‘Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.’
-JFK
Some of you may remember this little tiptoe act by The Pelosi's.
The next time Trump does something everyone finds UnPresidential or UnWhite Houseish, just remember that The Clintons, Obamas, Pelosis and Trumps all play on the same team and make money the exact same way.
This is my Christmas/New Year Present to the Thread/Forums. There will always be people on this Earth that will warn of dangers, it is up to us to heed their warnings.
The President of the US is revealing the name of a whistleblower, who has followed all the federal procedures intended to ensure anonymity . Trump is not even disputing what the whistleblower has said (at least, only the interpretation and not the facts). He's just using the attack on the whistleblower in an attempt to cover over the fact that those second-hand concerns have now been confirmed and reinforced by first-hand testimony - despite the fact that White House employees are still forbidden from providing any information and contemporaneous documentation is still being with-held.
I know that I don't agree with the majority of his policies, but I really can't conceive I could support this guy even if I approved of the lot of them. I really, really struggle to see how any Senator can talk with a straight face about the need to follow due process and how unfairly the President is being treated ...
Trump should have never had this information to begin with. The LAW required it be turned over to Congress immediately. Instead, it was given to the President and his inner circle. We don't even talk about this aspect of the situation anymore. The complaint was to go to Congress. What in the hell is the point of having a whistleblower statute if the person the whistle is being blown on is immediately notified of that fact, and then attempts to prevent that information from getting where it is legally required to go?? The ENTIRE POINT of having whistleblowers, whether in the government or a corporate structure at work is to make sure retaliation isn't possible though anonymity. As for the retweet, it's nothing but stochastic terrorism. If this person is targeted, the blood is 1000% on Trump's own hands. Not that a single supporter of his would give a shit. They'd probably make the murder a national holiday.
So. Predominantly white neighbourhood can refuse to have a black family move into their community
Yes. That is what I believe. It's not your place to force them. They harm nobody by not allowing certain people in their communities. I also morally oppose mandatory segregation like we had in American history. I believe this thing should be voluntary.
You can disagree with that all you want. After all, this topic was about the balance between federal and state rights. More importantly however, I reject the clownish notion that wanting to live by your religion as you interpret it, and how it has long been interpreted, is analogous to KKK terrorism. The right to practice your religion freely has long been a bedrock principle of the American republic.
What does it benefit that community to force people into it that they are unwilling to take? If it doesn't benefit them, then they are absolutely justified in resisting it. Let people live how they want to live, long as they aren't hurting anyone. Even if you really dislike what they believe!
The only thing this attempt at cultural imperialism has done is foster partisanship, resentment, and extremism, on both sides. Controversial things are far less acceptable to say in public now, but it seems to me controversial beliefs are more prevalent now than ever before in my memory.
and they can do this by placing a burning cross on their new neighbours home and hanging noises from a tree?
No, because that's a threat. Threats are actually harmful. Saying "no thanks" to someone who wants to live with you is not.
If a white neighborhood refuses to let a black family live there, it does harm people. It harms the black family that was denied their right to buy a house in a neighborhood of their choosing. All the white folks in that community have that right; the black family does not lose that right just because other people hate them for the color of their skin.
Discriminating against someone is not harmless. It is not a difference of opinion. It is not a cultural value. It is not a religion. Discrimination is an action, not a belief. Actions are not protected freedoms if they impact another person's rights, and this is a very obvious example of people infringing on other people's rights.
If a white person doesn't want to live next door to a black person, the white person's right is to move their own home; not to force out the black person. You have the right to determine where you stand; not where everyone else gets to stand.
So. Predominantly white neighbourhood can refuse to have a black family move into their community
Yes. That is what I believe. It's not your place to force them. They harm nobody by not allowing certain people in their communities. I also morally oppose mandatory segregation like we had in American history. I believe this thing should be voluntary.
Agree to this. You are allowed to believe what ever you believe and there is short term harm that does come from mandatory segregation.
You can disagree with that all you want. After all, this topic was about the balance between federal and state rights. More importantly however, I reject the clownish notion that wanting to live by your religion as you interpret it, and how it has long been interpreted, is analogous to KKK terrorism. The right to practice your religion freely has long been a bedrock principle of the American republic.
It’s not clownish. This discussion wasn’t about state rights, it was about an elected official wanting to wage a holy war outside his community and how a person like that could be elected.
I put fundamental terrorism in the same category as the KKK. Having an elected official like that emboldens people who would use threats against a minority group.
And once again. You are allowed to practice your religion freely, but how does having a gay couple move in next door to you infringe on that practise?
It doesn’t. The closest it comes to is having to explain to your kids that the people next door do not practise the same religion as you do.
