The government should have civil unions, available to both gay and straight couples and legally binding whether or not a church is involved.  Churches should have marriages, meaningful to themselves and their participants, but irrelevant to the law.

.

End of problem.

Hardliner, your argument that other cultures have had other sorts of bonding arrangements and that some people can't control their sexual urges is not logical.  Unless you are also stating that since other cultures practiced human sacrifice, cannibalism, and genocide.  And some people can't control their murderous impulses; then our society has to accommodate this too.  This is also the same argument for legalizing drugs that are proven harmful to the general population.

I merely pointed out the errors of h4f, second argument.  It is not for me make choices for other people.  Nor should other people try force me to accept something unnatural or use public schools to indoctrinate my children.  In Canada it is already a crime for some one preach against homosexuality.  How soon, before it happens in the US.  Perhaps in the future, it will be a crime for clergy to refuse to bless same sex marriages.  Also what is more hateful; to lie to a person with a terminal illness so I don't hurt their feelings or show love and tell a person that they can be helped, if they want to be?  Homosexuals make their choices; please repect my right to do the same. 

I love my cat and my cat loves me. Does this mean I should be able to marry my cat so it can have the same benefits as any other spouse?

Hi Doc, yeah, I realize I'm stuck with Bush and Cheney.  I'm not a "World Can't Wait"-er.  Hell, those goofs are too stupid to support the allies in their own neighborhood.

"I love my cat and my cat loves me. Does this mean I should be able to marry my cat so it can have the same benefits as any other spouse?"

Read the history of marriage above.  I don't think that will be a problem.

But I think you know that.  Surely you can't be serious.  (And don't call me Shirley. - Capt. Clarence Oveur.)

Wayfarer, I think you're getting way ahead of yourself.

"Unless you are also stating that since other cultures practiced human sacrifice, cannibalism, and genocide.  And some people can't control their murderous impulses; then our society has to accommodate this too."

How do you get from here to there?  Marriage is a voluntary relationship.  Your examples involves unwilling victims.  Think.  :-)

"In Canada it is already a crime for some one preach against homosexuality.  How soon, before it happens in the US.  Perhaps in the future, it will be a crime for clergy to refuse to bless same sex marriages."

That's a more reasonable concern.  Fortunately, a good and strong Constitution, enforced by honest federal judges, would never let that happen.  Trouble is, Bush is packing the courts with dishonest judges with no regard for the Constitution.

"Nor should other people try force me to accept something unnatural or use public schools to indoctrinate my children."

Let's find out what's natural and unnatural, first.  Biologically, our sexual natures are more like those of Bonobo monkeys than lifetime-monogamous species of bird.  Trouble is, there are political forces here who claim the religion that I think you claim, who would try to suppress any honest research into the matter.

I don't think the 7 facets presented above are nearly as dispositive on the subject as you seem to think they are.

Somehow you seem to think you've discovered the Rosetta Stone of all debate on this topic but that is just not the case.

By that logic ("sacredness" declared by a group or church in an activity), you could stick virtually ANY activity in #3 and follow down through the "logic" and WALAH! ANY activity can  fall under #7's conclusion!

You didn't take logic from [edit] at CSUB by chance did you?

BLT, I'm not all that sure Bush isn't attracted to men.  *SOMEONE* was enjoying those overnights with Jeff Gannon in the White House.

Blog..I'm proud to have a president who has good Christian values and is a caring person.  He's made mistakes as have most presidents.  He's a bit of a doofus when it comes to public speaking and mispronouncing words but that's not an issue with me either.  My beef with him is what it's always been...he wasn't tough enough in the beginning of the war and caved to PC.  Having said that, I'll take one like him any day over smarmy Clinton .  Clinton showed a total lack of judgement and character in his personal affairs (no pun intended) and, to me, that shows a lack of character all the way through his presidency.

Ok..I'm outed, not that any of you are surprised since I've made my feelings well known in the past.  Now it's the turn of the left on here to educate me as to the failings of Bush.  I don't buy it but give it your best shot.  (psstt..I'm not going to argue with you on the left either.  I just made a statement and it doesn't signal the beginning of a debate.)

