Larry Gude
Strung Out
...hmm...
Pro 2nd amendment.
Anti slime.
Hmm...
Pro 2nd amendment.
Anti slime.
Hmm...
Howard Dean...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
I think that Dean is intriguing. I at first went along with the conventional wisdom that Dean is this liberal pinko but when you take a look at him, it is apparent that he is not. While his stance on the war in Iraq sucks and his views on gay civil unions may be out of whack with most the general public, his stances on gun control, the death penalty, conservative fiscal responsibility are very much in tune with the public. His blunt style seems to be like John McCain's and his ability to get grass-roots activists to his cause are amazing. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad for him to be the nominee.
With that said, I'm still pulling for Edwards.
With that said, I'm still pulling for Edwards.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I agree with Dean's take on civil unions. I don't think the government should have any say in marriages as they are a religious joining that has been adopted by most governments as a legal bond. And I don't think that any government that insists that you can't have the ten commandments posted on a wall, or a Christmas nativity set on the lawn of the state house, should be able to decide who a church can decide to marry. The civil union gives the same legal rights to two people that cannot be legally married, and I think that's pretty fair.
Bruzilla, I completely agree with you on that. Civil unions are completely just to homosexuals, who are people too. Gay marriage may be a little bit too extreme but civil unions seem to be a no-brainer. But the fact remains that the Pat Robertson's of this nation will crusade against this until kingdom come and the public seems weary of civil unions in polls. Still, Dean is right about that issue.
On a side note, did anyone read Scalia's dissent in the anti-sodomy case? It was absolutely deplorable and unbecoming of a sitting justice to write such hateful speech.
On a side note, did anyone read Scalia's dissent in the anti-sodomy case? It was absolutely deplorable and unbecoming of a sitting justice to write such hateful speech.
Did someone answer my question about the difference between a civil union and a marriage and I just missed it?
I'll ask again:
What would be the difference between a civil union and a marriage?
I'll ask again:
What would be the difference between a civil union and a marriage?
My first husband and I were married by a Justice of the Peace and, in the eyes of the law, we were legally married. Does it have to be in a church to be called a "marriage"? Or do Larry and I just have a civil union, too?
Will this new arrangement mean that gays can't be married in the church?
I'm not trying to be facetious here (okay, yes I am) but everyone's talking about civil unions vs. marriage and I'm just curious what the difference would be.
Bru? You're a thoughtful person - help me out here.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
A marriage can be either a civil or religious ceremony that creates a legal bond between two people together. That's why the religious folks don't want to see gay/lesbian marriages become the law of the land as it would require churches to perform gay/lesbian marriages. And since the Constitution doesn't allow the government to mandate rules to religions, the religious folks are on firm ground. However, the government can control who gets married in a civil ceremony, and that's what the Vermont law applies to. It allows gays and lesbians to be married in a civil ceremony but does not require religious groups to perform them. Once again, I think that's a fair way to do things and was a good change to the law.
Okay, I got it. But churches typically don't marry anyone who doesn't go to their church anyway, so I can't see how it would make any difference. And even if you ARE married in a church, you still have to get a license from the State, etc. So it's not like there will be any difference at all.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
You're right... there won't be any differences for church marriages. The differences will all be on the civil ceremony side, where it was illegal for gays/lesbians to marry before. Now the churches can follow their dogma and restrict marriages however they please, and anyone that doesn't belong to a church, or can't get married because of church policies, can still get the benefits of being married. Laws don't get much fairer than that.
I just kept hearing all this talk about not allowing gay "marriage", yet creating something called a "civil union" and it confused me.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I think it's about 99.999% certain that if the law had allowed "Gay/Lesbian Marriages" that some gay/lesbian group would have started sueing churches for the right to marry under the law. By specifically stating "Civil Unions" vice marriage the law makes it clear that only the civil government can marry gays and lesbians. I used to see it as a bunch of legal hoo-haw, but it does make sense in our litigation-happy society.