing. He was attacking a guy who is admittedly gonna try and drag his wife through the mud. It's certainly not the highlight of his career, but whatever.

JNE -

Marriage certainly does not have a solely religious past. Up until very very recently, it was an institution for holding wealth. Women couldn't own property and children were a sign of prosperity (male children were heirs).

Now, why should the government be _at_all_ involved in marriage as you speak of it - as a religious institution? Our government does recognise marriage in a civil form, seperate from the religious institution. (example: getting married by a justice of the peace) Additionally, churches already have the freedom to decide who they will and won't marry.

The reason why the idea of civil unions has any weight to it is only because some people don't want the words "gay" and "marriage" in the same sentence. If you are affording equal rights than you don't need different terms.

We've been through "seperate but equal" already.

JNE,

I would first like to say; "as the topic has changed to something other than what we began with, the discussion has merit."

The original marriage being religious, is simply your thinking. I know you may choose to believe, and I support your belief. Marriage today resembles nothing of that detailed in scripture. In many ways it has evolved, and customs do change.

"Holy Matrimony," will only be so to couples who choose to keep it "Holy." I believe if conservatives choose to prevent the dilution of what they see marriage as being, then look at ways to keep heterosexual unions intact.

Tom has made good points in his posts, and semantics is what is being argued. Gay-bashing or anti-gay politics does nothing to add commitment to "Holy Matrimony."

On topic. Did Steve really have a point to make? I think he's angry for getting fleeced by Bush.

Tom....my point exactly (on the motive behind what WJC said)....AND the "whatever", for I don't give a shit either.

...but, ironically, those in MA that lobbied for gay "MARRIAGE" didn't want "civil unions"...they were going to settle for nothing short of equal marriage (all the "rights" in the world didn't matter...they wanted "marriage"...recognized by the People through the State-issued MARRIAGE license.

Heard this morning on the news about CT recognizing "civil unions" with every right given to marriages...but it also defined marriage as man-woman. THAT wouldn't fly with the gay-lobby in MA....we'll see if it flies with the CT gay-lobby.

So this is basically a semantics argument now. For the people wanted to keep the "sanctity" of marriage, the church and other religious organizations who won't marry gays will do that for them. Who cares if the state calls is a marriage or not? The "holiness" of the sacred union comes from the church.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is about this. It seems like people are either fighting the semantics of it or fighting the same side the argument with each other.

Tom, there are many Republicans who are willing vote in favor of civil unions, but not gay marriage. This is the reason there was NOTHING preventing civil unions in the DOMA. The DOMA defined MARRIAGE, not civil unions. Sarge is absolutely correct. There is a large percentage of the gay community who are NOT satisfied with civil unions.

Marriage IS traditionally a religious union. The origin of marriage is religious. I never said marriage was strictly about love. Marriage has been used and is still being used for economic and political purposes. A good friend of mine's parents arranged his marriage. He had never met his wife prior to his wedding day. That doesn't change the fact that marriage began as a religious union and many religious institutions feel that modifying marriage is an insult. Yes, marriage also became a legal union but that is mostly because there was never any reason to describe a union between a man and woman as anything different than marriage. Whether legal or religious, the traditional view of marriage still followed all the same principles that religion had prescribed. Gay marriage does not follow those principles.

Should gay couples be allowed to join through civil unions. In my opinion, absolutlely YES. Should they be allowed to adopt children. YES. Should they be allowed to reap all the benefits of a traditional marriage. YES. It seems to me that many Republicans are willing to meet the gay community 99% of the way, with the only exception being the actual terminology of the union. Tom, you ask me why it matters what same-sex unions are called so I'll turn around and pose that same question to you.

I'm a fat guy. If I ran around bashing other fat people what would that make me?

A Republican

I think the problem is the whole concept that Republicans are meeting gays 99% there. Gays feel they have the right, regardless of what conservatives think. So to say, we'll let you have your civil unions, but not our "marriage" term. Gays feel they have just as much right to be "married" than anyone else (in the eyes of the state).

