Palin breaks with McCain on gay marriage amendment

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Haakzilla

Haakzilla

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
9,480
Likes
7,522
Points
113
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_el_pr/palin_gay_marriage

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage," Palin said. She said she believed traditional marriage is the foundation for strong families.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe they should rename marriage to be "traditional marriage" and move on?
 
Just call it marriage and have "civil unions". If its done at the state level (which I'm USUALLY a proponent for legislation for on the state level), then we're going to end up with a situation that every state has different structure of unions. I'm with Palin on this one.
 
Xericx said:
Just call it marriage and have "civil unions". If its done at the state level (which I'm USUALLY a proponent for legislation for on the state level), then we're going to end up with a situation that every state has different structure of unions. I'm with Palin on this one.
Click to expand...

agreed:cheers:
 
If a man and woman get married in Illinois, they are recognized as married in California.

How do you expect states to recognize civil unions if they all have their own version?
 
Denny Crane said:
If a man and woman get married in Illinois, they are recognized as married in California.

How do you expect states to recognize civil unions if they all have their own version?
Click to expand...

nationalize it all. Just call it marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals. same benefits, same shit. everyone should be satisfied.

all benefits are the same and the traditional church fucks won't whine about marriage being changed so drastically.
 
If a woman wants to marry a woman, then they're married. They aren't civilly unionized. They are married.
 
Last edited:
The problem with civil unions where I live is, some companies still refuse to give out benefits to same-sex couples, because the civil union law did not require companies to designate same-sex couples as spouses. I know weird.

I think there should be a referendum in all 50 states. If they want it, they can have it. If they don't, they don't have to have it. Give full faith and credit to couples who are married in another state, and let's move on to more pressing issues.
 
#1_War_Poet_ForLife said:
If a woman wants to marry a woman, then you're married. They aren't civilly unionized. They are married.
Click to expand...

Just call it a civil union. same benefits.

Marriage = one man one woman

Civil Union = two men or two women

Again, same benefits and everything, same governing laws. Its just a matter of sematics. Throughout history, marriage has always been with one man and one woman.
 
Real said:
The problem with civil unions where I live is, some companies still refuse to give out benefits to same-sex couples, because the civil union law did not require companies to designate same-sex couples as spouses. I know weird.

I think there should be a referendum in all 50 states. If they want it, they can have it. If they don't, they don't have to have it. Give full faith and credit to couples who are married in another state, and let's move on to more pressing issues.
Click to expand...

Again, if they nationalize the terms and definitions, then we wouldn't have this problem. They should nationalize civil unions and I think that would probably satisfy most of the pro-"marriage is traditional" peeps out there.
 
Xericx said:
nationalize it all. Just call it marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals. same benefits, same shit. everyone should be satisfied.

all benefits are the same and the traditional church fucks won't whine about marriage being changed so drastically.
Click to expand...

Common Law Marriage by definition is two people living together as married; there's all kinds of common laws regarding it. Seems to me that gay couples have been living together as married all along.

You can get married at city hall and the church would then have nothing to do with it. It's what us atheists/agnostics do.
 
Xericx said:
Throughout history, marriage has always been with one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Mormons had marriages between one man and many women. That's just one example.
 
Denny Crane said:
Common Law Marriage by definition is two people living together as married; there's all kinds of common laws regarding it. Seems to me that gay couples have been living together as married all along.

You can get married at city hall and the church would then have nothing to do with it. It's what us atheists/agnostics do.
Click to expand...

However, does everyone recognize this insofar as estates or whatever else? Is it consistent from state to state? (I realize divorce laws are not universal)
 
Xericx said:
Just call it a civil union. same benefits.

Marriage = one man one woman

Civil Union = two men or two women

Again, same benefits and everything, same governing laws. Its just a matter of sematics. Throughout history, marriage has always been with one man and one woman.
Click to expand...
Why should it matter then, if it's just semantics?
 
Xericx said:
However, does everyone recognize this insofar as estates or whatever else? Is it consistent from state to state? (I realize divorce laws are not universal)
Click to expand...

I'm not a divorce law expert, so I can't say much about it.

But as far as I know, estates and patients' rights and many other similar issues are basically the same in all states.
 
Xericx said:
That's more the exception than the rule. Fringe demographics are always excluded (i.e. Kings of England)
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure many figures in the old testament had multiple wives.

I think the "one man one woman" thing is a christian thing and likely a more recent thing than you might expect.
 
Denny Crane said:
I'm pretty sure many figures in the old testament had multiple wives.

I think the "one man one woman" thing is a christian thing and likely a more recent thing than you might expect.
Click to expand...

so muslims, indians and jewish people don't subscribe to one man-one union?
 
No one has ownership of the word "marriage," least of all churches. Any adults should be allowed to get married, with full legal marriage rights. Churches can choose who they will perform religious weddings for. That preserves everyone's rights.
 
Minstrel said:
No one has ownership of the word "marriage," least of all churches. Any adults should be allowed to get married, with full legal marriage rights. Churches can choose who they will perform religious weddings for. That preserves everyone's rights.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I don't think there should be such a thing as "two husbands" or "two wives" in a marriage. Again, that is just semantics for me.
 
Hurray for a national issue based entirely on semantics.
 
Xericx said:
so muslims, indians and jewish people don't subscribe to one man-one union?
Click to expand...

I pointed out the new testament figures - they'd be jewish and christian and muslim religious figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[5]</sup>At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6]</sup> To take on more than one wife often requires considerable resources: this may put polygamy beyond the means of the vast majority of people within those societies. Such appears the case in many traditional Islamic societies, and in Imperial China. Within polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status symbol denoting wealth and power. Similarly, within societies that formally prohibit polygamy, social opinion may look favorably on persons maintaining mistresses or engaging in serial monogamy.
 
Xericx said:
because you are ALWAYS going to have a large part of the population that will oppose same-sex marriages if you use the term "marriage".
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you consider "large".

Considering the very small minds they possess, "large" is an exaggerration of their place in society.
 
As a libertarian, my view is that people have the right to pursue happiness. If it means polygamy or same sex marriages, I'm fine with it. The line is where it's not a voluntary contract between consenting adults.

I personally find much of it "disgusting" (for lack of a better word), but it's not really my business.
 
MARIS61 said:
I guess it depends on what you consider "large".

Considering the very small minds they possess, "large" is an exaggerration of their place in society.
Click to expand...

Yes. And those that don't respect their viewpoints and see them as "small-minded" are just as guilty. Their viewpoints are deeply rooted in the way they are brought up and their own personal moral code and they are able to think that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top