<p>Interestedad: You said:"how do the words 'under God' hurt me" in speaking of the pledge of allegiance. How does not having "under God" in the pledge hurt those that are religious? Christians and any other religion in this country have all the freedom in the world to beleive in their God, pray, practice their faith, ect. Why does it have to be advertised in places that are publically funded by non-Christians as well as Christians. WHy does it have to be shoved down non-Christians throats. Just as you don't like the word "freshperson" being shoved down your throat, I don't like a God I don't believe in being shoved down my throat every time I want to recite our pledge to be patriotic. I don't have to believe in that God, or any God for that matter, to be patriotic. If a person beleives in their heart that this country is united "under God", that's great! Feel it, believe it in your heart. Not having it in the pledge doesn't contradict that belief. But, for those of us who don't believe this country is united under any specific God, it DOES directly contradict our beliefs. That's not fair or just if the pledge is to truly represent ALL the people. WHo do we think we are? People who think those who believe in the judeo/christian God need to "respect the fact that it is importan to people's beliefs" not to have to mix someone elses relgious beliefs into our patriotic beliefs.</p>
<p>Grammy: Fight the battle. Just remember that fighting that battle is not going to win elections. So while you are fighting the battle, remember that, in doing so, you are also making it more difficult to get your guys elected or take back Senate seats or hang onto governorships.</p>
<p>To me, it is a total non-issue. I'd rather see the Democratic party spend its efforts devising a winning game plan instead of focusing on the agenda of a very, very tiny fringe constituency.</p>
<p>IT IS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOCUSING ON THIS!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S THE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE WASTING TIME AND MONEY ON THIS ISSUE! JOHN KERRY AND MOST OTHER D's AVOIDED THIS ISSUE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THE REPUBLICANS ARE BRINGING IT UP.</p>
<p>Because its a winner. Many people have strong views on this issue and will vote Republican even if solely based on this issue.</p>
<p>Of course the Republicans are bringing it up! They are playing to the fears in the electorate that the Dems are out of touch, "anti-God", and every other evil on earth.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example. In many ways, the most effective pitch against George Bush had to do with the prospect of Supreme Court justices. But, when court judges in "blue" states like Massachusetts unilaterally approve "gay marriage" against the expressed wishes of the voters, it totally pulls the rug out from under the issue. Voters, quite reasonably, start asking themselves: which would be worse, Bush judges or Kerry judges?</p>
<p>Of course the Republicans are going to do things that highlight the other party's biggest weakness. That's just smart politics.</p>
<p>So what do you want the Dems to do, cave and agree? Might as well have one party then.</p>
<p>True garland. What I'm saying is not just accept the status quo, what I am saying is be smart. Any person with half a brain, and knowing that the "Architect" was willing to pounce on such a controversial issue, would have shut the hell up until the election was over. </p>
<p>Let me tell you all what I got from watching the TV. These people come off as a bunch of looney nutjobs, the same kind of dumbdumbs that shout "no blood for oil" and similar garbage. What do they come off as? Rabble, uneducated, fanatic, unorganized. Apparently in the Holocaust the people we are talking about were killed along with many of my people. So, recognizing that these people need to be free too and shared in my people's misfortune, I say that they need to be smart and realistic. They should take some pointers from MLK and Ghandi.</p>
<p>I will say it again, I am glad that they got this setback. There needs to be a mass movement of public education before you start fing around with laws and demanding extra "benefits" or "rights." What happened? Stupid Massachussetts decided to go against Federal law and the rest of the country slapped them silly in 2004. Besides, how many people want marriage or civil unions? From what it appears, due again to the lack of public education and consciousness-raising, that not many people are for this. I don't mean people in general, but GLAD-geared audiences.</p>
<p>Well, not only did these organizations get slapped in the elections, they will probably get slapped again in the Supreme Court and in getting a constitutional amendment passed. Congrats. You f'ed over the people you sought to help. Bush, Cheney, and other conservatives thank you. Seriously, though, Democrats better get their [replace word with curse word] garbage together soon. Well I'll try really hard to leave it at that.</p>
<p>Amen concerneddad and emsibdn</p>
<p>Most people today view marriage as something between a man and a woman. To argue semantics about this is being unreasonable. This is a traditional accepted definition. We are now being asked to change this definition. Anytime a population is asked to change a longstanding situation, there is going to be balking. And so we have the issue fo gay marriage. Whether we change our perspective on marriage to include same sex individuals or come up with another term for commitment that marriage entails is going to be under a lot of discussion. And there will be a financial cost if the protection and benefits of marriage are extended to same sex couples. I believe this is something that is going to have to go through the courts, and may go through the courts repeatedly.</p>
<p>As for providing for legal and financial protection, currently same sex couples should visit an attorney to get a living will and estate planning advice including a will. As should all of us who have some preferences that may not fall in line with the law. Most issues can be resolved this way. If you prefer your partner to be the one making medical decisions for you, inheriting your money, making funeral arrangements, you need to stipulate this. And this is not just for same sex couples. If you do not want your next of kin to be named in the absence of your ability to choose, you had better make these designations.</p>
<p>"Whether we change our perspective on marriage to include same sex individuals or come up with another term for commitment that marriage entails is going to be under a lot of discussion. And there will be a financial cost if the protection and benefits of marriage are extended to same sex couples. I believe this is something that is going to have to go through the courts, and may go through the courts repeatedly."</p>
<p>Not only are they entitled to this cost, the government has spent far more money on trying to ban it that anything. It's not about finances.</p>
<p>In many states, 55 years ago (or even less), marriage was defined as being only between individuals of the same race. Folks (many of them the same folks, or their ancestors) quoted from the same holy book, with the same language about social evils, and what their Creator intended. They ranted and raved that if races could intermingle in marriage, what was to stop people from marrying monkeys (?!)</p>
<p>What I think most people are missing underneath this whole business is the fierce misogyny (my opinion) and misogynist agenda of the leading anti-gay fundamentalists. If you don't know what I'm talking about, tune into Dobson's "Focus on the Family" some time.</p>
<p>First of all, I'm all for gay marriage. To me, it's just like abortion: abortion is a WOMAN'S choice, and NO ONE ELSE'S because it only affects WOMEN (let's not get into an abortion debate, though). Just as gay marriage only affects gay people, so it shouldn't even be up for debate.</p>
<p>Secondly, citing the Bible as a case against gay marriage is wrong. Actually, it almost works against you. Much of the first part of the Bible talks of polygamists (i.e. guys with many wives), and much of the second part discourages marriage all together. So not only does the Bible inadvertently approve of polygamy, but it also overtly and completely disapproves of marriage.</p>
<p>Lastly, since we do live in the USA, we simply CAN NOT deny people ANY RIGHT, because that would be INHERENTLY HYPOCRITICAL. Our nation was founded on the ideals of freedom and other such rights, so to deny the right of marriage to any group of people would be a gross violation of the ideas on which this nation was founded.</p>
<p>There is, however, one thing that I am conflicted about: calling a "union" between a gay couple a "marriage." Until reading through all of these posts, I didn't see the big deal with it. Now, however, I see that the TERM "marriage" (not the idea) is defined as between a man and a woman. Placing this term on unions between gay couples would be kind of like going out for Mexican food and being served Chinese food- it just doesn't fit the definition. Maybe a new term should be made that denotes a union between a gay couple. This term was also coined by the church, so they should ultimately be able to say what constitutes a marriage and what doesn't.</p>
<p>An excert from an article I read:</p>
<p>"To the casual voter, the proposal would appear to be a simple issue for Georgians to decide: 'Shall the constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of a man and a woman?'</p>
<p>The second section reads: 'No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage.'</p>
<p>Opponents of the measure, however, claim the presentation is misleading and illegal. Simply put, they say, its a trick.</p>
<p>They say voters will only see the first part of the proposed amendment, but not the second paragraph which they fear would also ban civil unions and any legal benefits.</p>
<p>Beth Littrell, of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, They didn't mention civil unions because they know that voters would not favor putting that into the Constitution.</p>
<p>Lawmakers who wrote the amendment say they arent trying to fool anyone. They claim the second paragraph simply prohibits Georgia from recognizing gay marriages which were allowed in other states and does not affect any legal rights, such as those already provided by many private employers.</p>
<p>Amendment co-author Sen. Mike Crotts said, "If they choose to do it, it's their choice, and government shouldn't be telling them, an employee, what they can do with an employee. That's a relationship between them."</p>
<p>It's the same thing that I have said all along, he added, that they're trying to get the court to do what they could not accomplish in the legislative process.</p>
<p>Drenner countered, I think that using the courts to stop an issue that is clearly unconstitutional is within the realm of every citizen.</p>
<p>Calidan, I'm somewhat curious as to your expertise on what the Bible does and does not endorse. Have you actually read the book, or is this some factoid you dug up? The issue of polygamy and other such unsavory prospects is mentioned exclusively in the Old Testament, and exclusively in the sections agreed as historical, not moral. While the subject of homosexuality is also mentioned in these historical portions, it is also mentioned multiple times in the Old and New Testaments, all negative. The idea that the New Testament discourages marriage is somewhat perplexing to me; perhaps you could elaborate?</p>
<p>I'm not a Bible-thumper by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm honestly uncertain as to where I stand on the gay marriage issue, but when people take these questionable factoids and proudly display them as truths (on either side of the argument!), I find it troubling.</p>
<p>Interestedad: When it comes to politicians, none of them are "my people". Frankly, I don't like any of them. I'm not arguing with you about what the best campaign strategies are and the best way to get elected. Honestly, I hate all that stuff. I'm arguing with you about the specific, PERSONAL opinions you stated about how it "infuriates" you that people want to take "under God" out of the pledge. I think both searchingavalon and I rebutted you quite well on your comments, and if you are so inclined would love to hear response to my reply in that context, not in the context of how people should try to get elected.
It goes both ways, that is tolerance and respect. I show NO disrespect or lack of tolerance for ANY religion. But when I am forced to use and be represented by a pledge and money and so many other public things/buildings/practices in this country which endorse a God I do not beleive in, that is being disrespectful and intolerant of me. I'm not trying to force anyone else to use or be represented by things that endorse my spiritual beliefs. I'm simply asking that we leave religion/God/spirituality out of universal (meaning for AMerica) things so that everyone is fairly represented. Then, everyone can continue to represent themselves in their own spirituality and what not in other ways, which there are plenty of.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>What I think most people are missing underneath this whole business is the fierce misogyny (my opinion) and misogynist agenda of the leading anti-gay fundamentalists. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I'm not missing that at all. But, I'm also not missing the fact that 60% of the American voters are OK with civil unions between same-sex couples while 70% are against "gay marriage". </p>
<p>From a purely political standpoint, the road map to the next significant milestone for gay activists could not have been more clear. Good grief, both the Democratic AND Republican candidates for President came out in support of civil unions.</p>
<p>It is quite likely that both the California and Massachusetts houses could have passed civil union statutes through the course of normal legislative process and started the ball rolling. Instead, a mayor in California and a Supreme Court judge in Massachusetts took unilateral action that galavanized opposition and has now resulted in 11 ballot iniatives against gay marriage and, in several cases, civil unions as well. </p>
<p>Barney Franks, who I would view as a leading expert on gay legislative issues, feels that the Massachusetts court ruling was a major setback, forcing the issue to the front burner way before its time.</p>
<p>pookdog: I am by no means a Bible expert either. I studied it as a peice of Literature, not as a religious doctrine. But in my interpretation there is nothing in the New Testament that speaks of homosexuality being a sin; that was only in the Old Testament along with polygamy and many other things. But, I definitely could be wrong about that.
If I am, then so be it. But, there are also many other things in the New Testament that no one would dare endorse today, so why should homosexuality=sin be endorsed either.
Really, my understanding of the New Testament is that we should love God and that he will forgive us for our sins. That we should work on bettering OURSELVES, and NOT judge others. Jesus implies that we should leave the judging up to God.</p>
<p>Sorry to ask a question without reading the rest of the thread. I'm slightly confused, when they ask to legalize gay marriages - what is it they're referring to? A civil union, joined by the state? Marriage by a Christian church? Marriage by some other religion? What rights do they want, exactly...? I've been undecided as I'm not entirely clear on what exactly is being argued.</p>
<p>For me, marriage has always been something sacred. Marriage, for me, corresponds to the Church, and marriage should therefore correspond to the Church's definition of marriage, according to their discretion. As long as marriage is taken as a union joined by God, then I see no possible way for gays to marry unless the Church re-defines itself. If by marriage they mean civil unions, then by all means, can't they already? My feeling is that such marriages - to have it on paper, to pay taxes together, and so on - are already pointless in the sense of "declaring one's love." Hell, I don't think marriage by the Church should change one's economic status either. So basically, either one is married under God, or is not married at all, but joined in a civil union for legal/social/economic purposes. </p>
<p>I apologize if I make no sense, and I'd appreciate if someone would correct me and clarify.</p>
<p>"So basically, either one is married under God, or is not married at all, but joined in a civil union for legal/social/economic purposes."</p>
<p>No, based on this vote, civil unions are not allowed. That's the most infuriating thing.</p>
<p>My understanding is that the flood of gay "marriages" that occured not long ago were done to show that gay couples want the right of marrying the same as man/woman couples. I read that many gay groups feel that it is insulting that they should have to settle for a civil union. The problem with a civil union is getting it recognized with the same automatic rights as a marriage. That does cost money, and Hoo, I know that is an issue. Many benefits consultants bring up the cost of permitting same sex couples. Whether this is over stated or not is not going to be known until it happens, but, believe me, the issue is there. There are certain automatic priviliges and rights that spouses have that bear a cost that we as a society bear because we want to support marriage. Many people do not want to financially support single sex marriages the same way. I, for one, have many other things I want better financed than single sex marriages. I also suspect the way it would be financed is going to be by reducing the subsidies for all marriages, the same way car insurance rates were equalized for males and females after a major suit many years ago; the companies simply raised the rates for the females! Financial benefits for marriage from the government have come and gone with federal marriage penalities, etc</p>
<p>But to answer the OP's question of "what's the big deal?", it is a big deal to most American as polls and the way the ban on single sex marriages has been so heavily supported. It has even been suggest that the upsurge in Republican voters for this election was partially because of a backlash from this issue. People do not like the idea; it offends their sensibilities.</p>