Same Sex Relationships

Shouldn't this fit under the banner of "social toleration"? Also, non-favoritism would imply not giving someone special legal protection on account of his or her sexual orientation, but that seems to be what a hate crime law is.

As far as marriage goes, government should have nothing to do with it, positively or negatively. The word "marriage" in all US legal code should be replaced in all instances by "civil union". This would make both sides happy: everyone gets equal rights, but the government will not call same-sex (or opposite-sex) domestic relationships "marriage". All laws pertaining to marriage, including tax incentives etc., would as a result pertain to civil unions instead. Civil unions would be a matter of public policy; marriages would be a matter of private life and tradition as they should have always been.

I don't personally agree with the concept of Hate Crimes Legislation at all. For me, the intention behind a crime might be admissible as evidence at sentencing but shouldn't have a place in determining guilt or innocence. That said, as long as there is such a thing as Hate Crimes Legislation, members of the LGBT community absolutely had ought to be protected by it. We are undeniably a persecuted minority in the vast majority of this country.

Secondly, while I agree that this is an area where the states should make their own determinations as to what is acceptable in their jurisdictions, that position only half-answers the question. I, and voters at anything other than the national level, will wonder what the Whigs believe the states themselves should be doing. I would hope that any party with an honest interest in fairness and moderation would agree that all citizens should be treated equally, and while I can understand compromise might be necessary on the exact terms used (civil unions etc.), simply denying these rights to any American citizens based solely on sexual orientation is petty and cruel. I would also hope that this party, and really any party, would recognize the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act considering the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of Article Four and work toward its repeal.

I also think this should come under social toleration.

Speaking for myself, and not as state chairman, I think that government should completely avoid the use of the word "marriage" and restrict its involvement to establishing acceptable criteria for a domestic partnership for the purposes of taxation, benefits and privacy laws (hospital rights, spousal privilege, etc.)

That said, any church should be free to determine who they would celebrate a marriage ceremony for.

It seems to me that most of the law dealing with traditional marriage is based upon religious belief, and should therefore be reviewed in light of separation of Church and State.

Frankly, it puzzles me why some people can't seem to separate the legal definition of marriage from their religious definition of marriage.

The states should not be allowed to determine for themselves which citizens receive equal protection under the law. This includes marriage laws.

History has shown, time and again, that the will of the majority cannot be trusted to ensure the rights of the minority. This is why the majority of our basic human rights are protected by the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Quite simply, the right to freely marry is a Federal issue, equivalent in importance to the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of the press.

I agree 100 percent with Clint K from Houston on this matter. The relationships, intimate or otherwise, should be left up the the individuals pursuing the relationship; not that of the federal or state governments. Legal unions should be afforded all the same, equal, rights regardless of who is entering into the union.

~Peike

I don't think we should be concerned with moral issues like gay marriage or abortion. Taking a stand like this might drive votes away from the party.

There has been some debate about that. I *think* the general feeling is that at some point they come under the general heading of civil rights and can't be avoided entirely by saying the states can deal with them.

An easier issue, which isn't on the list, is that of marijuana, medical or otherwise. That one can be put down to the states since civil rights aren't involved.

I respectfully disagree Jim. Gay marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. If I had to choose then I would take a firm stance against gay marriage and say No. As for marijuana I remember a time when the stance against drugs was "Just Say No" now it seems that everyone thinks it's cool to do drugs. Again respectfully disagree but it is nice to hear your opinion.

This is the Same Sex Relationships area so I don't want to hi-jack it for a different topic, but I will say this, rd. The marijuana question is an ideal states responsibility issue in as much that it should be up to each state whether or not to allow it. It simply doesn't need to be a federal issue with the associated expense.

Gay rights is a different breed of cat, and one that isn't particularly well house-trained. It looks like we are going to agree to disagree for the time being, but there is always room for more discussion.

One thing I should point out is that as Whigs we are free to have our own opinions, and advocate for different policies in different places so long as we can back them up with rational argument. I don't think members of other parties get very far when they disagree with the established powers that be.

Speaking as a gay man who travelled from my home in California to my former home in Washington, DC to get married to my husband I may have a unique perspective on this topic amidst this Party founded on the shoulders of our glorious military (I'm also a former Naval officer).

