Re frame the marriage issue, and it goes away. Here's how.......

[grumpy old fart]

Fundies have to admit that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but directly and clearly addressed divorce:

"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her".
Mark 10:11

Most true fundies will agree with Jesus' words (how can they not) and agree that divorce should be banned. They become then become the "ban divorce" faction, losing the vast majority of Americans. Every time the gay rights B.S. comes up, we ask "would you ban divorce as Jesus clearly spoke on the issue"? How can they answer.

This is the question I wish John Stewart would have asked Santorum on the daily show the other night. It's a killer question, and a family values, gay B.S. stopper, especially for a politician.

[Finder]

1. Covenant Marriages

There are fundy factions promoting this now. Marriages where divorce is not sanctioned, etc...

[grumpy old fart]

4. but those aren't binding in law, and "ban divorce" has a much better ring.

from our standpoint, of course....:evilgrin:

[On the Road]

6. That's True, But the Divorce Issue

can work against Republicans if publicized in the right way. Although there's always the danger that Republicans can reframe the issue to make themselves the champions of morality and Democrats the enemies of families. Dems have not been successful on this issue in the past.

[grumpy old fart]

8. That's because the public buys into this "defense of Marriage" crap.......

The way you "defend marriage" is to ban divorce, and the fundies will agree, alienating the vast majority of the country.

[On the Road]

14. The Conservatives are Being Cagey

They proclaim their support of marriage, but take few steps to outlaw divorce except in the few places it's popular (the "covenant marriage" thing). Whether they can be lured into proposing unpopular anti-divorce laws for everyone is another matter.

[grumpy old fart]

17. Put's them in a bind, going against Jesus' specific words. That's where we

want them, no?

[On the Road]

18. The Problem is

that any Democrat making that point either depicts him or herself as being opposed to Jesus or implicitly as supporting anti-divorce laws. Candidates or parties who distance themselves from Christianity usually lose.

That's why it's a difficult case to make. Republicans can always step back, appear reasonable, talk about the difference between religious and civil law, and let the Democrats hang themselves.

[shoelace414]

2. It's not Gay Marriage

it's "Gay Marriage rights". It doesn't have to do with a religious ceremony, but rights.

[ClassWarrior]

5. It doesn't have to do with gay people - it's EVERYONE's rights.

NGU.

[grumpy old fart]

7. There you go, muddying the framing, WE know what it's about but the public

doesn't. If we want to kill this opposition, we need to tar it for what it is, in terms the public can easily grasp and reject.

[sui generis]

9. I agree - the whole concept needs to be changed

to "Civil Marriage" recognized by government for legal purposes and "Marriage" in any other non-government organization.

The government has no business constitutionally barring some Americans from legal contracts and mutual fiscal obligation in their civilian lives based on their sexual orientation.

And who cares about the churches, nobody is trying to tell a church what they can and can't do in this regard. They can make people paint their ass blue and stand on their head to get married if they want to, but they need to keep those idiotic notions away from government recognized civil marriage.

[grumpy old fart]

12. Yes, of course, but how to get this issue back to neutral ground....

"And who cares about the churches..."

I'll tell you who, it's the vast majority of Americans who like to believe they are Christians, though they don't go to church, read a bible, or have any idea of church history or dogma. They just know that the Christian talking heads tell them that gays are sinful and that denying them rights is "defending marriage". The last election and all the "marriage is between one man and one woman" amendments that passed in State Constitutions show that. How many of these same folks would have voted to ban divorce? Maybe 10%?

Re frame the issue, and the fundie church influence dies.

[sui generis]

21. it's all rhetorical

nobody is going to change the system in any case with any amount of reframing, if reframing is the only bullet we use.

There won't be "civil unions for everyone"
There won't be "civil marriage"
There won't be "outlawed divorce"

These framing concepts are good for exercising a conversation to perhaps get the seed of an idea in someone's head, but they won't change law in and of themselves.

The ONLY thing that will open up marriage for everyone is time and an increased notion that banning some Americans from these partaking in these legal commitments is bigotry and discrimination and un American. The people who think they are "defending marriage" think they are doing the decent thing. Therefore, the way to bring about change is to get them to see that defending marriage for everyone is "the decent thing", and that won't happen with negative framing.

[ieoeja]

13. Untrue

In many states you can ONLY be married by Jewish or Christian religious authorities (Texas also authorizes Muslim clerics).

[sui generis]

19. I was talking should-be's

so, true.

Anyway, not an expert on marriage law and procedure in Texas, but I suspect that the J.O.P marriage is the only one that counts, whether or not said JOP is a christian, jew, or muslim.

If not, then what the heck do they do with atheists and wiccans? :shrug:

[ieoeja]

24. Sorry

The information in this message (and the Untrue message above for which the editing period has expired) was incorrect. The original incorrect information is below.


Subject: JOP weddings prohibited in those states.

By Christian or Jewish authorities I did not mean legal authorities who are Christian or Jewish. I meant relgious authorities within a Christian or Jewish religion, e.g. rabbi, minister, preacher or priest.

In South Carolina the law permits only Christian religious authorities to legally join people in marriage.

[sui generis]

25. so Jews have to get married by a christian in South Carolina?

Or Jews who are married by a Rabbi are not legally married?

This isn't making sense - not trying to be thick here but, it's not making sense.

[ieoeja]

26. Sorry. It appears my original source was incorrect.

Unfortunately, the link (http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/) where I read this a few weeks or months back is not working right now.

However, I checked several states' websites for marriage laws (including Texas, but not South Carolina because the link I found for theirs is not working) and found that in each case JOP weddings ARE permissible. So the info at the above link, when it was working, was incorrect.

Sorry about that.

[sui generis]

27. no problem

I thought I was in bizarro world for a moment!

Thanks for the update. :hi:

[MaineDem]

20. Are you positive about this?

I find this very hard to believe.

[grumpy old fart]

23. I find this hard to believe. Will check it out......n/t

[ClassWarrior]

3. Yes, divorce should be brought into it. But I've always liked...

...the frame, "Marriage Rights for Everyone." Next time someone rails against gay marriage, say, "Do you want the government telling you who you can and can't marry? And do you seriously believe they're going to stop with gay people? After all, government NEVER abuses its power..."

NGU.

[grumpy old fart]

10. The public is slow to give rights to minorities, but they will quickly ...

rise up against taking away a right THEY (the majority) currently have. If they see this as a movement to TAKE AWAY their right to divorce, the "defense of marriage" B.S. that they currently buy into will die quickly. IMHO

[MaineDem]

11. Reframe the issue by taking religion out of the equation

Let faiths do whatever they want with their sacraments but if one looks at marriage as a legal entity without any religious connotation it's blatantly obvious (to me at least) that it's nothing more than a contract. And one man-one woman really doesn't enter into it.

Now, the divorce issue is another great one. The sanctity of marriage only lasts until someone wants out of it? This one really blows my mind. Either marriage is sacred or it isn't. It isn't sacred only for the time being...or is it? This is not logical to me.

[grumpy old fart]

15. See my Post #12. Kill the church influence by making it about taking away

rights. About taking away the precious, to most Americans, right to divorce.

[ieoeja]

16. See post #13 above n/t

[sui generis]

22. you said "untrue"

but didn't address the statement in your reply.

I'm not sure that you are entirely correct; there are atheists in every state who would NOT be "married" by anyone of any faith, and they do get married.