What does it benefit that community to force people into it that they are unwilling to take? If it doesn't benefit them, then they are absolutely justified in resisting it. Let people live how they want to live, long as they aren't hurting anyone. Even if you really dislike what they believe!
So one would assume people move to a community for a reason. One of the biggest reasons is employment, which drives up the local GDP and tax revenue. That’s how it benefits the community.
And how does a community actually resist a person moving in next to them if not through threats?
And when we are talking about LGBT, a person from that community might have lived their whole life in the community that is shunning them. They just chose to come out of the closet, or came of age. Is exile the option to make sure the little community is “gay free”
The only thing this attempt at cultural imperialism has done is foster partisanship, resentment, and extremism, on both sides. Controversial things are far less acceptable to say in public now, but it seems to me controversial beliefs are more prevalent now than ever before in my memory.
This is where I disagree. Bigotry and bigotry alone is the cause of things like resentment and extremism. Nothing else.
and they can do this by placing a burning cross on their new neighbours home and hanging noises from a tree?
No, because that's a threat. Threats are actually harmful. Saying "no thanks" to someone who wants to live with you is not.
[/quote]
I agree. Having an elected official want to wage a holy war is a threat akin, if not worse than hanging rope from a tree.
Who should I care if Trump named the whistleblower?* He works in the damn CIA and has the backing of half the political spectrum. He's fine. Nobody cared here when politicians were offering money for the dox of ordinary, powerless teenagers who were commiting the crime of protesting.
The causes of moral outrage here are just so phony, partisan, and exclusively concerned with political identity it's insane.
There is never a consistent moral principle which we can use as a yardstick to determine why something is wrong or right. It's all so tiresome.
*That's not even what he did anyway, he was named in a media article Trump shared, so it is even less of an arguably amoral act.
Who should I care if Trump named the whistleblower?* He works in the damn CIA and has the backing of half the political spectrum. He's fine. Nobody cared here when politicians were offering money for the dox of ordinary, powerless teenagers who were commiting the crime of protesting.
The causes of moral outrage here are just so phony, partisan, and exclusively concerned with political identity it's insane.
There is never a consistent moral principle which we can use as a yardstick to determine why something is wrong or right. It's all so tiresome.
*That's not even what he did anyway, he was named in a media article Trump shared, so it is even less of an arguably amoral act.
I’ll also add, the whistleblower’s name has been out there for awhile now and I’d assume, this person would be having extra protection assigned to them because of it.
Trump’s twitter feed is also becoming a spam of garbage.and is quickly losing its insightfulness into Trump’s thought process. Which maybe the point, who knows.
So. Predominantly white neighbourhood can refuse to have a black family move into their community
Yes. That is what I believe. It's not your place to force them. They harm nobody by not allowing certain people in their communities. I also morally oppose mandatory segregation like we had in American history. I believe this thing should be voluntary.
You can disagree with that all you want. After all, this topic was about the balance between federal and state rights. More importantly however, I reject the clownish notion that wanting to live by your religion as you interpret it, and how it has long been interpreted, is analogous to KKK terrorism. The right to practice your religion freely has long been a bedrock principle of the American republic.
What does it benefit that community to force people into it that they are unwilling to take? If it doesn't benefit them, then they are absolutely justified in resisting it. Let people live how they want to live, long as they aren't hurting anyone. Even if you really dislike what they believe!
The only thing this attempt at cultural imperialism has done is foster partisanship, resentment, and extremism, on both sides. Controversial things are far less acceptable to say in public now, but it seems to me controversial beliefs are more prevalent now than ever before in my memory.
and they can do this by placing a burning cross on their new neighbours home and hanging noises from a tree?
No, because that's a threat. Threats are actually harmful. Saying "no thanks" to someone who wants to live with you is not.
Living in a neighborhood is not "living with someone". I have never said a single word to either of the people living in the apartments right next to me. They live "near" me. Avoiding them is not only easy, it is so easy I see them about once every 6 months. Living with someone would be forcing them to share your house. You are actually advocating that predominantly white neighborhoods be able to ban people of color from living NEAR them, indicating that their mere presence is somehow tainting their "pure" community. Living on a certain city block does not offer you the right to STRIP the right of other people to move freely and buy or rent property in a country they are citizens in. And you think the left-wing posters here are radical?? You are full-on defending and even advocating for a return to segregation. But the fact that you think African-Americans being banned from certain communities isn't "hurting" anyone is the most revealing of all. I have no idea what "voluntary" segregation is. The definition of voluntary is done, given, or acting of one's own free will. Presumably, the only people exercising their "free will" in this scenario would be the ones banning certain people from living in their area, because the people BEING BANNED sure as shit aren't voting of their own free will to keep themselves out.