Why do gay people want to be married? Why do straight people want to be married? There are a few reasons and none of them are mutually exclusive to straights or gays. And all people gay or straight can likely relate to these

Firstly, most straight people, and I'm going out on a limb here, get married for love. So do most gay people. When you fall in love you want to spend the rest of your life with someone. Love is a moral issue, and the government has no right legislating morality. By denying gay marriage, the moral majority is imposing its values and saying love between two men or two women is invalid...how would they know? I've never loved anyone as much as I love my husband and though I can't imagine that my straight sister loves her straight husband as much as I love my gay one, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. My sister and brother should therefore give me the benefit of the doubt and they do. Likewise, straight or gay, we should be giving each other the benefit of the doubt and accept that love is love no matter who loves whom.

Secondly, the law recognizes certain privileges for married couples, most are relatively minor, but inheritance rights and workplace benefits are some of the bigger ones. Both of these areas of the law recognize the spouse as a special case and often automatically grant the spouse benefits. Why should homosexual spouses be denied these benefits? As it stands now gay couples often need to sign extensive contracts with one another, above and beyond anything a straight couple would need to sign to receive the same legal benefits. That is discrimination against a class of citizens, illegal under the Constitution.

So, reasons to get married, both the emotional and monetary, apply equally to both sides. So why deny it to homosexuals. In no way does the gay couple down the street affect your straight marriage. If your church doesn't allow it, guess what, they can still not allow it. Making same sex marriage legal does not require churches to perform same sex weddings.

I also think this is a topic that Whigs should take a stand on and for similar reasons to my pro-choice stance. If Whigs came to power in the United States this issue is already there waiting for us. It's being decided right now in the 9th circuit and DOMA is being challenged, successfully, nationwide. If DOMA falls then the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution will make a marriage performed in Iowa (even the same sex ones) legal in Texas. But just because something is legal doesn't mean it has to be done. Therefore Joe Straightguy in Dallas does not need to marry his best friend John Heteroman, he still has the CHOICE to marry his girlfriend Jane. What it allows though is Jullian Flamer across the avenue to CHOOSE to marry Jonah Lightloafer.

Logic and sense therefore dictate that the option which does not impose on citizens’ PERSONAL morals and leaves the widest range of possibilities is the correct option. Legalizing same-sex marriage does that.

In my personal opinion, it's only a matter of time before DOMA is ruled un-constitutional. Though this is a divisive issue, the Whigs should open the nation up to allow personal choice in all jurisdictions. By standing on the sidelines and allowing states to decide this issue we will first have to determine the meaning of or potentially modify the meaning of Full Faith and Credit. Then we would have to continue to have a hodg-podge of laws where loving couples need to fly across the country to be married. The Whigs need to show that same sex civil marriage does not affect in any way an opposite sex religious marriage. The distinction between the religious and civil needs to be made abundantly clear.

PS, though I am not allowed to get married in California, California does recognize my same sex DC marriage, so it was all for naught on the prop 8 side.

Speaking as a straight male, I agree with CAGlaucus and have used much the same argument for years now.

I think much of the problem comes from the word "marriage" itself and its use by the government to regulate what is essentially a contractual arrangement. The government should register domestic partnerships with all the appropriate legal benefits and churches or other entities can celebrate such a registration with a ceremony as they choose to or not.

It seems to that today it would be very difficult to build an argument against same-sex relationships that doesn't invoke religious authority, and that is something that should have no place in the legislative process, in my opinion.

On the other hand, several arguments can be made in favor of allowing same-sex relationships that are completely devoid of religious content, as well as some that do contain such.

I still haven't heard a "rational argument" against same-sex marriage. When you dig into the arguments that are presented, they tend to devolve into "marriage is a sacred word", "homosexuality is a sin" or "homos creep me out".

Legally, marriage is a contract between two adults. The current definition stipulates that those two adults must be of nominally opposite sexes, but there's nothing inherent in the legal usage of "marriage" that requires that. And it seems clear that there's a constitutional rights issue involved, under the 14th Amendment.

Continuing the slightly off-topic topic, should there be a section on the drug war?

Twitchy, with regard to the war on drugs, start a discussion in the forum on it and if it seems appropriate it will move to a higher level of discussion and possibly get a policy stance. :)

I am a state chair, and am, self admittedly, one of the more "radical" Whigs around here. Radical in this context means that the piece of political giveback legislation that the Clinton administration penned called DOMA ( as a "gift" to the Reps and blue dogs for their support of a budget mind you), should be canned..