Blog..you're one in a hunnerd on here you know.   Good for you for standing firm in your beliefs in the face of so much opposition.

Thanks, Nancy, its easy to cave in to all of the Bush-bashing, conservative-bashing and Christian-bashing and to develop an inferiority complex over all of the attacks. But you and I stand up for things that are good for everybody, not for bad things, so we shouldn't have to apologize for what we believe in. 

BTW, does anybody else care to tell me how you think the government should define marriage? 

A goat ropin"?

I gotta get me some pointy toed cockroach crushers, a 55 chevy baby moon belt buckle, a snappy shirt, black hat and catch up!

ridin' sheep an such? yeah

hey, your comment reminded me of Rockford's best line once when he looked at Angel and said: "yeah Angel, you're about as official as a Boy Scout at a Rodeo!

I loved that show!

Nancy wrote: I'm proud to have a president who has good Christian values and is a caring person.  He's made mistakes as have most presidents.  He's a bit of a doofus when it comes to public speaking and mispronouncing words but that's not an issue with me either.  My beef with him is what it's always been...he wasn't tough enough in the beginning of the war and caved to PC.  Having said that, I'll take one like him any day over smarmy Clinton .  Clinton showed a total lack of judgement and character in his personal affairs (no pun intended) and, to me, that shows a lack of character all the way through his presidency.

So, you favor style over substance, eh? Jimmy Carter had similar values and was a terrible president, mostly.

Here's the biggest difference between Clinton and Bush: Clinton's personal life is disreputable, but he was a fairly good president. We don't pry into peoples' personal lives in the workplace; how is their job performance? Considering the makeup of Congress during that time, I'd have to give Clinton a B+.

Bush's personal life, notwithstanding his semi-military service and his business dealings, seems exemplary. He sets a fine example for being physically fit and seems to be a devoted father and husband.

As a president, though, he's been a near-total disaster.

As Americans, we need to get past the "guck" factor of peoples' personal lives, which I used to assume was a matter of Republican-areas. I don't care what you do in the bedroom, and I don't care about your business dealings, as long as they're legal. I care about how you govern, what legislation you champion, and the details of your policies.

Whether you have an obnoxious laugh, who you sleep with, if you pick your nose...I just don't care. Maybe if we cared a little less about their personal lives, we'd get better legislators. And we could certainly improve the level of the debate, because we could actually discuss the merits of the LAWS we live by, rather than worrying about if they wear boxers, briefs or like women in thongs.

How should government define marriage? Two consenting adults, age 21 or older, who have the financial wherewithal to purchase a marriage license, and do so, should be considered a marriage for all legal, tax and other secular issues. The state will recognize the marriage and all it entails, and the state will have final say in the dissolution of that marriage, as well.

For a marriage to be recognized by your church...you and your churchgoing brethren can define it how you wish, but as we are a secular society, it doesn't really matter, as long as your church doesn't violate the law of the land. Require counseling, man and woman only, etc., that's all fine for you. I don't care to have your religious traditions define it for everybody.

The key issue to me is age, as much as anything. We have ages way too low for a lot of things, in my opinion, including military service, drinking age and the right to vote.

so because you found some hypocrite Repubs that makes it OK RF?

what great logic!

At least noneisabovethelaw is being honest by admitting that the government should define marriage.  The debate should not be about whether or not the government should define it.  It should be about how the government should define it.

Some of you say the government should have no role in defining it, but you fail to mention that, at some point, if things got too crazy in your estimation, you would want the government to step in and get into the business of defining it, to protect your own children if nothing else. 

Nancy wrote:

...educate me as to the failings of Bush.  I don't buy it but give it your best shot. 

Eric Alterman did this much better than I ever could:

Six years on ...

September 11, 2007: "How I Spent the Last Six Years," A brief list that might easily have been written by George W. Bush.