What else should we go back to?? Schools in the south that don't allow black students?? Separate water fountains?? Back entrances to establishments for non-whites?? Your views would lead to nothing less than regional apartheid. I mean, we did this, for over a 100 years. It was an era of state-sponsored and state-sanctioned (when undertaken by regular citizens) terrorism on an endless basis. Mob executions that were attended by white families like county fairs are now. Black families having to flee to northern industrial cities if they wanted themselves and their children to not only have ANY chance to make something of their lives, but in many cases to LIVE at all. And since when are there citizen panels that VOTE on who gets to move into a certain neighborhood?? This nation is a not a series of country clubs accepting members. If the white family doesn't like that an African-American family moved next to them, they can move THEIR asses somewhere else. Not the other way around. And we've been told for the last 4 years how overly sensitive liberals are. What a fucking joke. EVERYTHING about this "new right" movement is projection. You could write academic journals on the subject by studying it.
If a white person doesn't want to live next door to a black person, the white person's right is to move their own home; not to force out the black person. You have the right to determine where you stand; not where everyone else gets to stand.
The fact is that the fundamental belief at the core of "Trumpism" (which is really just the inevitable end-game of the Republican project) totally rejects this notion. They legitimately DO believe they not only deserve to have their rights, but also the right to take them away from others if it pleases them. Usually simply for the pleasure being vindictive gives them. They not only want to have their cake and eat it too, they want to be in control of every goddamn bakery. The argument from the beginning from many of us has been that "MAGA" means a return to 1950s America. We clearly weren't wrong.
If a white person doesn't want to live next door to a black person, the white person's right is to move their own home; not to force out the black person. You have the right to determine where you stand; not where everyone else gets to stand.
In theory you are right. In reality, if someone known for homophobic views were to buy a house inside of snowflake LGBT community, don't you think he should be shown the way out instead of the entire community having to move because of one invader?
If a white person doesn't want to live next door to a black person, the white person's right is to move their own home; not to force out the black person. You have the right to determine where you stand; not where everyone else gets to stand.
In theory you are right. In reality, if someone known for homophobic views were to buy a house inside of snowflake LGBT community, don't you think he should be shown the way out instead of the entire community having to move because of one invader?
Not by legal or state-sanctioned force, which is what is being suggested here. I also love that the hypothetical LGBT enclave here is what is being referred to as the "snowflakes" when we are literally getting suggestions that the feelings of racists or homophobes are SO important that we should actually enact local statutes that bar certain people from living in certain places. The cognitive dissonance to make that statement in the light of this discussion is simply ASTOUNDING.
On the one side, we have people maybe asking that you not call them a f****t or n****r in public and some people thinking that is the highest form of oppression imaginable. And on the other the idea that's it's perfectly reasonable to segregate communities to make sure straight white people are 110% comfortable with EVERYTHING around them for the entirety of their lives. I mean, seriously, holy hell. The idea that it's the "left" that is overly sensitive given what your "side" of this divide is admitting isn't even just laughable, it's deranged.
The homophobe will either bend to community pressure and take a hike, or if he wants to stay and demean his neighbors every chance he gets, then he is free to do so. They aren't going to pass an ordinance barring him from a certain section of the city, which is what is being suggested. He's just gonna get all the public shunning and shaming that comes with it. Tough shit. It's called being an adult and taking responsibility for your own behavior. Freedom of speech is not freedom of social consequence from that speech. Which isn't something the alt-right doesn't understand. They understand it perfectly well. They just can't stand that that's the reality. It's actually not that hard not to be an asshole in public. Before Trump, we were doing quite well at it. But holy hell did he unleash all the people who were just ITCHING to let their freak flag fly.
This is America, and there is freedom of speech. No one is stopping anyone from saying anything as racist as they want at the top of their lungs. They will not be arrested (i.e. punished by the government) for doing so. But the people who interact of them also have freedom of speech. They are free to talk to their friends and tell them what a shit-bag they are. They are free to encourage others to no longer provide patronage to their business (if they happen to own one). And they are free to tell them what they think of them as well. This entire idea of "left-wing, SJW, snowflake" bullshit is predicated on the fact that people want to be able to talk this way without anyone (metaphorically) hitting them back or calling them out on their shit. They want to dish it out, but be immune from taking it. Those people are called bullies and cowards. There. That's me using my freedom of speech. If they can't handle the heat, take a trek on out of the kitchen.