For those of you that don't know, DOMA 1996 defines marriage. Twitchy, that is your answer. A "radical" Whig might beleive that government should be "agnostic" towards the definition, and call them unions. Today, that does leave it to the states, which my gay friends don't rightly dig. But its the best compromise our Republic offers, until we get into Constitutional issues. Even my 14 yr old son/student recongizes that the Constitution protects ALL.

And why should be taking moral guidance from folks that show a high propensity to lie, cheat and steal anyhow!? I'll tell you why, the FOLKS WHO ARE PRETENDING TO BE LEADERS NEED SOMETHING THAT MAKES THEM LOOK THAT WAY. But they have no clothes. They are naked, and somehow think we dont see the invisible suit.

Please reread that. FOLKS WHO ARE PRETENDING TO BE LEADERS NEED SOMETHING THAT MAKES THEM LOOK THAT WAY. I beleive this to be truth. Although, I have been wrong before, on rare occasion.

I also beleive that it is natural for humans to couple. This is what drives unions of all stripes, imho. Whether homosexuality is "natural" is not for public debate on a Whig political site. IMHO, as a reformed ex Catholic, who thinks he understand Jesus pretty well, mainly from the Gospels NOT in the Bible, I'm not al all convinced it is sinful behavior. Being lewd might be, but that knows no "class". And to that, I would LOVE to be more of a sinner! :)

IMHO the "moral fabric" of the nation is more dependent on economics than on gay marriage. I would LOVE to debate that with someone someday. The "rational" arguement against gay marriage will be dead and buried forever if folks listen carefully. Logic has its own power.

To our married ex Naval officer from California. Rob, thank you for your service, and thank you personally for having the guts to stand up. Your thoughtful comments are most welcome here.

The irony of a "freak" like me believeing that dismantling illogcal legislation promoting traditional morality will actually make our country stronger, more tolerant, and more focused, does not escape me.

AS a matter of record, I'm so "straight", it's painful. Call it "constraint theory"!

Peace. Out.

I have trouble seeing how you can simply leave this to the states. Currently, a same-sex married couple cannot qualify for hardship or other PCS benefits in the military. That is a federal issue. I'm not suggesting that the federal government tell the states how to handle gay marriage... but IF gays ARE legally married it should be federally recognized exactly the same as straight couples.
I'm a straight male, married, two kids.. but I cannot tolerate government legislating morality. To me it is the same as not recognizing interracial couples. That would be absured and so would be telling people who they can and cannot marry.

The concept of hate crimes brings shivers down my back. If you murder someone, you should be charged the same no matter why you did it. It is no more or less of a crime to rob, rape, beat up, or kill someone because you didn't like their face, their religion, their sexual orientation, or anything else. hate crime legislation allows the justice system to delve into your thinking at the time the crime was committed, which is quite a frightening situation.

I really like the idea of the Government keeping out of 'marriage' all together. As others have suggested, any present legal benefits of a martial contract should be put under the federally recognized title of "Civil Union". And actual marriage ceremonies and commitments can be done by the individual couple any way they see fit. I think we should make this our official stance on the issue, because in this way everyone has the same rights, while no one loses any.

However, if marriage must remain under the control of the government, then I believe that qualified same sex couples (i.e, adults, or minors with a parent's permission, whom are non-related by blood) should have the equal right to legally affirm their relationship within the bounds of marriage, like their heterosexual counterparts. The practical solution is to fervently adhere to the fundamental spirit of our Constitution, which propagates legal equality for all U.S citizens, unless rational evidence can be presented in which the physical harm or injury to others, and or the violation of another citizen's Constitutional rights, can be proven to be the result of a natural consequence.

Well, there are entanglements to be sure. Yet, the spirit of rolling divsive issues down hill to the most local level practical is borne of guidance issued 200+ years ago. MWP has always been of the belief that these divisive moral issues should be handled, if required, at the most local level practical ( definition of marriage, legality of abortions, legality of weed), while the Federal government should remain agnostic.

So to AAW's point, a logical stance would be to 1.) repeal DOMA 1996 ( which was politically motivated anyhow), and 2.) let the states make the call. That stance may indeed offend folks on both sides of the issue. If so, it would be a testament to its fairness, and therefore its correctness.