I don't really care. I guess it all comes down to possesion of that word. Should gays feel lucky to be able to have civil unions and drop going after the use of the word marriage because of it's religous meaning, or are conservatives, in a fit of paranoia, trying to distinquish their "unions" because they fear the institute of marriage will be sullied if gays are allowed to call civil unions "marriages."

JNE, I'm reading but I think you are doing doubletalk; "It's OK, just don't call it marriage."

Johnny is perfectly expressing the opinion of the vast majority of Americans; Republicans and Democrats alike. Only one ideological demographic actually supported Gay Marriage according to 2004 exit polls, and that was liberals, 58% to 42%. People who identify themselves as liberals make up around 17% of the population. By contrast, registered Democrats are 37% of the population.

You liberals would do well to work within your own party to improve perception of Gay Marriage, rather than pointing fingers at Republicans and calling us all homophobes and gay-bashers.

rather than pointing fingers at Republicans and calling us all homophobes and gay-bashers.

I didnt say all, I said a lot.

And BTW Nasty Nate if you actually believe this: "Funny thing is, history will show Bush to be one of our greatest presidents ever."

Then I do not value your opinion at all.

Russ, I have been consistent in my stance on this issue. At first glance, this argument seems to be just about a single word, "marriage." It's more than that though. It's about preserving the traditional concept of marriage while still satisfying the needs of the gay community. You see, one of the biggest differences here is that Conservatives are weighing in on two completlely different demographics here, the gay community and the Christian community, and saying, how can we satisfy the needs of both. In contrast, the Liberals are defending only the gay community and to hell with the needs of the Christian community.

By legalizing civil unions, we bestow upon the gay community the equality they so desire and deserve as Americans. We also bestow upon the Christian community the security of knowing that the institution of marriage will continue to be a union between one man and one woman, as God intended.

Terminology does not create inequality. Equality is about human rights. It's about everyone benefiting equally under the law. If the law treats marriages and civil unions equally, then there is no inequality. Should we start calling women "men" to eliminate gender inequality? Should we start calling African Americans "caucasions" for fear of promoting racial inequality? It's not the terminology that creates inequality. Equality is about affording everybody the same opportunity under the law.

JNE

That's fine keep civil unions and marriage separate. As long as you go along with the idea that every "marriage" not held in a church is now a civil union. All those people who thought they were married were wrong they were joined in a civil union because marriage is a religious concept.

JNE,

I appreciate the points you make and I do understand what you are saying. My question is; "why are we really not willing to allow gay marriage?" Why must it be called civil union?

Equality: We were all created equal. What happened to the equality?

If we are choosing to preserve the traditional concept of marriage, then we must "back up the bus" a long way. The question is how far? Customs have changed in more ways than you or I care to name. The traditional concept of marriage according to the bible would allow you to marry your brothers wife if he were to die so that his estate remained in the family, because women were not allowed to own anything. A few decades ago, the traditional concept of marriage in many states restricted marriage outside your race. This is one example and there are many more. To parallel this argument to the post regarding the Catholic church and the decisions of the Popes, your comments to Tom about picking and choosing what we agree with in the church are incongruent to your comments here.

When you use labels, things start to get confusing. Are you placing political liberals in the same category with liberals who have religious beliefs? Are all political conservatives christian? Are all liberals non-christian/religious? When you state that liberals are defending the gay community and saying to hell with the christians, I think you're wrong. I have liberal political views and conservative christian values. I try see both sides of this argument. I believe this is a good argument for the "separation of church and state." It's not OK for christians or any religion for that matter to take their views into the political arena and dictate to the rest of the US how to live their lives. I agree that a politician should stand by their beliefs in making decisions. We all should do this. I also believe that decisions must be made that are for the overall good of the nation and sometimes these decisions may part from religious views. We look at other countries that have theocratic governments and "finger point" NO, NO!