I'm so fed up with this reactionary bullshit masquerading as some kind principled stand on "free speech", when we clearly have people in this forum who subscribe to this theory about the left PERFECTLY WILLING to entertain the idea of legalized segregation in local communities based on nothing but (since you all love this word so much) "feelings". In other words, you have a HUGE problem with societal pressure in regards to speech (which is simply two factions using their speech to combat one another) but NO problem against STATE SANCTIONED removal of fundamental rights, which CAN'T be combated by ANYTHING.
Looks like Black Domestic Terrorism is on the rise in the U.S. The Jersey shooting couple weeks ago, last night at a Hanukkah celebration and today at a predominantly White church in Texas.
Who should I care if Trump named the whistleblower?* He works in the damn CIA and has the backing of half the political spectrum. He's fine. Nobody cared here when politicians were offering money for the dox of ordinary, powerless teenagers who were commiting the crime of protesting.
The causes of moral outrage here are just so phony, partisan, and exclusively concerned with political identity it's insane.
There is never a consistent moral principle which we can use as a yardstick to determine why something is wrong or right. It's all so tiresome.
*That's not even what he did anyway, he was named in a media article Trump shared, so it is even less of an arguably amoral act.
You've missed the point. Whistleblower protections exist because some whistleblowers will *not* have additional protection or backing. Whistleblowers will be much less likely to come forward if they know that the President will relentlessly seek our their name and put a target on their backs.
Ideally, they shouldnt have to meaningfully harm their safety in order to do the right thing. That's the point of the protections afforded them.
I live in a somewhat rural part of Pennsylvania, so I see these little insular communities that make their own rules and are not very open to outside influence, the Amish, all the time. For how many hundreds of years now they've never really been a threat to anyone. So I don't see the inherent harm in that sort of thing, and even some things to like about it. Even if I wouldn't live like that myself.
The point is, there's nothing wrong in wanting to maintain a certain way of life, whatever that may be, and having to make your own rules- to some extent- to get there.
To many people, though not myself, that may even be the heart of their conservative philosophy.
The Amish follow a very different set of rules than the rest of the United States, but they only expect themselves to uphold those rules; they don't demand that anyone else live by their laws. No Amish person would judge an English person for not following Amish codes.
Yet the Trump administration has tried to make it effectively legal to fire a transgender person for simply being trans. I don't think my trans friends and I should lose our jobs because we don't live by other people's rules. But it is the current administration's actual policy that employers should be able to punish us unless we obey alien laws. This is not a hypothetical concern; this is literally happening in real time across the entire country. Other people's hypothetical fantasy is our current reality.
The administration has already taken concrete action to directly allow employers to coerce the transgender population into abandoning the most basic aspect of our identity. Is that what is meant by the right to live by one's own cultural values?
I have a bit of a nuanced view on that. Basically, for government jobs, no, for private jobs, sometimes. The public sector works for the government, which represents all the people, who are theoretically equal under the law. There should be no discrimination of any kind.
However, in small scale buisness environments where a person or single family is operating the buisness, I can see how that comes off as an affront to their own values and freedom of association.
Large scale faceless corporations do not have the same personal human touch involved and are run far more on the basis of simple corporate policy, often run by shareholders and not the original owners no less. There also should not be discrimination.
So really only very small scale buisnesses should really get away with that sort of thing. The economic harm is minimal, as is the damage to personal liberty, with a compromise like that.
I understand the temptation to say "tough titty" to some backwards moron who doesn't like you for some superficial reason, nobody likes that, but it sets a precedent that I would like far less when it reaches it's logical conclusion. People on some level need to have the right to say "no" to things they object to, at least in what effects them most personally.
The economic harm is exactly as bad whether or not the employer is large or small, public or private. If you can't pay your rent, you get evicted no matter who you used to work for.
@WarChiefZeke You and I have always agreed that no company should be able to fire an employee for expressing a viewpoint that the leadership disagreed with. Our position was that corporate power should not be able to punish freedom of speech. Neither of us made any exceptions for that principle. We did not say it was okay to crack down on free speech just because your company is smaller than average. We did not say that only the government was required to respect freedom of speech. Our position was that one person having economic power didn't outweigh anyone else's political rights.
I am not changing my reasoning on the issue, and I don't think changing the reasoning is in your values, either. An employer should not be able to fire an employee for posting a stupid tweet for the same reasons an employer should not be able to fire an employee for being trans: because having economic power does not entitle you to force your beliefs on other people or to punish those who don't share your views.
If it is acceptable for an employer to fire someone for beings trans because the corporate leadership doesn't agree with trans rights, it is acceptable for an employer to fire someone for posting an offensive tweet because the leadership doesn't agree with the tweet's message. We're talking about the use of corporate power to punish people the company leadership disagrees with.
Most businesses require a license. A license provided by a state government. A state government which ALL people pay taxes to. Why should they be given that license, or be allowed to keep it, if they are going to specifically eliminate portions of that population from a.) employment or b.) being able to patronize the establishment?? It's one thing if someone refuses to wear shoes in your establishment or won't stop swearing at other customers. There isn't anyone anywhere who objects to denying service or not hiring them because of BEHAVIOR (or lack of qualification). We are talking about denying people employment or service for EXISTING.
And if we are going to go to this "religious freedom" argument about businesses, I am on the record that both the Christian pharmacist who won't fill a birth control prescription AND the Muslim grocery store clerk who won't handle pork products in a check-out line can both go fly a kite, and either do their job or find another one. We can't be running commerce in this country based on ancient folklore. You are free to spend every SECOND of your free time at your church or at home worshiping ANYTHING or ANYONE you please. Eliminating it from your professional career is not an infringement on freedom. It means you choose to prioritize one or the other. The pharmacist knew full well before accepting their job that birth control is a prescribed medication they would have to fill. The grocery store clerk is aware bacon and ham are sold in the store they filled out an application at. Expecting religious exemptions at work is not only self-centered, but selfish in the extreme, as you are then passing off EXTRA work to others because your "god" is so important. If everyone showed up tomorrow and decided to play this little game the entire economy would collapse.
This idea that somehow running a "small business" makes you inherently pure of heart and intention is the same BS narrative that assumes the only "working class" people in this country are factory workers, construction workers, or farmers. That the real America and it's "values" are only represented in small towns and mom and pop operations. You want to look for a media narrative that is ceaseless and never-ending, there you have it. I've seen about 3 dozen panels of small-town Trump voters since the 2016 election on various news programs. You know how many I've seen of Clinton voters from Atlanta or Minneapolis?? A big fat zero. And neither has anyone else. Because they don't exist.
I understand the temptation to say "tough titty" to some backwards moron who doesn't like you for some superficial reason, nobody likes that, but it sets a precedent that I would like far less when it reaches it's logical conclusion. People on some level need to have the right to say "no" to things they object to, at least in what effects them most personally.
There is an equally bad precedent (I would argue far worse, I suppose that is what separates us) that all people arent entitled to equal protection under the law. It may start with "We wont let black people live in our neighborhood" or "we wont hire Native Americans", but that can (and has) quickly spiraled out of control. It becomes things like "Why should LGBTQ people be allowed to get married?" (I wont cite more extreme historical since people dismiss those as fear mongering since things like Eugenics are hard to defend). I remind you, it was only 5 years that this basic protection was affirmed, and less than 20 since a president suggested we should amend the constitution to prevent it from ever happening.
- and not for nothing, but it's easy for us Cis Straight White Men to be comfortable with the institutionalization of discrimination. We know it will never affect us.
Well, I did say that corporations should not allowed to discriminate, only very small buisnesses. I'm thinking some family running some little shop or something, people who would hardly represent corporate power. I don't think it's fair to say I've been inconsistent on that basis. Although I readily admit I'm not altogether convinced of my own position on the matter and am open to convincing. I do see some merit in the argument that a small, individual buisness is an extension of their own self and values however. But that gets murky because at what level do you draw the line? You could argue Microsoft can be an extension of the values of Bill Gates just as much and he should dictate policy. The scale of the consequences should matter, but not enough to determine the operating moral principle in itself. At this point I'm just rambling, trying to articulate my own, messy, thoughts on the matter.
Change of pace. Another interesting article written by somebody on the other end of the political spectrum from me. This is about how our education system is getting entangled with politics. Long read but very thought provoking.
I understand the temptation to say "tough titty" to some backwards moron who doesn't like you for some superficial reason, nobody likes that, but it sets a precedent that I would like far less when it reaches it's logical conclusion. People on some level need to have the right to say "no" to things they object to, at least in what effects them most personally.
There is an equally bad precedent (I would argue far worse, I suppose that is what separates us) that all people arent entitled to equal protection under the law. It may start with "We wont let black people live in our neighborhood" or "we wont hire Native Americans", but that can (and has) quickly spiraled out of control. It becomes things like "Why should LGBTQ people be allowed to get married?" (I wont cite more extreme historical since people dismiss those as fear mongering since things like Eugenics are hard to defend). I remind you, it was only 5 years that this basic protection was affirmed, and less than 20 since a president suggested we should amend the constitution to prevent it from ever happening.
- and not for nothing, but it's easy for us Cis Straight White Men to be comfortable with the institutionalization of discrimination. We know it will never affect us.
Because, in a Christian society, Marriage is a religious term. It is a sacrament. It was a mistake to not have that separation of church and state when all beneficial marriage laws were being written.
I personally think the term marriage should have stayed religious (separation of religion and state) and another term, like civil union be put in its place. Marriage would be considered a civil union, but so to would couples getting a certificate from a judge or law clerk to get all the benefits a marriage certificate can receive.
Do I think a church should be forced to allow a gay couple in their church? Hell to the no (even if this is counter to my personal spiritual beliefs that everyone is equal under the eye of god). If a person is not a regular patron to the church, Or believe in the words that they preach, I do not believe the church needs to open their doors to everyone looking to get married.
I understand the temptation to say "tough titty" to some backwards moron who doesn't like you for some superficial reason, nobody likes that, but it sets a precedent that I would like far less when it reaches it's logical conclusion. People on some level need to have the right to say "no" to things they object to, at least in what effects them most personally.
There is an equally bad precedent (I would argue far worse, I suppose that is what separates us) that all people arent entitled to equal protection under the law. It may start with "We wont let black people live in our neighborhood" or "we wont hire Native Americans", but that can (and has) quickly spiraled out of control. It becomes things like "Why should LGBTQ people be allowed to get married?" (I wont cite more extreme historical since people dismiss those as fear mongering since things like Eugenics are hard to defend). I remind you, it was only 5 years that this basic protection was affirmed, and less than 20 since a president suggested we should amend the constitution to prevent it from ever happening.
- and not for nothing, but it's easy for us Cis Straight White Men to be comfortable with the institutionalization of discrimination. We know it will never affect us.
Because, in a Christian society, Marriage is a religious term. It is a sacrament. It was a mistake to not have that separation of church and state when all beneficial marriage laws were being written.
I personally think the term marriage should have stayed religious (separation of religion and state) and another term, like civil union be put in its place. Marriage would be considered a civil union, but so to would couples getting a certificate from a judge or law clerk to get all the benefits a marriage certificate can receive.
Do I think a church should be forced to allow a gay couple in their church? Hell to the no (even if this is counter to my personal spiritual beliefs that everyone is equal under the eye of god). If a person is not a regular patron to the church, Or believe in the words that they preach, I do not believe the church needs to open their doors to everyone looking to get married.
Throughout the course of history, in various cultures that include Christian society, marriage has often been a political/socio-economic construct, and its connection to religious values has often been tenuous at best. Since Christian churches have sanctioned polygamous arrangements and arranged/forced marriages in the past, I personally don't think that they're in position to claim moral high ground or religious exemption when it comes to this topic.
As to the term marriage itself... Language is malleable, and the meaning of words often changes and expends. This should be (and is) one of those instances where that holds true.
Because, in a Christian society, Marriage is a religious term. It is a sacrament. It was a mistake to not have that separation of church and state when all beneficial marriage laws were being written.
I personally think the term marriage should have stayed religious (separation of religion and state) and another term, like civil union be put in its place. Marriage would be considered a civil union, but so to would couples getting a certificate from a judge or law clerk to get all the benefits a marriage certificate can receive.
Do I think a church should be forced to allow a gay couple in their church? Hell to the no (even if this is counter to my personal spiritual beliefs that everyone is equal under the eye of god). If a person is not a regular patron to the church, Or believe in the words that they preach, I do not believe the church needs to open their doors to everyone looking to get married.
Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. Just because one cult thinks marriage is a religious term and gays can't be married, there's plenty of others that don't. Freedom of marriage is the law of the land. People need to adapt to civil society, we don't need to cater to particular religious cultists.
I understand the temptation to say "tough titty" to some backwards moron who doesn't like you for some superficial reason, nobody likes that, but it sets a precedent that I would like far less when it reaches it's logical conclusion. People on some level need to have the right to say "no" to things they object to, at least in what effects them most personally.
There is an equally bad precedent (I would argue far worse, I suppose that is what separates us) that all people arent entitled to equal protection under the law. It may start with "We wont let black people live in our neighborhood" or "we wont hire Native Americans", but that can (and has) quickly spiraled out of control. It becomes things like "Why should LGBTQ people be allowed to get married?" (I wont cite more extreme historical since people dismiss those as fear mongering since things like Eugenics are hard to defend). I remind you, it was only 5 years that this basic protection was affirmed, and less than 20 since a president suggested we should amend the constitution to prevent it from ever happening.
- and not for nothing, but it's easy for us Cis Straight White Men to be comfortable with the institutionalization of discrimination. We know it will never affect us.
Because, in a Christian society, Marriage is a religious term. It is a sacrament. It was a mistake to not have that separation of church and state when all beneficial marriage laws were being written.