And then maybe we can talk about adverse family economics, which has 100X more impact on family "morality" than gay marriage ever did, in MY, not MWP's opinion.

And AAW, this may seem queer ( I deliberately use the word in its traditional context as often as I can), but while MWP has many gay members, it tends to be us married straight folks that get all ballistic on equal protections.

Which is characteristic of the MWP!

The question does need to be addressed at the fed level, and repeal of DOMA is just a start.

DADT was officially repealed today. So now one good example of what needs to be addressed is marriage benefits for those in the military, i.e. housing and pay. Would repeal of DOMA allow the IRS to recognize same sex unions? If not, then there are a slew of issues that will deny equal benefits to those in the military with a same sex union.

Indeed Jim. Many private corps already acknowledge same sex relationships and give spousal discounts on, say, insurances. Clearly we would have to "rationalize" federal law and regulations.

Let those sonovagun's pay the same penalties the rest of do for being married! ;)

It'd be very Whiggy to start developing a "morality" index and see how relaxing definitions and letting folks be "free", while focusing public debate on jobs, personal responsibilities might actually move the scale in the right direction.

I dont hate to say " I told you so!". :)

While I do agree that most issues should be handled from a local level, I disagree that 'civil issues' should be one of them. I say this because *legal* marriage is a civil right, and these rights should be protected federally. Think about it. If race/color was not included in the 14th amendment, then what would stop states like Mississippi and Alabama from making interracial marriage illegal through their state constitutions? If religion was not included in the 14th amendment then what would stop legal discrimination against Atheists by predominantly Christian states?

I think one of the fundamental reasons for a centralized law that reigns supreme over all others, is so that the individual's civil rights are protected from the collective majority's hegemony, and so that the state does not have the power to usurp authority from their citizens that the constitution does not grant them. If same sex marriage is not recognized federally, then same sex spouses will never have the same federal benefits that are afforded to married heterosexual couples. If we are for equal protections under the law, then shouldn't we be in favor of federally recognized gay marriage so that same sex couples can receive the same equal benefits and protections that married heterosexual couples are given?

Jim wrote: "Speaking as a straight male, I agree with CAGlaucus and have used much the same argument for years now."

I second (third?) those same positions myself. I think that the legal arguments against gay marriage are very weak and need to be separated from the religious arguments if we want this debate to remain sensible. I understand that people have religious issues with this topic, but I think the separation of 'legal marriage' and 'religious marriage' follows the same rationale as the separation of Church and State and should be emphasized. Churches do not lose anything by the state making gay marriage legal. Period.

I don't believe that the state should require churches to marry people they choose not to marry on religious grounds, but churches (meaning particular religious sects as some churches have no problem marrying gay people) should not require the state to limit who is able to get married in their own churches or own customs. The state is not the legislative branch of the church(es). We did away with that when the Constitution was created and there is no reason to go back to pre-Constitutional conditions as a nation.

Eric Hill

I think that most people (including those here) are actually dancing around or dont realise the true Nature/ Fissure of this debate. if you take CAGlaucaus' first 2 points I think most people on both sides of the debate would not have much issue with them. It is , i think, common ground that could be broached. It is what comes afterward, the social fallout, that has people spooked. I will try to elaborate.

there are stories about elementary schools with books about fairy tales with "2 kings" or "2 Queens" that really upset certain parents. They are seeing certain lifestyles and culture forced upon their culture and exposed to their children that they for religious or otherwise find offensive. The result is having these referendums on defining "marriage" So as to avoid this.

So here is what I propose as a possible solution. Protecting same-sex rights such as CAGlaucaus and others have mentioned. With the caveat that local gov'ts (perhaps down to the town and county level) can decide what is "lewd" or "acceptable for public display" or whatever.

What this does is grants the Same-Sex couples the rights they seek while dealing with the reality that there are some areas of the the country/ soceity that are going to fight tooth and nail against recognition not to deny the basic rights but because they feel their culture is under attack.

Well put Costello. Indeed we need to "roll the can" as far down the hill as we can, i.e, to the most local level practical.

BTW, as a personal aside, I can't comment on the "morals" of gay marriage as I am blind to the morality anymore, but I can observe that straight or gay, humans do have a natural propensity to couple and nest. In fact, one might argue, as many have for straight males, that "coupling" is a stabilizing factor in one's life.