I will change my comment to state; "I'm reading what you say and it's consistent doubletalk." This is a difficult issue for many. If we choose to deal with it then do so. It is wrong to be used as a political playing card. Bush used it to pull in the conservative/fundamental christian votes. He then walked away from his promise. This is wrong.

I do not believe in gay marriage. I support the rights of gays to marry if they choose. I do not believe that allowing gay marriage will dissolve the traditional concept of marriage to any degree more than it is to date.

When you look at this from the context of "Holy Matrimony" or "traditional concept of marriage" you must question the judgement of those that oppose gay-marriage, because when you choose to see the breakdown in the relationships of heterosexual couples, of all faiths and beliefs, what is being done to improve the status quo? The divorce rate in America is over 50% and this has nothing to do with gay-marriage.

Here's a really good essay on the subject that tries to take all possible points into consideration...

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

Um Yeah, maybe I was a bit harsh with my wording as far as the homophobe/gay-basher point is concerned. For that, I'll apologize. However, I still stand by my claim that Republicans are unfairly labelled as "The Anti-Gay Party," when Democrats aren't much better in that regard. Democrats, as this statement from Clinton shows, clearly are not entitled to the free pass they get on gay rights issues. Imagine if he'd said Condoleezza Rice must be suffering from self-loathing, and we called him a racist for that. Would you understand where we're coming from then?

And yes, I do believe Bush is one of the greatest presidents we've ever had. I disagree with him on some issues (yes, gay marriage is one of these), but I see great future benefits from many of his policies. The number of leftists claiming he's the most evil man on Earth, a baby-eater, worse than Hitler, etc.; these are testament to his greatness. Even Reagan didn't incite as much hatred from the Left. The only reason nobody said Lincoln was worse than Hitler is because Hitler hadn't been born yet.

Russ, first, if you think that my posts are double talk, then tell me exactly why. What I am saying is that the fundamentals of marriage are religious fundamentals whether you are married by a minister, by a judge or by a justice of the peace. All of the principles that traditional marriage encompasses are derived from religion. A monogamous relationship between one man and one woman. There are many cultures that practice polygamy. Why don't we? Because the Christian faith forbid it. That religious concept became a cultural norm and in time, the cultural norm became law. Many of our laws concerning morality come from religion because religion defined what was culturally acceptable and what was not. Another example is that adultery is against the law. Why? Again, the answer lies with religion. Christianity forbade it. The issue of adultery became culturally unacceptable and eventually the law reflected the cultural perception of adultery.

In essence, the law did not define marriage. Religion did. The law eventually reflected the guidelines for marriage as laid out by religion. This is Sociology 101. Laws reflect cultural norms and in a largely Christian society, cultural norms are going to reflect a Christian belief structure. Since the birth of this nation, Christianity has been the religion of the majority. Therefore, the laws in the United States largely reflect a Christian ideology because that has been the cultural norm.

I have thought long and hard about why the Government should defend a religious institution like marriage. As someone correctly stated, the government is based on a separation of Church and State. President Bush often uses the words “sanctity of marriage,” implying a religious or holy view of marriage. In legislative hearings, you often hear phrases like, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” The simple answer is that the Government is elected to REPRESENT the people. That means that it is not in the federal or state government’s mandate to redefine our culture because it is the PEOPLE who define culture. A Government who represents the People will naturally reflect the culture of the People as well. This is not to say that the Government can force religion upon anyone but at the same time you must accept that our Government representatives are going to be entering office, each with their own set of principles and those principles will also drive the way our government operates collectively.

Russ, you are absolutely right. The divorce rate in this country is exceedingly high. Nobody said it has anything to do with gay marriage. In fact, I believe the divorce rate among gay civil unions in Denmark is much lower than among heterosexual couples. That is absolutely terrific and it is one of the reasons I support civil unions. The other thing that civil unions does is to promote stability within family units which, I think we can all agree, is good for everybody…, especially children. Civil unions will also help reduce promiscuity among the homosexual community by enabling the gay couples to form stable long-lasting relationships. Civil unions will allow gay couples to reap all the benefits enjoyed by married couples. Civil unions will allow gay couples to express their commitment to one another. These are very real benefits that civil unions would establish. I have never once stated otherwise. My issue isn’t with the gay community at all. My issue is with redefining marriage. I would argue with as much fervor if the government decided to allow brothers and sisters to marry. I would argue with as much fervor if the government decided to allow men to take two wives. Some of you guys want to make this into a gay bashing issue. It isn’t. It’s about preserving the traditional view of marriage. It’s about preserving the religious view of marriage.

And Russ, the Christian religion has never, ever, forbade interracial marriage. The Bible does not differentiate between races. It does however condemn homosexuality. What you are talking about is racism and has nothing to do with religion. I am not picking and choosing what parts of the Bible I want to follow and which parts I don’t. I am not a flip flopper and I believe it is you who is confusing the issue. You have thrown in several statements about ideas that I never even brought to the table.

And I just wanted to repeat this part of my 10:12 post because you keep suggesting that not bestowing the term "marriage" upon a gay-union is inequality.

Terminology does not create inequality. Equality is about human rights. It's about everyone benefiting equally under the law. If the law treats marriages and civil unions equally, then there is no inequality. Should we start calling women "men" to eliminate gender inequality? Should we start calling African Americans "caucasions" for fear of promoting racial inequality? It's not the terminology that creates inequality. Equality is about affording everybody the same opportunity under the law.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/polygamy5.htm

Fairly interesting read.

To me marriage is just a word, chruches wouldnt be forced to marry gay couples if they arent being forced to do anything then why should they care?

JNE,

In regard to homosexual, gay, lesbian, same sex marriages or if you prefer to call it civil unions, I say this; "My reference to double-talk, is that I see you playing with words. Playing in the sense that you are presenting your argument from a biblical/scriptural perspective, then civil union is not compatible with the teaching of the bible. Are you telling me that you believe it's acceptable to go against scripture, if you change a word or two, aka:terminology?" Who are you kidding? I hope you don't think you are kidding God?"

As is the case with many laws that are passed, you agree or disagree with them, but lets be clear on why we are agreeing. Don't play semantics with God.

Terminology doesn't do anything to equaltiy. The actions based on terminology does affect equality.

In the context of same sex marriages, how will the term "marriage" dilute the interpretation as written in scripture. My insertion of examples relating to marriage wasn't to imply that you had stated this. It was to show examples of laws that were enforced that were not biblical.

Living life isn't always an easy task and there is one thing I'm sure of, and that is that we are not called to tell others how to live their life. My point in presenting divorce is that our time would be more productive if we focused on "Holy Matrimony" if that is our preference in marriage.

JNE. I appreciate your posts.

We are all flip-floppers.

Have your thoughts or perspective always remained the same since your first understanding on a subject? You can always change you mind or question what you are told to be the gospel fact.

Hi JNE

The word marriage to me is not a religious concept. True, monogamous relationships have always in our memory been celebrated with a religious ceremony, but so has birth and death. I suspect that people were in monogamous relationships before any religion – before humans discovered speech. Animals have monogamous relationships before they could discuss the religious meaning of them and I suspect so did pre-humans. These are things from beyond written record - certainly beyond Christianity and even Judaism. No one complains about non religious people being born or dieing. Or having ceremonies to celebrate these events. Are you suggesting gay people shouldn't have "funerals" because that's religious? If you aren't what is the difference?

If you believe gay people shouldn’t be married then why don’t you say the same about people who have a civil ceremony? The bible speaks out very definitely against sex before “marriage” and also adultery. Why are you so keen on the parts of the bible that can be seen to be against gays and by inference gay marriage? There are so many more verses in the bible that condemn adultery and sex before marriage. If you’re content to ignore these but go for about 4 verses which can be seen to condemn gays I have to ask the question - why?

You say the US has it’s roots in religion. OK why doesn’t the US have strongly prescriptive laws about adultery? Or eating pork? Or mixing man made and natural products together? How about stoning people – I don’t see you arguing for that. These are all in the bible. If you chose to say we do this because we come from a religious background, but we don’t chose to do that. then it’s a legitimate question to ask you to give reasons why these thing are different.

Personally I support civil unions – equality under the law.

The word “marriage” may be reserved for a while. Currently it’s used for people who religious people may say aren’t really married – those who have been married outside a church. If civil unions are allowed gay people will call them marriage those who don’t agree won’t. Language changes, one of these will win out – this has always been so.

Hi Um Yeah,

I totally agree with the last sentence of you last post (April 15 4.46). No church is going to be forced to accept this – marriage can mean marriage in their own terms, to any church. If a church wants to fight this issue then why don’t they fight the others? What’s different?

Hi Russ

Well done. I haven’t agreed with every point you’ve made but on the whole I’ve agreed with you. You’ve made good and interesting points, very diligently.

Finally I find it interesting that those who are considered left wing have on the whole commented on this topic. The attack on Clinton was weak and easily refuted – whether you agreed with him or not this was just some mud that was thrown. No one has yet disagreed strongly with civil unions so why aren’t these your laws? There hasn’t been an argument against this yet. If you want to help gay people now then allow them next of kin rights, tax rights, pension rights, housing rights etc. These are the sort of emergency issues that need to be dealt with now. Peoples lives are being mangled now because these aren’t in place.

Thank you Russ. I see what you are saying, but I think you misunderstand my intentions. I'm not trying to tell others how to live their lives. I think I have already made it clear that I want gay couples to benefit from all the same privileges offered to married couples. Religion has influenced our way of life, but this is still a country of religious freedom and I don't believe it is my place to tell gay couples they can't be together. I am both a Christian and an American. If I am being true to my faith, then I cannot condone homosexuality within the church. At the same time though, if I am being true to my country, then I must allow my fellow countrymen to live their lives the way they see fit. Are we really saying that equality can only be had if the terminology is the same for all? Is equality about semantics or is it about everybody benefiting equally under the law? All the terminology does is defines the nature of the union, just as Caucasian, African American and Hispanic defines the race of the individual.

Wandering Brit says that he does not see “marriage” as a religious concept. That’s fine, but you are among the minority and you are not religious if my memory serves me correctly. To a great many people, marriage is a sacred union. I don’t mean to be disrespectful Brit. I think you have a genuine honesty that some people on this blog are lacking. I think your statement that monogamy is inherent in human nature is pure speculation with no evidence to support your theory. There are very few animals in the wild that form monogamous relationships. I don’t believe primates are among these. It is hard enough for many people to maintain monogamous relationships as it is, even with the cultural and legal taboos against adultery. Aside from survival, the most basic of all animal instincts is to procreate. In the wild, monogamy is a poor method for propagating the species. There is very convincing evidence that monogamy in the wild leads to low population numbers and possibly extinction. From a human perspective, polygamy is most prevalent among primitive cultures. As I understand it, the Germanic tribes (Angles and Saxons) that invaded Britain practiced a loose form of monogamy where “unions” were easily broken. In general, a couple would remain monogamous as long as they were together, but ending the relationship required nothing more than the want to end it. New unions were formed as easily and as often as the old were broken.

The Celts were much more open in their practice of polygamy, although there was a very elaborate system of unions which became “legal” when sexual relationships resulted in the birth of offspring. There were roughly 10 degrees of unions, known as handhelding, in the Celtic culture. These unions varied in degree from a “one-night stand” to “co-habitation” to “forcible rape.” There were also casual or trial unions that lasted a year and 1 day and there were more permanent unions, which usually involved the care of children. Handhelding was not restricted to one pair of partners though and polygamy was widespread in the Celtic culture.

