It really all comes down to the separation of church and state

[Sebastian Doyle]

Churches have no business telling the state who can and cannot enter into a legal contract.

Government has no business telling churches what ceremony they should or should not perform.

(And for sake of this discussion "church" applies to any house of worship, or any faith community)

Once you settle that argument, there's no valid case anybody can make that would prevent same sex couples from having all the legal rights that hetero couples have.

And this is my interpretation of what Obama & Biden have said on the subject as well. I believe Biden may have misspoke last night and used the word "civil" where he actually meant "religious".

Let's look at what Biden actually said again..........

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

Now you look at that quote as written, and Biden would be contradicting himself. First it's "We don't support redefining from a civil side......." Then it's "There should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever....."

Direct contradiction there. UNLESS Biden actually meant to say "religious" instead of civil in the first sentence. Then it becomes one coherent argument. The legal (civil) standard is equality for EVERYONE. The religious communities are left to make their own decisions.

So Thomas Jefferson, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Sebastian Doyle are all on the same page here.

What do YOU say?

[leftofcool]

1. But he did say "civil" so maybe someone could email him

and ask for clarification

[Clio the Leo]

2. Thank you........

..... I thought at the time last night he misspoke. Because what he said and what I believe their position to be on the matter doesn't jive. They believe that since the Constitution has never had anything to say about marriage one way or the other, it shouldn't start now.

Does the Federal gvt have ANYTHING to do with marriage ...... gay, straight or otherwise? Or is that ALWAYS left up to the state and local authorities?

I think there's the answer. If the Fed. gvt has no jurisdiction over marriage in any way, then why does it matter what Joe and Barack think? (Other than leading by setting a good example.)

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. Obama has indicated that he thought the states should decide the civil part of things

Probably Biden has said something similar. He wasn't on my short list in the primaries, so I didn't pay close attention to his positions on the issue, but they sound like they're on the same page now.

Eventually there will be a Supreme Court ruling. I'm hoping it's under a better court than we have now. In the meantime, the states are going to catch up one by one. I'd rather change them all overnight, if it were up to me, but then it might be a good thing if the states stuck in the 17th century aren't holding back the rest. Would marriage be legal in California right now if they had to depend on Utah's approval?

[PBS Poll-435]

9. The Federal Government DOES have some jurisdiction over marriage.

California and Massachusetts couples can not file a MFJ or MFS tax return.

They must tell the Federal Government that they are "Single."

[Sebastian Doyle]

10. And that's one of the things which makes a Supreme Court ruling inevitable

I don't think anybody here wants to see that ruling come with Moosealini in the White House, and her three new Supreme Court appointees, John Ashcroft, James Dobson, and John Hagee.

[PBS Poll-435]

11. Yep!

We need to fix the imbalance of power of the SCOTUS.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. This has never been about telling religious orgs who they can or cannot marry

Those who say it is are lying. To pick one of many possible examples: Catholic churches are allowed to refuse marriage to non-Catholics or to people who are considered in a state of sin. That is because religious ceremony is totally irrelevant with regards to legal marriage.

On the other side, there are a lot of religious bodies that would marry same-sex couples if they could. Most of these DO marry them, although they are only married in the eyes of their religion and not under the law.

[Solon]

5. Exactly, its a false argument used to muddle the issue.

I hate it when people bring it up. :grr:

[Sebastian Doyle]

14. Call it a false argument all you want. But the fact remains, it's the "red meat" the repukes use

to hook the fundies into voting against their own interests. Ask John Kerry about that. He lost 11 states over idiot "marriage ban" ballot measures designed to bring the religiously misinformed to the ballot boxes.

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. But that IS exactly what the fundagelicals use to cloud the issue.

"Marriage is a holy sacrament from God/God created Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve/Sodomites want to take over your churches!!11!!1!!! etc".

You know it's bullshit. I know it's bullshit. Barack & Joe know it's bullshit. But the dumbasses who watch Pat Robertson and John Hagee or FAUX Noize, for that matter have been convinced otherwise.

That's why the issue of separation between church and state needs to be involved in framing the argument. Once the churchgoing majority realizes that nobody's going to rip "Amazing Grace" out of their hymnals and replace it with "We Are Family" they'll be more likely to accept reality. Yeah, there will be a handful of Phelps types, but even the other churchgoers can't stand those idiots.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. And by kowtowing to the fundamentalist, how are the Democrats any different from the Repugs?

If Obama and Biden "know it's bullshit" they certainly don't let on, do they? And do you have any real evidence that they know this is bullshit other than wishful thinking? And since when does the Democratic Party allow fundamentalist to set their agenda, just like the Republicans do?

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. Despite the serious fascist leanings of this country for the last 8 years

There has been significant progress in moving towards equality for everyone. Massachusetts, Vermont, California (NO on 8!!!) State by state, it is happening.

And like I said, that's even under a repressive Bush Crime Family national regime, and with Romney and Herr Gropenator in two of the state capitols. But with a change in this country and a move back towards sanity on any number of issues, more states are certain to join in soon. And finally, when it does get to the Supreme Court, there will hopefully be a majority of judges on the bench who will do the right thing.

[justiceischeap]

12. A little history about marriage

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. <11> The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

And another article that talks about the history of marriage on Counterpunch
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html

It's only in recent history that marriage was co-opted by the fundies as a union between a man and a woman.

[Sebastian Doyle]

13. Interesting, but I doubt you'd ever convince the fundies of that.

Even though there's no actual mention of a wedding ceremony in the Bible for Adam & Eve, who presumably would have had the ceremony done by the Big Guy Himself. Or Jesus' own Mom & Stepdad Joe, for that matter. They were said to be man and wife, but when was the wedding.

Now on the other hand though, it WAS a wedding reception where JC turned the water into wine. So there is that reference, I guess. Though I don't remember Pontius Pilate or Herod dropping by to sign the marriage license, so draw thine own conclusions.