Regarding the attacks:

• Ignored persistent warnings of an imminent terrorist attack.
• Continued reading The Pet Goat ...
• Went up in Air Force One after having been informed it was a likely target.
• Spent the day in a panicky runaround, leaving it to others to reassure and inform a shocked nation.
• Later sold photographs of self on same day for purposes of Republican fundraising.
• Purposely misled rescue workers and volunteers about the safety of the air quality around Ground Zero.
• Declared, like Wyatt Earp, to capture Bin Laden "dead or alive."
• Told the rest of the world either they were "with us or against us," like Superman or something ...
• Ignored the fact that most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia; pretended they were from Iraq.

Regarding Afghanistan:

• Refused the help of NATO.
• Squandered numerous opportunities to capture bin Laden, allowing him to escape at Tora Bora and elsewhere.
• Rejected a more effective strategy of police work and targeting killings for mass bombings that helped alienate the population.
• Allowed the Taliban to regroup and rebuild.
• Allowed Al Qaeda to regroup and rebuild.
• Allowed heroin production and exports to increase.
• Allowed country to lapse back into chaos and threaten nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Regarding America:

• Insisted on the right to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without right to habeas corpus, thereby invalidating virtually the entire Constitution.
• Kidnapped individuals for the purpose of "rendition" and certain torture, violating national laws at will.
• Opened secret torture prisons in former police states and lied about it.
• Wiretapped American citizens without warrant or lawful authority.
• Monitored the actions of loyal patriotic organizations without warrant or lawful authority.
• Attacked patriotism of everyone who questioned mindless path to self-destruction and attacked media sources who informed Americans of the actions of their government as having "blood on their hands."
• Set up ineffective, scandal-plagued Department of Homeland Security.
• Failed to protect obvious targets like nuclear and chemical power plants, ports, and the like.
• Hyped phony arrests of unserious nutcases as victories in war on terrorism.
• Refused New York City sufficient funds to protect itself from future attack.

Regarding Iraq:

• Lied about evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
• Lied about ties to Al Qaeda.
• Lied about Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• Lied about infamous "Prague meeting."
• Lied about lying about all of it.
• Attempted to destroy reputation of loyal government servant, Joe Wilson.
• Lied about willingness to fire anyone involved with doing so.
• Failed to provide troops with sufficient body armor, vehicular protection.
• Insisted on repeated stop-loss orders.
• Cut medical spending for wounded veterans, resulting in substandard care for the wounded.
• Refused to allow photographs of honored war dead.
• Refused to attend funerals of killed soldiers.
• Refused to give a military recruitment speech.
• Told Americans to go shopping; offered further tax breaks to the wealthy, asking sacrifices of no one but soldiers and their families.
• Opened and maintained a prison at Guantánamo that violated U.S. and international law, branding the United States as a rogue nation.
• Misled Congress for purposes of securing war authority.
• Failed to send sufficient troops for post-invasion occupation.
• Failed to heed any postwar planning recommendations.
• Failed to ensure restoration of order, post-invasion.
• Failed to secure weapons sites, post invasion.
• Failed to reach out to population.
• Refused to count numbers of civilian dead and wounded.
• Failed to set up functional government, police force, etc.
• Arrested innocent individuals for the purpose of torture.
• Lied, once again, about ties to Al Qaeda.
• Failed to re-assess failed strategy, refused to replace incompetent subordinates.
• Failed to heed message of 2006 congressional elections to draw down war, escalated it instead.
• Failed to heed both Iraqi and U.S. population's repeatedly polled preference for withdrawal.
• Squandered sympathy of entire world, drastically sinking global opinion of the United States.
• Squandered hundreds of billions -- and, ultimately, trillions -- of dollars, destroying a functioning nation.
• Strengthened Iran.
• Strengthened Syria.
• Strengthened Libya.
• Weakened Israel.
• Weakened Jordan.
• Weakened Egypt.
• Killed more than 3,000 Americans.
• Wounded nearly 30,000 Americans.
• Killed and wounded untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
• Provided recruitment material for terrorists the world over.
• Continually attacked the patriotism of those who suggested alternatives that might have avoided much of the above.
• Redoubled "determination," "strength," "grit," etc., every time any of the previous disasters was discovered.

And perhaps most amazingly of all: Got most of the mainstream media to go along with almost all of it ...

And there could be a whole lot more, but you get the gist.

Here's the exact quote.  None of that taking it out of context for me.

"Now it's the turn of the left on here to educate me as to the failings of Bush.  I don't buy it but give it your best shot.  (psstt..I'm not going to argue with you on the left either.  I just made a statement and it doesn't signal the beginning of a debate.)"

There ya go...fixed that for ya.

Oh..ooopss..I stole that didn't I?  Soreeeeeee.  :-)

Eric Alterman did this much better than I ever could:

Six years on ...

September 11, 2007: "How I Spent the Last Six Years," A brief list that might easily have been written by George W. Bush.

Regarding the attacks:

• Ignored persistent warnings of an imminent terrorist attack.
• Continued reading The Pet Goat ...
• Went up in Air Force One after having been informed it was a likely target.
• Spent the day in a panicky runaround, leaving it to others to reassure and inform a shocked nation.
• Later sold photographs of self on same day for purposes of Republican fundraising.
• Purposely misled rescue workers and volunteers about the safety of the air quality around Ground Zero.
• Declared, like Wyatt Earp, to capture Bin Laden "dead or alive."
• Told the rest of the world either they were "with us or against us," like Superman or something ...
• Ignored the fact that most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia; pretended they were from Iraq.

Regarding Afghanistan:

• Refused the help of NATO.
• Squandered numerous opportunities to capture bin Laden, allowing him to escape at Tora Bora and elsewhere.
• Rejected a more effective strategy of police work and targeting killings for mass bombings that helped alienate the population.
• Allowed the Taliban to regroup and rebuild.
• Allowed Al Qaeda to regroup and rebuild.
• Allowed heroin production and exports to increase.
• Allowed country to lapse back into chaos and threaten nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Regarding America:

• Insisted on the right to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without right to habeas corpus, thereby invalidating virtually the entire Constitution.
• Kidnapped individuals for the purpose of "rendition" and certain torture, violating national laws at will.
• Opened secret torture prisons in former police states and lied about it.
• Wiretapped American citizens without warrant or lawful authority.
• Monitored the actions of loyal patriotic organizations without warrant or lawful authority.
• Attacked patriotism of everyone who questioned mindless path to self-destruction and attacked media sources who informed Americans of the actions of their government as having "blood on their hands."
• Set up ineffective, scandal-plagued Department of Homeland Security.
• Failed to protect obvious targets like nuclear and chemical power plants, ports, and the like.
• Hyped phony arrests of unserious nutcases as victories in war on terrorism.
• Refused New York City sufficient funds to protect itself from future attack.

Regarding Iraq:

• Lied about evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
• Lied about ties to Al Qaeda.
• Lied about Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• Lied about infamous "Prague meeting."
• Lied about lying about all of it.
• Attempted to destroy reputation of loyal government servant, Joe Wilson.
• Lied about willingness to fire anyone involved with doing so.
• Failed to provide troops with sufficient body armor, vehicular protection.
• Insisted on repeated stop-loss orders.
• Cut medical spending for wounded veterans, resulting in substandard care for the wounded.
• Refused to allow photographs of honored war dead.
• Refused to attend funerals of killed soldiers.
• Refused to give a military recruitment speech.
• Told Americans to go shopping; offered further tax breaks to the wealthy, asking sacrifices of no one but soldiers and their families.
• Opened and maintained a prison at Guantánamo that violated U.S. and international law, branding the United States as a rogue nation.
• Misled Congress for purposes of securing war authority.
• Failed to send sufficient troops for post-invasion occupation.
• Failed to heed any postwar planning recommendations.
• Failed to ensure restoration of order, post-invasion.
• Failed to secure weapons sites, post invasion.
• Failed to reach out to population.
• Refused to count numbers of civilian dead and wounded.
• Failed to set up functional government, police force, etc.
• Arrested innocent individuals for the purpose of torture.
• Lied, once again, about ties to Al Qaeda.
• Failed to re-assess failed strategy, refused to replace incompetent subordinates.
• Failed to heed message of 2006 congressional elections to draw down war, escalated it instead.
• Failed to heed both Iraqi and U.S. population's repeatedly polled preference for withdrawal.
• Squandered sympathy of entire world, drastically sinking global opinion of the United States.
• Squandered hundreds of billions -- and, ultimately, trillions -- of dollars, destroying a functioning nation.
• Strengthened Iran.
• Strengthened Syria.
• Strengthened Libya.
• Weakened Israel.
• Weakened Jordan.
• Weakened Egypt.
• Killed more than 3,000 Americans.
• Wounded nearly 30,000 Americans.
• Killed and wounded untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
• Provided recruitment material for terrorists the world over.
• Continually attacked the patriotism of those who suggested alternatives that might have avoided much of the above.
• Redoubled "determination," "strength," "grit," etc., every time any of the previous disasters was discovered.

And perhaps most amazingly of all: Got most of the mainstream media to go along with almost all of it ...

And there could be a whole lot more, but you get the gist.

NOBODY'S PERFECT! C'MON, GIVE THE MAN A BREAK!

Nancy, I only shortened your quote because the list of Bush's missteps was so long....

And I don't consider myself on the left, anyway.

Hi Doc,

The answer to your question is implied in my piece: "The only way out of this essentially infallible argument is to prove a compelling need ..."

That's Constitutional legalese for "absolutely and totally necessary."

Other than absolutely necessary instances, the government should not be defining marriage, but rather recognizing the marriages that religious and secular groups carry out according to their consciences.

"Absolutely and totally necessary" restrictions would include pre-pubescent children, and conceivably young teens (that wan't illegal in many states all that long ago).  Protection of people who are considered unable to make fully informed decisions for themselves constitutes, in my eyes, a compelling "absolutely necessary" interest.

You might be able to argue against extending full tax benefits to polygamous or group marriages, on the basis of complexity alone, but leave the remainder of formal recognition of polygamous marriages intact.

Hope this helps.

Blognroll...it is call consent...both parties must be of an age to consent to marriage...and children can not consent to marriage, so that aruge is not valid, also, animals can not consent so that arguement is invalid.

Simply put. to be able to enter into a marriage/civil union, most be to consenting adults of legal age.

sf, did you ever used to have to diagram sentences in high school?

North High didn't have basic sentence structure as part of its curriculum?

(assuming you didn't get it in junior high)

Blognroll...it is call consent...both parties must be of an age to consent to marriage...and children can not consent to marriage, so that aruge is not valid, also, animals can not consent so that arguement is invalid.

Simply put. to be able to enter into a marriage/civil union, most be to consenting adults of legal age.

Yes, consent is currently a central part of the government's definition of marriage.  Let's keep it that way. 

HI Doc, "absolutely necessary" might be a bit relative, but it's not hard to converge on some indisputable instances. 

An example of absolute necessity pertaining to violating a different Constitutional right would be a police officer at your door without a search warrant; while normally the cop requires your consent to enter, courts have held that the cop has the right to enter without your consent if the life of someone within is in clear visible or audible danger.

In the case of marriage, you can argue the necessity of protecting children who cannot possibly have enough understanding of what they're getting into to make a sound decision.  Similar reasoning underlies the applicability ot contract law to minors; it's the presumed ability or inability to make a responsible and fully informed decision.

Now we're arguing the fringes (which I don't mind doing), but wherever these fringes are, same-sex marriage is nowhere near those fringes.  There's no legitimate protection interest.  Objections simply boil down to "I don't like it," and in a free society, "I don't like it" nowhere near approaches a compelling need (absolute necessity) to step on an indisputably deduced Constitutional right.