blackjack wrote:OK, I'll be the whipping boy conservative.
My belief is that "marriage" is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are united. And should not be divided.
That said, I am for "civil unions" or whatever other term you would like to identify for gay couples or non-religious hetero couples. I believe in partner benefits, child adoption and on the flip side, alimony, custody battles and everything else that comes along with marriage, both the good and bad.
Fire away.
I don't have any problem with your position at all......could care less what it's called.
I think it's up to the individual religious organization to add the "religious" element to it.....the legal side is what need to be assured and protected.
Exactly.
Marriage is inherently religious. If churches or religions want to ban same-sex marriages, fine. That's a whole other battle. But I believe that all couples should have the ability to gain the benefits, both good and bad, of a civil union recognized under law, whether they be straight or gay.
Sometimes more than others,
we see who and what and where we are,
I'm just a one man band,
With my feet in the sand,
Tonight I just need my guitar
Marriage in America is indeed a contract — a contract that comes with more obligations than rights. Marriage is a civil right that is not now and has never been dependent upon any one religion or even religion in general for its justification, existence, or perpetuation. Marriage exists because people desire it and the community, working through the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive. At no point is religion needed or necessarily relevant.
CrznDnUS1 wrote:Second guessing or questioning something is a great thing and what keeps us honest, but someone who has the power of the media should report the news and not use it to voice their own views. That's the main issue I have with Fox News. They feel it's their duty to ram their views down my throat. I don't need Fox News or MSNBC to give me their views, just report the facts and I will decide on my own.
I do agree with you in principle. However, I have to support someone who uses their public voice to throw their support behind a cause they truly believe in that has little or no effect on their day-to-day lives. I'd be annoyed if he were ranting about higher taxes for the rich. He's using his public visibility to promote equal rights for all.
So he is going to begin actively campaigning for gay marriage ammendments in this country? Or did he just simpky take a shot at the people of CA because he could, with no intention of backing his words up with actions? Just curious. If it is the first than kudos to him. If it is the second than he should keep his trap shut.
I don't believe he has any need to do anything, and that's my point. Even if he doesn't go out and campaign for it, he had no obligation to speak his mind. Jimmy throwing his support behind Obama alienated some people, but he showed his public support because he has a public voice and at least a little bit of influence and he's using it to support what he believes to be right. Olbermann used his public voice to do the same. Some people may not like him for that, but I am pleased that he did.
He used his media presence to promote the good fight, even if he's not out there fighting it.
★ Maybe it's because in spite of all the work we do, it's the child in us we really value.
CrznDnUS1 wrote:I don't really have a stance on this one way or another but didn't the population of California just vote on this, it's really not up to the media to second guess it, although he can say what he wants. Odd thing is that the state of Connecticut just passed a law today approving gay marriage.
The bill that's up before the legislature won't be voted on until 2009, what has happened in Connecticut is the the State Supreme Court has indicated that banning gay marriages is discriminatory. So, no law yet, but movement in that direction. I'm sure there will be challenges and maybe even a California-like ballot question during the next election.
Always interesting.
Apparently there was a measure on the ballot this year to ban gay marriage, or to open the process to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. Whatever it was, it lost. One of the more interesting quotes I read concerning gay marriage in CT came from a group that is opposed to it. They said that marriage regulations are based on biology and not bigotry, referring to matters of procreation.
Take me for what I am, a star newly emerging.
I accept the new found man, and I set the twilight reeling.
another point is that even though CT now recognizes gay marriage, the federal government does not, and federal law trumps state law. There was an article in the paper here recently that was about meetings lawyers and activists were having with gay couples advising them of the restrictions that were still in place. Social security benefits, for instance, will not be paid to the surviving spouse in a gay marriage.
Take me for what I am, a star newly emerging.
I accept the new found man, and I set the twilight reeling.
blackjack wrote:OK, I'll be the whipping boy conservative.
My belief is that "marriage" is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are united. And should not be divided.
