'Burn their F---ing Churches, Then Tax The Charred Timbers'

Sonnabend · 11-07-2008, 08:43 AM

If we think of LP as a blue-dog Democrat (LP..you know what I mean, don't you?) his approach makes sense.

Joe Lieberman is a Democrat..yet he commands a lot of respect. I've had the time to give LP the benefit of a few doubts..Eyelids he is not.

**noonwitch** · 11-07-2008, 09:59 AM

What is really the difference between a civil union and a marriage, other than the whole opposite gender thing, if the government licenses one for gays and the other for straights? Do both have IRS status? Legal standing in medical decisions, ability to buy into a partner's health care plan at a lower, family rate? Adoption of kids as a couple and not as separate single adults?

It's just words. People would call the ceremony a marriage if civil unions were to be made legal in Michigan, although that's highly unlikely in light of the proposition that passed in 2004.

The only difference I can see is that children are physically born into many straight relationships. Biological fathers/mothers have custody issues if the other parent discovers he or she is gay and living with a same-sex partner.

Aside from that, anyone who is making statements like "Burn their churches" is not really helping his cause out very much.

**LogansPapa** · 11-07-2008, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Goldwater

Is it me or did you take a dive in certain directions on some issues lately?

I don’t know about ‘taking a dive’ ( a boxing related metaphor for throwing a fight ), but I’m torn. I guess I want a related issue two ways and I don’t know where the compromise is located.

I want gays to be as happy/miserable as any other couples - allowed to raise orphan kids and such, but - I don’t want the beautiful traditions of various religions from around the world and brought up through history to be pissed on from a great height.

This should be a religious issue - done within the confines of a church, temple, synagogue, etc. and taken out of the hand of the state. I also believe the federal government should give exactly equal recognition of individuals regarding taxes - whether they be single or married.

**wilbur** · 11-07-2008, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by LogansPapa

I don’t know about ‘taking a dive’ ( a boxing related metaphor for throwing a fight ), but I’m torn. I guess I want a related issue two ways and I don’t know where the compromise is located.

I want gays to be as happy/miserable as any other couples - allowed to raise orphan kids and such, but - I don’t want the beautiful traditions of various religions from around the world and brought up through history to be pissed on from a great height.

This should be a religious issue - done within the confines of a church, temple, synagogue, etc. and taken out of the hand of the state. I also believe the federal government should give exactly equal recognition of individuals regarding taxes - whether they be single or married.

Personally, I think the whole hang up over the term marriage is a red herring. The religious objection to gay marriage has less to do with the term and much more to do with the idea that their government recognizes homosexual relationships as legitimate. Whether the term "marriage" is used to denote the relationships, it doesn't really change the fact that those types of relationships would be officially condoned... and all the social and spiritual ills that they imagine befalling society if such relationships are condoned and recognized by government, will still, in fact, befall society. In other words, God will still be displeased with us.... and as long as that is true, it will be their mission to fix it. Compromise on the term is fine with me, but I don't think tensions or the conflict will be resolved in any way by doing so.

**Lager** · 11-07-2008, 03:15 PM

So, if civil unions or other euphemisms already confer the same rights, what are they fighting for? What lack of rights are gay citizens protesting in LA?

**aerojarod** · 11-07-2008, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Lager

So, if civil unions or other euphemisms already confer the same rights, what are they fighting for? What lack of rights are gay citizens protesting in LA?

Exactly.

They can essentially guarantee themselves all the same rights given to Married hetersexuals thru existing legal channels: Power of Attourney, Revokable Living Trusts, etc. This isn't about equal rights. It's about getting public validation of their personal behavior.

**Lager** · 11-07-2008, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by aerojarod

Exactly.

They can essentially guarantee themselves all the same rights given to Married hetersexuals thru existing legal channels: Power of Attourney, Revokable Living Trusts, etc. This isn't about equal rights. It's about getting public validation of their personal behavior.

I have to agree with you. I don't know any other way to see it.

**wilbur** · 11-07-2008, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by aerojarod

Exactly.

They can essentially guarantee themselves all the same rights given to Married hetersexuals thru existing legal channels: Power of Attourney, Revokable Living Trusts, etc. This isn't about equal rights. It's about getting public validation of their personal behavior.

The fight is about national change, not statewide change. States are just the current path for which they are trying to bring about change at the national level. Its a problem when all those rights go away when you cross the border into a neighboring state.