MCCAIN'S APPEAL TO "EVANGELICALS" AND THE FATE OF PROPOSITION 8 IN CALIFORNIA

[Hazumu]

Posted by Jerry Maneker at 12:05 AM

A CHRISTIAN VOICE FOR GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER RIGHTS

To the degree that these people with a reactionary mind-set will more likely go to the polls to vote for McCain, it's to that degree that more people will vote in favor of Proposition 8! The unfortunate fact is that the "evangelicals" and reactionaries who would vote for McCain are not only likely to vote in favor of Proposition 8, but have shown themselves to be far more organized and mobilized than are "liberals," as we saw in the 2004 Presidential election. [For example, see here.]

[...]

I'm afraid that without more aggressive education and activism to counteract the effects of increasing numbers of "evangelicals" who are likely to go to the polls in November in California, the consequences may well spell doom for the future of same-sex marriage both in California and in most all of the other states in the U.S. as well.

[lisagurl]

same-sex marriage

The slick politics are in the word marriage. Nothing in the constitution mentions marriage so Obama will veto any such proposal including heterosexual marriage. Marriage could be considered a religious term like baptismal certificate.

The fight might end when all legal documents replace the word marriage with civil union contract as did the birth certificate. So all unions between different sexes and same sex will be issued a civil union document from the Government. If you also want a marriage document then you need to get it at a church.

[soldierjane]

same-sex marriage

The slick politics are in the word marriage. Nothing in the constitution mentions marriage so Obama will veto any such proposal including heterosexual marriage. Marriage could be considered a religious term like baptismal certificate.

The fight might end when all legal documents replace the word marriage with civil union contract as did the birth certificate. So all unions between different sexes and same sex will be issued a civil union document from the Government. If you also want a marriage document then you need to get it at a church.

True, and it would be a good way out to appease the church lumpen in the US. However, it's arguable that since the liberal revolutions of the 18th century "marriage" is not a religious-only word anymore and it's unfair to just give away all its deep meaning in the collective psyche to one sector of the population only (even if the majority). When getting married, heterosexual couples get a marriage certificate which defines their standing in regards to society at large and the economics of the nation. Religious ceremony or not, this is codified in laws. Often I think that we confuse "marriage" with religion-dependent terms such as "priest", "preacher" or "nun". It hasn't been so for centuries now, whatever the fundamentalists in the US might say.
"Marriage" is union, nurturing, strength (in theory, of course ); "civil union" is an obscure term signifying nothing, therefore adopting it exclusively for same-sex couples is the same as saying they deserve less than marriage.
Still, a good first step though.

[RebeccaFog]

There are some churches that have no problem with same sex marriage. So, if you made an amendment on [swearword] religious grounds or from the point of view of any one church or group of churches, you would be trampling on the rights of other churches.


TRAMPLING, I TELLS YOU!

I happen to be a part of the Unitarian Universalists who have NO issue with same sex marriage. When you go to a pride, you also tend to see other churches marching on behalf of that right. Also, no one is going to take marriage away from people in Massachusetts. It's been around a few years. A few more years and it will be just another part of the culture.

Liberals do need better organization.