That said, I am for "civil unions" or whatever other term you would like to identify for gay couples or non-religious hetero couples. I believe in partner benefits, child adoption and on the flip side, alimony, custody battles and everything else that comes along with marriage, both the good and bad.
Fire away.
If "marriage" is only a religious sacrament, there shouldn't be any government benefits because of it. That whole separation of church and state thing....
popcornjack wrote:another point is that even though CT now recognizes gay marriage, the federal government does not, and federal law trumps state law.
It would make for an interesting Constitutional challenge ...
Article IV of the U.S. Constitution The States
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
CrznDnUS1 wrote:Second guessing or questioning something is a great thing and what keeps us honest, but someone who has the power of the media should report the news and not use it to voice their own views. That's the main issue I have with Fox News. They feel it's their duty to ram their views down my throat. I don't need Fox News or MSNBC to give me their views, just report the facts and I will decide on my own.
I do agree with you in principle. However, I have to support someone who uses their public voice to throw their support behind a cause they truly believe in that has little or no effect on their day-to-day lives. I'd be annoyed if he were ranting about higher taxes for the rich. He's using his public visibility to promote equal rights for all.
So he is going to begin actively campaigning for gay marriage ammendments in this country? Or did he just simpky take a shot at the people of CA because he could, with no intention of backing his words up with actions? Just curious. If it is the first than kudos to him. If it is the second than he should keep his trap shut.
I don't believe he has any need to do anything, and that's my point. Even if he doesn't go out and campaign for it, he had no obligation to speak his mind. Jimmy throwing his support behind Obama alienated some people, but he showed his public support because he has a public voice and at least a little bit of influence and he's using it to support what he believes to be right. Olbermann used his public voice to do the same. Some people may not like him for that, but I am pleased that he did.
He used his media presence to promote the good fight, even if he's not out there fighting it.
I disagree. Whether or not I support his stance, I do not support his use of the bully pulpit. Which is probably why I don't listen to a lot of talk radio or watch much of the talking heads on TV.
blackjack wrote:OK, I'll be the whipping boy conservative.
My belief is that "marriage" is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are united. And should not be divided.
That said, I am for "civil unions" or whatever other term you would like to identify for gay couples or non-religious hetero couples. I believe in partner benefits, child adoption and on the flip side, alimony, custody battles and everything else that comes along with marriage, both the good and bad.
Fire away.
If "marriage" is only a religious sacrament, there shouldn't be any government benefits because of it. That whole separation of church and state thing....
When we married in VA our priest told us that the marriage was actually two seperate things. There was of course the religious ceremony. But VA also gives ordained ministers of whatever faith to conduct civil ceremonies contemporaneously. So they are seperate, so to speak.
CrznDnUS1 wrote:Second guessing or questioning something is a great thing and what keeps us honest, but someone who has the power of the media should report the news and not use it to voice their own views. That's the main issue I have with Fox News. They feel it's their duty to ram their views down my throat. I don't need Fox News or MSNBC to give me their views, just report the facts and I will decide on my own.
I do agree with you in principle. However, I have to support someone who uses their public voice to throw their support behind a cause they truly believe in that has little or no effect on their day-to-day lives. I'd be annoyed if he were ranting about higher taxes for the rich. He's using his public visibility to promote equal rights for all.
So he is going to begin actively campaigning for gay marriage ammendments in this country? Or did he just simpky take a shot at the people of CA because he could, with no intention of backing his words up with actions? Just curious. If it is the first than kudos to him. If it is the second than he should keep his trap shut.
I don't believe he has any need to do anything, and that's my point. Even if he doesn't go out and campaign for it, he had no obligation to speak his mind. Jimmy throwing his support behind Obama alienated some people, but he showed his public support because he has a public voice and at least a little bit of influence and he's using it to support what he believes to be right. Olbermann used his public voice to do the same. Some people may not like him for that, but I am pleased that he did.
He used his media presence to promote the good fight, even if he's not out there fighting it.
