Johnson Outraged By UnRepublican 'Marriage Vow' Pledge

Been there, done that.

AspenValley wrote:

RCCL wrote: Not all Republicans are the bigots that you make them out to be... but I will admit that more often than not, they pander to the bigots because it's the only way they think they'll get elected.

I understand why many Republicans want to distance themselves from the bigoted aspects of their party because they are not themselves bigots. But why not signal that disapproval through more than just wishing it away? If you really don't want to be associated with bigots or with people who feel they "must" pander to bigots, don't vote for them and don't belong to their party. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

So should you distance yourself from the minority Dem voters in California who voted down homosexual marriage?

SS109 wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

RCCL wrote: Not all Republicans are the bigots that you make them out to be... but I will admit that more often than not, they pander to the bigots because it's the only way they think they'll get elected.

I understand why many Republicans want to distance themselves from the bigoted aspects of their party because they are not themselves bigots. But why not signal that disapproval through more than just wishing it away? If you really don't want to be associated with bigots or with people who feel they "must" pander to bigots, don't vote for them and don't belong to their party. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

So should you distance yourself from the minority Dem voters in California who voted down homosexual marriage?

Maybe that's why I'm an Independent?

My view on homosexual marriage is that I don't think it's constitutional to deny them the same legal rights heterosexual couples enjoy, but that "marriage" is actually a religious institution, not a legal one, so I think the government should stay the heck out of trying to define what it is or who is "eligible" for it.

AspenValley wrote: My view on homosexual marriage is that I don't think it's constitutional to deny them the same legal rights heterosexual couples enjoy, but that "marriage" is actually a religious institution, not a legal one, so I think the government should stay the heck out of trying to define what it is or who is "eligible" for it.

When did marriage become a religious institution? You get your marriage license from the government, not from your church......and you don't need a preacher or other religious person to marry you. In CO....you don't even need a ceremony.....just sign the marriage license and you're done. I don't see anything religious about that process.

archer wrote:

AspenValley wrote: My view on homosexual marriage is that I don't think it's constitutional to deny them the same legal rights heterosexual couples enjoy, but that "marriage" is actually a religious institution, not a legal one, so I think the government should stay the heck out of trying to define what it is or who is "eligible" for it.

When did marriage become a religious institution? You get your marriage license from the government, not from your church......and you don't need a preacher or other religious person to marry you. In CO....you don't even need a ceremony.....just sign the marriage license and you're done. I don't see anything religious about that process.

Legal coupling has two aspects. One is the legal promise to become one entity under the law, and has to do with property rights, inheiritance, etc. I see absolutely no legal grounds to deny this to any consenting adults of any combination of genders.

The other is a religious, sacremental issue that many religions see as only existing between an eligible male and an eligible female.

The biggest mistake our government ever made was getting entangled into the second.

Call ALL legal, registered couplings "civil unions" and if people want religious-style, sacremental marriage, they can find it at their local church. And if your church won't marry you because you're divorced, or the wrong gender, or whatever, take it up with the church.

AspenValley wrote:

archer wrote:

AspenValley wrote: My view on homosexual marriage is that I don't think it's constitutional to deny them the same legal rights heterosexual couples enjoy, but that "marriage" is actually a religious institution, not a legal one, so I think the government should stay the heck out of trying to define what it is or who is "eligible" for it.

When did marriage become a religious institution? You get your marriage license from the government, not from your church......and you don't need a preacher or other religious person to marry you. In CO....you don't even need a ceremony.....just sign the marriage license and you're done. I don't see anything religious about that process.

Legal coupling has two aspects. One is the legal promise to become one entity under the law, and has to do with property rights, inheiritance, etc. I see absolutely no legal grounds to deny this to any consenting adults of any combination of genders.

The other is a religious, sacremental issue that many religions see as only existing between an eligible male and an eligible female.

The biggest mistake our government ever made was getting entangled into the second.

Call ALL legal, registered couplings "civil unions" and if people want religious-style, sacremental marriage, they can find it at their local church. And if your church won't marry you because you're divorced, or the wrong gender, or whatever, take it up with the church.

So you really want to redefine marriage as between a man and a woman who are religious? Everyone else gets a civil union? What makes a marriage "sacramental"? Is a marriage between a man and a woman who are atheists something less than that between a man and a woman who are not religious? What about marriages officiated by a magistrate....are they lesser marriages? What is it with the word "marriage" that religious people think it belongs only to them?

archer wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

archer wrote:

AspenValley wrote: My view on homosexual marriage is that I don't think it's constitutional to deny them the same legal rights heterosexual couples enjoy, but that "marriage" is actually a religious institution, not a legal one, so I think the government should stay the heck out of trying to define what it is or who is "eligible" for it.

When did marriage become a religious institution? You get your marriage license from the government, not from your church......and you don't need a preacher or other religious person to marry you. In CO....you don't even need a ceremony.....just sign the marriage license and you're done. I don't see anything religious about that process.

Legal coupling has two aspects. One is the legal promise to become one entity under the law, and has to do with property rights, inheiritance, etc. I see absolutely no legal grounds to deny this to any consenting adults of any combination of genders.

The other is a religious, sacremental issue that many religions see as only existing between an eligible male and an eligible female.

The biggest mistake our government ever made was getting entangled into the second.

Call ALL legal, registered couplings "civil unions" and if people want religious-style, sacremental marriage, they can find it at their local church. And if your church won't marry you because you're divorced, or the wrong gender, or whatever, take it up with the church.

So you really want to redefine marriage as between a man and a woman who are religious? Everyone else gets a civil union? What makes a marriage "sacramental"? Is a marriage between a man and a woman who are atheists something less than that between a man and a woman who are not religious? What about marriages officiated by a magistrate....are they lesser marriages? What is it with the word "marriage" that religious people think it belongs only to them?

No, I want to give everyone the legal right to a civil union that are all exactly equal under the law. Anyone who wants a religious marriage can find one in a church. This is not weird or revolutionary, it's actually how most of the world except us handles it.

hmmmmm.....so instead of being married....my hubby and I would be civil unionized? somehow it just doesn't have the same ring to it as married does.

AspenValley wrote:

RCCL wrote: Not all Republicans are the bigots that you make them out to be... but I will admit that more often than not, they pander to the bigots because it's the only way they think they'll get elected.

I understand why many Republicans want to distance themselves from the bigoted aspects of their party because they are not themselves bigots. But why not signal that disapproval through more than just wishing it away? If you really don't want to be associated with bigots or with people who feel they "must" pander to bigots, don't vote for them and don't belong to their party. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

I'm registered independent! :thumbsup: