Skip to main content

View Diary: Huckabee: Gay Marriage Would End Civilization (491 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  See Also: Louis XIV Shacked Up In Versailles. (10+ / 0-)

      ...Operation Rota is Closed... New Blog Coming Soon With Pictures!...

      by nowheredesign on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:47:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So If I Get This Right (14+ / 0-)

      Rape is ok, but gay marriage will end the world.  What a very strange way of thinking.  I don't think I want to live in his civilization.

      I do not like thee, Doctor Fell, The reason why I cannot tell; But this I know, and know full well, I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.

      by opinionated on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:58:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I dunno (6+ / 0-)

      The political entity called "the Confederate States of America" is gone, but the values for which it stood seem to be on the ascendancy in the Republican party.  I offer Mike Huckabee as Exhibit A to support this assertion.

    •  On. The. Money. Great diary, too...nt (0+ / 0-)

      Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

      by oldpro on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:30:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Civil Unions Should Be Universal (9+ / 0-)

      You've got it right, but it doesn't go far enough. One of the first things to cross the seperation barrier between church and state that affected everyone was when married couples started getting special treatment from the IRS for being married. In my opinion the recognition of a religious sacrement like marriage has no business being recognized by government as a special category with priveleges in the tax code. I believe all things currently recognized with priveledges by the government for being married (taxes, inheritance laws, insurance benefits, etc.) should all be covered universally by civil unions. Marriage should be removed from the government vocabulary as the province of the religious. And all marriages, liscenses, legal privileges of those currently married should be converted to a secular definition of those benefits. They would still be married but that would just be something recognized within that faith.

      Marriage should be and remain a sacrament recognized by the church you belong to and every church should have the ability to decide how they determine the definition of marriage for their congregation and ONLY their congregation. If you don't believe their way then don't belong to that church. If a church decides to recognize same-sex marriage or not - that is only an issue for that church and those paritioners.

      On the other hand the use of civil unions that would replace marriage in all statutes should include same-sex unions, traditional unions, polyamorous unions, and any other configurations that do not violate federal or local laws. This would seem to satisfy both sides of the equation. It would provide for equal and fair treatment under the law and would also preserve the sanctity of the religious beliefs of those who hold those beliefs. It would also allow more flexibility in religious beliefs due to each denomination being able to decide for themselves what constitutes a sacrement to them. So far this is the best solution I've been able to come up with.

      Patriotic Dissent Graphix


      by Patriotic Dissent Graphix on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:34:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The problem is... (4+ / 0-)

        The religious denominations don't want to decide for themselves only, they want to decide for you as well.

        The post above btw is very similar to the situation in a number of European countries, where religious people get married twice, once "for the law" and once "for the church".

        •  Civil Unions would be fine by me but only if... (0+ / 0-)

          there were indeed such a paradigm shift (sorry, overused catch-phrase) within our society as described above, where a Civil Union was completely separate from religious marriage, i.e. you didn't get the benefits of a Civil Union by just getting married in the church but actually had to go through the separate process to have the Civil Union recognized by the gov't.
          Otherwise, the problem comes back to the whole "separate but equal" thing that our society has already proven doesn't work.

      •  Should civil unions be limited to two adults? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alice Venturi

        How about three or more?  What should the tax implications be?  I don't have a favorite answer to those questions myself; I'm inviting brainstorming.

        The IRS rules on joint tax returns bite off a big chunk of this controversy.  The rules on being a 'head of household' and on claiming someone as a dependent, on the other hand, don't seem to generate any controversy.  

        We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is just a setting on the dryer.

        by david78209 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 05:03:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I did mention Polyamorous Unions (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alice Venturi, david78209

          and I think the tax laws used for corporate income pooling could be used pretty effictively for those types of unions if they were modified a little. Just pairings are already completely covered no matter the combination. I know the IRS codes could be modified to make all of this work. And if a consumption tax was installed instead of the current system or if a flat tax on income were used the issue would pretty much resolve itself.

          When I was working for a major telecom company friends were trying to get the labor union to fight for same sex insurance benefits. Their excuse at the time was the issue of changing partners with no legal obligations making it impossible to keep up with who should be covered and insurance fraud (ie the movie Chuck and Larry). This obviously fell into the stereotype of promiscuous unfeeling indiscriminate changing of partners. But the bedrock issue was that with no legally binding way to define a partner then the insurance company was unable to defend themselves and still give proper service to those needing it. This was in 1999 and many companies have now found a way to deal with this issue positively, but change is slow. Maybe pushing for a "paradigm shift" to all unions legally recognized being civil unions would be a better direction for change than in trying to convice people they need to open their sacrament against their will to people they disaprove of. It may meet less resistance and at the same time would help rebuild the wall of Seperation of Church and State.

          Patriotic Dissent Graphix


          by Patriotic Dissent Graphix on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 07:42:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm reminded of the situation in Mexico (0+ / 0-)

            In Mexico people getting married, at least for the first time, usually have two weddings.  One is a civil marriage, similar to getting married in the court house by a judge in this country, that makes you legally married.  The other is a church wedding (almost always Catholic), with the big ceremony conducted by a priest, that makes you married in the eyes of God, or at least the eyes of the church.  Mexico has civil divorce and remarriage, though they're nowhere near civil unions for same-sex couples.
            Mexico is so adamant about that aspect of separation of church and state that they won't let a priest or minister do the little bit of civil paperwork to make the marriage legal.  (I think that's a leftover from the revolution of 1910-1921, in which the Catholic church sided with a faction that lost.)

            Anyway, there's something to be said for having such a strict separation of the civil and religious sides of marriage.  The Catholic church doesn't usually like divorce (though sometimes it gets the church OK, dressed up as annulment) but Mexico adopted civil divorce anyway.  If Mexico ever wanted same sex civil unions, they'd already have a strong precedent for church and state using different rules for marriage.

            We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is just a setting on the dryer.

            by david78209 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:25:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  And this family business (7+ / 0-)

      I don't understand why I am less capable of having a family simply by the virtue of the fact that I happen to be gay.  There was a society once upon a time that believed that people of different races couldn't make a family, or people of different religions, or people of different economic backgrounds, and so on, and so forth.  The only true tradition of marriage and family is that over the ages, those have expanded to include more diversity, not less.  Marriage equality for LGBT Americans is only the logical next step.

      "The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD

      by deaniac83 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:42:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site