So bloody hell, let eveyone couple as is our natural tendency. I really can't "see" what others see. Allowing gay coupling is somehow going to effect the fact that 40% of kids in this country are born out of wedlock? That must be the gays fault as well? I mean it can get utterly silly if you let logic guide you. And while I do not mean to disparage anyone's personal religious beleifs or the religious right specifically, but the "sledgehammer of logic" in public policy is hard not to use in these cases.

My personal opinion, not that of MWP or any of its affiliates.

As far as anyone's personal religious beliefs or the religious right specifically, my answer there is the same as on the abortion issue: if your religious beliefs say don't do it, then don't do it. But that's not a good basis for the laws that everyone, including those whose religious beliefs don't agree with yours, has to obey.

I support the governments involvement related to protecting human rights, including sexual orientation and gender identification differences.

I don't support any level of government involvement in establishing what is normal and abnormal, or write or wrong, regarding sexual relationships or gender issues.

This is a personal choice issue and we need to encourage tolerance and safeguard the human rights of all.

All crimes are "Hate Crimes"...I have yet to see a "Love Crime " !! Most crime is a state issue..keep the Feds out of it !!

Homosexuality is an unnatural, Corrupt and Perverted lifestyle and it's proponents work diligently to corrupt our youth in Public Schools..

All sex should be a private thing, and "Gay Relationships" need Psychotherapy and GOD!!

The MWP represents the moderate and tolerant.
Your unconstrucive and hateful diatribe is not welcome on these forums.
If you're not willing to participate in a constructive and progressive manner then don't bother posting.

My church says same-gender marriage is fine. "Marriage" and "matrimony" are religious terms. No government imprimatur is needed or valid. Churches that don't like my church should come up with their own rules, but they must stop short of dictating canons and dogma to others.

James W. Eckland,
All of which is, of course, your opinion. Fortunately, there is no factual or logical support for your opinion, so it is unlikely to be adopted by the MWP.

I don't understand why states should be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation? It seems like this would count as governing based on a certain religions, which is unconstitutional and wrong. This would also be against the 14th amendment which requires all states to extend equal rights to all people, and requires the Congress to enforce it if the states don't comply.

i agree wholeheartedly rd. this issue can & will drive away people. my thinking on this matter is simple. the bible describes "marriage" as the union of man & woman, and this is the traditional slant on that word. in order to provide similar rights to the gay community, the word "civil union" was made. why not just leave it at that? both would have equal billing under the law, with the same rights & benefits. anything past that upsets most people in "straight" community, and quite frankly, any pushing from gay community to use the word marriage, is construed by most moderate christians as insulting. legalized civil unions in all states..absolutely.

I completely agree Clint. I'm bisexual personally, and at the moment I'm dating another man again. But to me the whole 'gay marriage' debate misses the point. The government really had no business getting involved in marriage at all or creating special protections for certain groups no matter how well intentioned. What exactly is the point of government recognition of *hetero* marriage at this point, anyway? It's obviously not for procreation since sterile couples can marry (yes there's blood tests, but still). Property? That can be done through private contracts, it's just harder. It really strikes me as unnecessary and arbitrary on so many levels.

The thing is, the word "marriage" applies to two different, but overlapping, things. One is the religious institution. The other is the civil institution. One does not have to get married within a religion in order to get legally married, though many do so, often just for the sake of appearances. All gays are asking for is the extension of the civil institution to same-sex unions, which would meet constitutional requirements for equal protection. Civil unions not only would not be the same, but would complicate civil law, to no advantage to anyone except lawyers.

Christians need to learn to differentiate between their religious beliefs and civil law.

There is no good reason why the person whom you are closest with cannot be by your deathbed, inherit your property, collect your life insurance, and share in the fruits if a mutual financial situation (i.e. the money each earns towards health insurance). Regardless of one's sexual preference, just stop and think for a second if you were not capable of doing those very important things in a place you consider home. While I feel this matter should be left up to the states, it is sad that a person might have to move several hundred miles away from the place they call home to be and share with the most important person in their life.

As a gay man, I agree that government has no business being in the marriage business. As others have pointed out, call them all "domestic unions," and leave marriage up to the churches, who would be left free to marry (or not marry) whomever they wish. However, I am frustrated in the fact that far more attention has been paid (here and elsewhere) to gay marriage over workplace nondiscrimination, which, IMO, is far more pressing of an issue. I need to be assured that I won't be fired or discriminated against in the workplace far more than I need to be married. So, I would ask that this category be expanded to something like "Same-Sex Issues," rather than the far more narrow "Same-Sex Relationships." I also agree that while states' rights is a generally better approach, we do have national laws for a reason, including protecting the basic rights of the minority. I hope the Modern Whigs will modify their stance accordingly.

Taking a stand is what is right. While economic and foreign policy issues may be subjective and fuzzy, it is wrong to have the government discriminate on what benefits to give to people based on the sex of the parties. It is bigotry and we should do our best to remove it from the state.

It is wrong for the government to force someone to give a clump of cells the same rights as a born human, and allow businesses to deny insurance coverage for medical procedures.

The sexual acts that occur between two consenting adults is none of my concern and the government should protect these civil rights matters. This entire issue appears to be one of attempting to force religious-based preferences of what “marriage” is to be and what types of relationships are permitted on the American people as a whole. If you disagree then please let me know “What is your non-religious case against same sex relationships?", “What is your non-religious case against gay marriage?”, and "What is your non-religious case against prohibiting sexual orientation based discrimination?".

The Whig response to same sex relationships appears to admit that no such federal case can be made to prohibit the civil rights of individuals based on sexual orientation, so it would pass the issue along to the state level. At this state level what the Whig stance above calls “local values” is really just code for religious based discrimination that can be more easily applied when the federal government has agreed not to interfere. Civil rights should NOT be decided at the state level.

The Whig stance above also fails in not perceiving that having benefits for opposite-sex relationships that are denied to same-sex relationships IS an attack on individuals based on their sexual preference. We should not be talking about “gay” rights and “straight” rights, but rather we should be advocating individual rights that are not inherently biased by arbitrary factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, etc. In my opinion, this is true regardless of whether we are talking about actions on the federal or the state level.

We should add that we want to pass the respect for marriage act, which will repeal DOMA and allow over 1,100 federal benefits to same sex couples.

Echoing comments above:

Take the word "marriage" out of the legal lexicon...it is a loaded word for too many people. Let anyone (of consenting age) who wants to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership. Let religions have their faith-based marriage and whatever that entails and who they want to allow to be married in their respective church, temple, mosque, etc.

Personally I don't believe homosexuality is a "lifestyle" choice...it is the way the person was born, period...just like having green eyes is not a lifestyle choice.

Well, I am the original author of the "push to a more local level" for the issue of abortion.

Frankly, I dont see abortion as any sort of a Constitutional issue at all.

Rights of adult citizens, however, are a different matter altogether.

But the document doesnt explicitly say that. So, how do we handle that, legislatively? To my simple mind, its easy, we eliminate DOMA and agree that the Constitution ought be agnostic to sex, PERIOD.

In government circles, what I have with my wife ought be a union. What is so strange about a certificate of domestic union?

We really need to get over this issue and get "real" with one another. When I see the con side, as in the post above, I realize that we need to push some of citizens to get into the 21st century. Not to give short shift to their religious beliefs, only to not institutionalize them where they do not belong, as in governance.

DONT TREAD ON ME! LET ME BE FREE!

Means you have to let everyone be free man. Its an absolute. And when it isnt viewed as such, the Republic pays for it, i.e., we ALL do.

And that is a rifleshot into understanding prejudice. TO MD Bucks point, from a place of fostering either understanding or prejudice, it seems to my mind ( not MWP) that putting the discussion into politics can actually CAUSE prejudice. It has been proven that the more insular a sub population is, the more they are discriminated against.

If we could all agree that the Constitution protects all citizens rights, gay rights, then we're on our way. It will still require some state interpretation, like gun ownership. And like gun ownership there has been some relaxing of the absolute right, leaving some discretion to the state. Too much in some recent SCOTUS cases.

Unsure how it would play out on this issue, but I think we should endeavor to make it play.

Imho, we need to get real on it. And if MWP loses potential supporters who feel that we're wrong,or immoral as I've been called,I say GodSpeed to you. MWP is attempting to create a very clear picture of what it will take to Wright the Republic. Discrimination against each other is not the right answer. We need to move forward, not backward.