I disagree. Whether or not I support his stance, I do not support his use of the bully pulpit. Which is probably why I don't listen to a lot of talk radio or watch much of the talking heads on TV.
Editorials are fine, just as are letters to the editor but as long as he was paid by MSNBC to talk, baically it was the same thing as MSNBC saying it without actually saying it. Once again I want my reporters to keep their views to themselves and just report the facts. What really got me was how he was almost sobbing during the whole talk . Pleeeese gimme me a break! If he wants to air his views buy some commercial time. Don't abuse your power.
"The most aggravating thing about the younger generation is that I no longer belong to it." - Albert Einstein
popcornjack wrote:another point is that even though CT now recognizes gay marriage, the federal government does not, and federal law trumps state law. There was an article in the paper here recently that was about meetings lawyers and activists were having with gay couples advising them of the restrictions that were still in place. Social security benefits, for instance, will not be paid to the surviving spouse in a gay marriage.
I'm guessing that same sex couples in Connecticut now would receive any state benefits that Connecticut has for hetero (married) couples, but not any federal benefits.
Sometimes more than others,
we see who and what and where we are,
I'm just a one man band,
With my feet in the sand,
Tonight I just need my guitar
CrznDnUS1 wrote:Editorials are fine, just as are letters to the editor but as long as he was paid by MSNBC to talk, baically it was the same thing as MSNBC saying it without actually saying it. Once again I want my reporters to keep their views to themselves and just report the facts. What really got me was how he was almost sobbing during the whole talk . Pleeeese gimme me a break! If he wants to air his views buy some commercial time. Don't abuse your power.
But he's not a reporter. He's a commentator. Sometimes I agree with commentators and sometimes I don't, but you can definitely tell the difference between a reporter (who should be impartial) and a commentator (who takes a biased position). I don't see it as abuse of power. Stations have commentators. They comment. Sometimes I agree, sometimes not, but I never consider it "news"....
Carry on as you know they would want you to do. ~~JB, dedication to Tim Russert
Take your time
Find your passion
Life goes on until it ends
Don’t stop living
Until then
~~Mac McAnally
popcornjack wrote:another point is that even though CT now recognizes gay marriage, the federal government does not, and federal law trumps state law. There was an article in the paper here recently that was about meetings lawyers and activists were having with gay couples advising them of the restrictions that were still in place. Social security benefits, for instance, will not be paid to the surviving spouse in a gay marriage.
I'm guessing that same sex couples in Connecticut now would receive any state benefits that Connecticut has for hetero (married) couples, but not any federal benefits.
They actually have for a while. There have been civil unions in CT for a number of years now. The whole marriage thing started when 8 couples applied for marriage licenses, were obviously rejected, and then sued the state on the basis that a civil union is not a marriage, and that there shouldn't be separate rights for different people.
Take me for what I am, a star newly emerging.
I accept the new found man, and I set the twilight reeling.
buffettbride wrote:I love gay people. Gay people should be able to have raunchy married sex just like I do and pay married-people taxes just like I do. It's a win, win really.
You are so wrong, the surest way to stop gay sex is to have them get married
That's a joke Honey-Bear
"Boat drinks, waitress we........nevermind"
He ain't wrong he's just different
but his pride won't let him do things to make you think he's right
But he's not a reporter. He's a commentator. Sometimes I agree with commentators and sometimes I don't, but you can definitely tell the difference between a reporter (who should be impartial) and a commentator (who takes a biased position). I don't see it as abuse of power. Stations have commentators. They comment. Sometimes I agree, sometimes not, but I never consider it "news"....
Shows how much I watch THAT channel, I didn't even know who or what he is. I just didn't care for his whiny tone. Just my commentary.
"The most aggravating thing about the younger generation is that I no longer belong to it." - Albert Einstein
![[smilie=puking.gif]](./images/smilies/puking.gif "puking"){kind=small}
. Pleeeese gimme me a break! If he wants to air his views buy some commercial time. Don't abuse your power.