I personally think the term marriage should have stayed religious (separation of religion and state) and another term, like civil union be put in its place. Marriage would be considered a civil union, but so to would couples getting a certificate from a judge or law clerk to get all the benefits a marriage certificate can receive.
Do I think a church should be forced to allow a gay couple in their church? Hell to the no (even if this is counter to my personal spiritual beliefs that everyone is equal under the eye of god). If a person is not a regular patron to the church, Or believe in the words that they preach, I do not believe the church needs to open their doors to everyone looking to get married.
Throughout the course of history, in various cultures that include Christian society, marriage has often been a political/socio-economic construct, and its connection to religious values has often been tenuous at best. Since Christian churches have sanctioned polygamous arrangements and arranged/forced marriages in the past, I personally don't think that they're in position to claim moral high ground or religious exemption when it comes to this topic.
As to the term marriage itself... Language is malleable, and the meaning of words often changes and expends. This should be (and is) one of those instances where that holds true.
Arranged marriages still happen. I had a friend just last year move to Australia (from Canada) because she was arranged to marry a guy she had met once or twice. That doesn’t make her union any less special than those that fall in love and decide to spend the rest of their life together (or until they can legally get a divorce and split all they own in messy court procedures).
It should be noted that marrying for love is the new concept.
It also doesn’t remove marriage as it is known between a man and a woman as a Sacrament and people need to realize that most of the pushback comes from that. It’s understanding the other side and not just dismissing them. What is wrong with a broad term like ”civil union”?
And just to be clear. I am all for same sex marriage, and will use that term because it is the norm. My point, is that the word marriage, should never have been the norm.
Churches are not being forced to perform marriages, and no one has been arguing that they have to. The fight for gay marriage was fought strictly on the grounds of abtaining the legal rights of spouses to be recognized by the state. You've had a few isolated incidents of people "glitter-bombing" a church service, and I haven't even heard of that taking place for well over half a decade. That is the absolute MOST extreme thing that has happened in regard to protesting individual churches, which isn't even up to the level of spraying someone with a squirt gun. The idea that individual, conservative minded churches, synagogues or mosques are being forced to perform gay weddings is not only not true, it's never even been part of the discussion.
It was about making gay couples equal in the eyes of the state. The attempt to exclusively allow the RIGHTS afforded by marriage to 90% of the population while not giving them to another 10% made them de facto second-class citizens. Civil unions at the time did NOT grant all of the legal protections afforded spouses. They could have been amended to do so, but even then, we'd essentially be dealing with just another example of "separate but equal". The fight was over the "feelings" of conservative Christians and their belief that only they deserved to lay claim to the term, and that their viewpoint superceded the fundamental rights of others. While Democrats didn't go far enough quick enough in regards to gay rights (mostly because of public opposition), Republicans attempted to codify second-class status for gay Americans in the Constitution itself. It's how W. got re-elected.
@jjstraka34 "The idea that individual, conservative minded churches, synagogues or mosques are being forced to perform gay weddings is not only not true, it's never even been part of the discussion."
I wouldn't say its never been part of the discussion. In general church communities are terrified of this happening. Its not happening, but that fear of it being the case is honestly what pushes most of gay marriage debate from religious groups.
@jjstraka34 "The idea that individual, conservative minded churches, synagogues or mosques are being forced to perform gay weddings is not only not true, it's never even been part of the discussion."
I wouldn't say its never been part of the discussion. In general church communities are terrified of this happening. Its not happening, but that fear of it being the case is honestly what pushes most of gay marriage debate from religious groups.
They may believe that, but there has been no serious discussion among LGBTQ advocates to push for it, nor was it ever an issue in the Supreme Court case. Catholic churches won't even marry STRAIGHT couples unless they do church mandated counseling beforehand. The fight since the Supreme Court victory has been to preserve it, and then moved on to workplace protections and trans-rights. So I mean, they can BELIEVE that Godzilla is going to rise from the sea and come and step on their church. Doesn't mean it's a legitimate concern.
I understand the temptation to say "tough titty" to some backwards moron who doesn't like you for some superficial reason, nobody likes that, but it sets a precedent that I would like far less when it reaches it's logical conclusion. People on some level need to have the right to say "no" to things they object to, at least in what effects them most personally.
There is an equally bad precedent (I would argue far worse, I suppose that is what separates us) that all people arent entitled to equal protection under the law. It may start with "We wont let black people live in our neighborhood" or "we wont hire Native Americans", but that can (and has) quickly spiraled out of control. It becomes things like "Why should LGBTQ people be allowed to get married?" (I wont cite more extreme historical since people dismiss those as fear mongering since things like Eugenics are hard to defend). I remind you, it was only 5 years that this basic protection was affirmed, and less than 20 since a president suggested we should amend the constitution to prevent it from ever happening.