For starters, I am personally in favor of extending the right to marry to same-sex couples. Regarding the party's stance, it seems inconsistent to say attacks based on sexual orientation should be treated differently but follow it up by saying your neighbor's sexual orientation is no one's business. Anyone who gets attacked should be able to seek equal justice under the law. Why is sexual orientation considered a key factor in violent crime but it's an arbitrary factor regarding affirmative action? Lastly, if same-sex marriage is best left to the states to sort out, why would we want to make crimes around a person's sexual orientation a federal issue?

Indeed Bendel, the pretzel logic of it all comes thru clearly in your comment.

So, the question I have for all is this (and I have changed my mind on this issue, which is called waffling by the media, I like to consider it enlightenment, or in my personal context, the pursuit of orenda ) is how can we MWP re-frame the discussion?

According to NPR this am, The President's spin-meisters are using gay citizens as their wedge to oppose the opponent and divide the population. The opponents have done it as well, likely more frequently. ( especially here in NY were Rep/TP is a common union. Frankly, it blows up in their faces time and time again, but they cant help themselves) BTW, it tells me the President and the Dems are scared as hell. And they ought be.

Even though I can appreciate a handsome man, I am terminally straight, so the issue may not have saliency for me, in the interest of full disclosure. I also realize that the nation's population is almost evenly split on this issue, as reported by NRP anyway. So part of me doesnt want to drag MWP thru the barbed wire for nothing. ( most moral issues run 50/50 it seems)

But you know what? Maybe, just maybe MWP can be a vanguard here. When I see the C-in-C using it as a political lever, as the RP/TP folks tried to do here, it frankly upsets me. I still harbor a deep, personal, and salient prejudice for demogouges. Like my uncontrollable attraction to females, I cant change it.

What we can maybe effect is the debate itself. And maybe in that, we can help bring about some enlightenment amongst the other 50%, and more importantly, stop using gay citizens as the sacrificial sheep for political means. FN gauche that is.

IMHO, its like gun rights. It may be gross to some of you, but I really dig machinery, esp machinery that shoots. My secret lust is an MG42. Not because I want to harm anyone, only becuase I truly dig the engineering of that firearm. And its unobtainable, adding to its lust. ( I touched one in 5th Groups armory once, and fell in love)

I will often link the two rights as in, " you are talking to a gun carrying, gay union supporting, fiscal conservative that beleives in a strong safety net and a redirect of our nation's education system at the same time we rebuild our domestic economy." Depending on audience I will sometimes use colloquialisms.

Juxtapostions.

Thougths please , not on your personal beliefs ( unless as above they can illustrate Constitutional linkages) or my personal beleifs ( I am a freak) regarding the issue, but specifically on how we can REFRAME the issue, to redirect the dialougue.

I like linking free-to-be-gay and gun owner rights as both Constitutionally protected as a use of juxtapostion which may effect enlightenment. Somehow I think an ugly scarred guy like me ought do a public service commercial about how the glorious Constitution protects all our rights, even those of folks who you may not agree with, as I am cleaning one of my A4s and end by saying... Gay citizens have the same rights you do, and they've died protecting the Constitution and your freedoms as many have, and then drop the slide for effect, " Be a real American, and a true Patriot".

Disarming, isnt it?

In a global sense, I do beleive a primary function of MWP is to make folks question precedent, it's framing, and then re-framing of issues. We ougth be pushing the dialectic process at every junction.

Right? Wrong? Thoughts? I know folks like stories. Can we craft a story to tell?

BTW, I dont see the logic in "hate crimes". They're all hate crimes arent they? We had an incident locally where a young man was cajoled into suicide by the viral spread of word of his homosexuality. That's hateful man, by definition. Two years back, a young gay man was killed by a group of marauders. Wasn't the money honey.

In case y'all didnt know what it feels like to be a Black American circa 1960. There it is.

To my mind's eye, the need to label something a hate crime points to a cognitive and logical dissonance in our view of gay citizens and other sub-groups.

So slave men were considered 2/5ths of a "real man". What are gay men now considered? Because it isnt quite 100%.

That 2/5ths of a man lie against Constitutional protections instigated the most bloody conflict our Nation has ever fought. If that isnt a lesson in not bending that Document to fit ones needs, I dont know what is.

The quicker we make its protections REAL, the better off our Republic will be.

Or another way, current policies are unsustainable.

Does this require the addition of a phrase to the 14th? Or is it simply a matter of a Reed v Reed case where it's issue is orientation as opposed to gender?

I support equal rights regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference.

I think what people are having trouble getting past is the word MARRIAGE. Marriage is not a "religious" word for civil unions. It IS a civil union, or legal contract that makes two people kin to one another. Whether it's done before a priest or pastor or rabbi or what have you, or before a judge at the courthouse, it's all the same from a legal standpoint.

And I don't think it's necessary to adjust the language from gay "marriage" to "civil union" because that in itself is suggesting that marriage is somehow different from a civil union. It's not. No, really, it's not.

I think the part up for real debate within the MWP is whether it should be left up to the state or federal government. My thought is this: While the federal government does not explicitly say anything to support or contradict this, it's evident that marriage is a civil right under articles of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Were this not an issue of civil liberties, there might be some power for the states to decide how things are handled, but this isn't the case with issues of civility. Now, churches and synagogues have the right to not perform marriage ceremonies (just as restaurants once banned people of color), but that is not a legal issue. The legalities lie in same-sex couples not being able to apply for a marriage license, be recognized by the government as a legally married couple, and receive the same health and financial benefits and protections as a straight couple would.

I really do think that banning same-sex couples from a legal civil union - with all the rights and rewards traditional couples receive - IS discrimination. Remember how interracial marriage used to be treated? How is this any different?

I understand this is a touchy subject for some. I just don't understand why. Ok, so you don't like the idea of same-sex marriage. Ok, so you think homosexuality is a sin. How does that affect YOU, personally? It makes you mad? I'm willing to bet a lot of things make you mad, but it doesn't mean you should treat others with such disdain because you're uncomfortable.

This really should not be an issue. Personal preference and religious doctrine should have no baring on what is RIGHT from a legal, constitutional perspective. If we must further draw out the details of what the 14th Amendment is all about, so those who wish to discriminate can continue to be shut down, then so be it.

BTW, Thain, while The Constitution does not explicitly address this, DOMA does.

SO again, if we propose deep sixing DOMA, what then???? Inquiring minds want to know. If I am to truly be the MWP point man in NY, I need all the ammo y'all can give me.

Gene - your challenge to craft a story is a good one. Maybe it turns out to be an epic tale or instead a library full of short stories with a common theme. Over 50 years ago my parents -- one Catholic, the other Protestant -- caught grief for wanting to marry. My wife and I technically have an interracial marriage, and just a year or two ago didn't someone (Louisiana county clerk?) lose his post for denying a permit to an interracial couple? Amazing and sad that type of discrimination can still exist.

Changing gears a bit, on one hand I agree with the points being made about "civil unions" vs. "marriages." Perhaps that's the right approach. But it also makes me feel uneasy. Couldn't you imagine an uproar if your state said it was going to henceforth refer to all its present married couples as "civil unions" instead of "marriages"? It's only hypothetical, but I could see a very strong push back not from bigots or religious zealots, but from "traditionalists" who don't want the state to change how it refers to their current union/marriage.

Wish I had a better answer.

Or maybe a better question, as I am unsure we as MWP can solve this denial of basic rights but maybe we can ask a better question to reframe the discussion, to wit, and in light of Bendel's story,

REFRAME **

What if we were to consider gay citizens as a RACE?

You were born white, or born black, or born gay. None of which that gloriously colorblind ( if WE make it!!!) document, Our Constitution, can 'see'.

Maybe MWP ought spearhead that debate. Is being born gay ( implicit acknowledgement there), identical to being born a certain race?

And I must say this publicly again, my deep concern is not particularly for our gay citizens, nor for our gun-toting citizens (me!), but for the strength and sustainability of our Republic, and for refining ( or wrighting as I like to call it) that Republic to a place where more of us can experience the Promise of America.

Now, color me "queer', but the union I made with my wife of over twenty years had nothing to do with the state or a permit or any other human being. I dont give a rats arse what y'all or anyone calls it, or what the paper says. It should NOT matter a lick.

Heaven is where the heart is. Its also where your marriage vows lay. The state ougth ONLY have the right to call it a union , for EVERYONE. MY opinion, not offical MWP. Yet. ;o)