Early England arose from a mergence of the Angles, Saxons, Celts and to a lesser degree, the Jutes. The people that resulted from this mergence became known as Anglo-Saxons. Early Anglo-Saxons were primarily of Germanic origin with the Celtic influence slowly merging over the centuries. Much of England and the United States today can trace their roots back to the Anglo-Saxons.

I have established that polygamy was prevalent in the Celtic culture and to a lesser degree in the Germanic tribes. Anyone care to guess when all that changed? Christianity. When Christianity spread through England, polygamy and loosely formed monogamous relationships were replaced by the idea that marriage was a lifelong monogamous bond broken only by death. The church steadfastly declared the practice of polygamy and concubinage to be both immoral and illegal and that all children born of such unions were not entitled to inheritance. Likewise, the mitigation of punishment for adultery can be attributed to the influence of the church.

I want to make it clear that I have often referred to Christianity in this thread, however Christianity is not solely responsible for the discouragement of polygamy. Judaism and Islam also DISCOURAGE polygamy although neither religion expressly forbids it. Um Yeah provided a very informative link discussing polygamy, primarily with regard to Islam, but touches on all three religions.

Brit, I hope I have provided a good discussion for why I believe both biology and history refute your speculation that monogamy is inherent in human nature.

Russ, forgive me, as I opened this post, I again discussed terminology and equality, yet after going back a re-reading your post, I see that you did address that point. I want to point out that I am not playing semantics with God. I am trying to balance being a good Christian with being an honest American. Will allowing gay marriage change the way a good Christian conducts his own marriage? No, but it will change the way marriage is viewed on a national scale and that is of serious concern to a vast majority of Christians. Christians already see traditional marriage to be in serious jeopardy. The divorce rate is high. Adultery is high. If we allow civil unions and define “marriage” the way it has traditionally been practiced, then we address the issue of equality for the gay community and we address the desire and concern of the Christian community to preserve traditional marriage. We are trying to protect two distinct communities here and civil unions are the best way to do that. As Brit said, as long as we continue to argue the semantics of this issue, nothing is being done to establish equality for the gay community.

Hi JNE,

That monogamy is a trait rather than religion is as you say speculation on my part. I don't feel the need to defend this too much as at the end of the day it's not possible to have a definitive answer.

I guess the strongest evidence for it being human nature is the fact that the vast majority of cultures in the world today and to a large extent in the past have had monogamy.

I do have religious views but they aren't Christian. I don't think that Christians have the right to appropriate words like marriage or funeral. The meaning of words comes from there use (Wittgenstein) and in my experience most people don't automatically associate the word marriage with Christianity (that may be different in the US). I am serious when I ask Christians to argue that people who marry outside Church shouldn't be allowed to use the word "marriage". This would give them consistence and take away the whiff of prejudice that comes when they talk about gays rather than people married in civil ceremonies or those who divorce and then "remarry". I think much prejudice is hidden by a religious point of view and this call for consistence is I think illuminating to all those hearing these arguments not least those making them. The Bible hardly comments on homosexuality compared to adultery yet often Christians reverse this and focus on gays rather than adulators. This doesn't mean I think all Christians arguing against gay marriage are axiomatically prejudice but I would hope that this is a question that they examine for themselves.

The most important point though is to get those civil rights in place. Wasting effort about what those unions are called will be fine when gays have those rights enshrined. Sir Nigel Hawthorne a British actor (Oscar nominated for the Madness of King George) died a few years ago and his life long partner was thrown into serious financial hardship because basic laws weren't in place. If in a few years everybody uses the term marriage or if they use the term civil union - well that will be decided by consensus rather than a few people.

Re my last post

I wanted clarify one thing in my last post. JNE I am specifically not accusing you of prejudice here. My comments are directed to all Christians and poses a question rather than making an accusation.