- and not for nothing, but it's easy for us Cis Straight White Men to be comfortable with the institutionalization of discrimination. We know it will never affect us.
Because, in a Christian society, Marriage is a religious term. It is a sacrament. It was a mistake to not have that separation of church and state when all beneficial marriage laws were being written.
I personally think the term marriage should have stayed religious (separation of religion and state) and another term, like civil union be put in its place. Marriage would be considered a civil union, but so to would couples getting a certificate from a judge or law clerk to get all the benefits a marriage certificate can receive.
Do I think a church should be forced to allow a gay couple in their church? Hell to the no (even if this is counter to my personal spiritual beliefs that everyone is equal under the eye of god). If a person is not a regular patron to the church, Or believe in the words that they preach, I do not believe the church needs to open their doors to everyone looking to get married.
Throughout the course of history, in various cultures that include Christian society, marriage has often been a political/socio-economic construct, and its connection to religious values has often been tenuous at best. Since Christian churches have sanctioned polygamous arrangements and arranged/forced marriages in the past, I personally don't think that they're in position to claim moral high ground or religious exemption when it comes to this topic.
As to the term marriage itself... Language is malleable, and the meaning of words often changes and expends. This should be (and is) one of those instances where that holds true.
Arranged marriages still happen. I had a friend just last year move to Australia (from Canada) because she was arranged to marry a guy she had met once or twice. That doesn’t make her union any less special than those that fall in love and decide to spend the rest of their life together (or until they can legally get a divorce and split all they own in messy court procedures).
It should be noted that marrying for love is the new concept.
It also doesn’t remove marriage as it is known between a man and a woman as a Sacrament and people need to realize that most of the pushback comes from that. It’s understanding the other side and not just dismissing them. What is wrong with a broad term like ”civil union”?
And just to be clear. I am all for same sex marriage, and will use that term because it is the norm. My point, is that the word marriage, should never have been the norm.
Civil partnerships have been available for gay couples in the UK since 2004. That option was a huge advance towards equality, but it didn't resolve all issues. The status of marriage and civil partnership in law was close, but not identical and there were certainly plenty of people who still resented being asked to accept a 'second-class' situation. Some of those anomalies have now been addressed by more recent legislation.
On the other side there were also people who felt uncomfortable with the historical and patriarchal associations of marriage and felt that civil partnerships should be available to everyone (and not just gay couples). From tomorrow that will be the case. I think that should mean the status of civil partnerships will become much more widely accepted as equal to marriage in future - and make it easier for marriage to be left for those who value its religious and historical significance.
Comments
-JFK
Some of you may remember this little tiptoe act by The Pelosi's.
The next time Trump does something everyone finds UnPresidential or UnWhite Houseish, just remember that The Clintons, Obamas, Pelosis and Trumps all play on the same team and make money the exact same way.
Trump should have never had this information to begin with. The LAW required it be turned over to Congress immediately. Instead, it was given to the President and his inner circle. We don't even talk about this aspect of the situation anymore. The complaint was to go to Congress. What in the hell is the point of having a whistleblower statute if the person the whistle is being blown on is immediately notified of that fact, and then attempts to prevent that information from getting where it is legally required to go?? The ENTIRE POINT of having whistleblowers, whether in the government or a corporate structure at work is to make sure retaliation isn't possible though anonymity. As for the retweet, it's nothing but stochastic terrorism. If this person is targeted, the blood is 1000% on Trump's own hands. Not that a single supporter of his would give a shit. They'd probably make the murder a national holiday.
Yes. That is what I believe. It's not your place to force them. They harm nobody by not allowing certain people in their communities. I also morally oppose mandatory segregation like we had in American history. I believe this thing should be voluntary.
You can disagree with that all you want. After all, this topic was about the balance between federal and state rights. More importantly however, I reject the clownish notion that wanting to live by your religion as you interpret it, and how it has long been interpreted, is analogous to KKK terrorism. The right to practice your religion freely has long been a bedrock principle of the American republic.
What does it benefit that community to force people into it that they are unwilling to take? If it doesn't benefit them, then they are absolutely justified in resisting it. Let people live how they want to live, long as they aren't hurting anyone. Even if you really dislike what they believe!
The only thing this attempt at cultural imperialism has done is foster partisanship, resentment, and extremism, on both sides. Controversial things are far less acceptable to say in public now, but it seems to me controversial beliefs are more prevalent now than ever before in my memory.
No, because that's a threat. Threats are actually harmful. Saying "no thanks" to someone who wants to live with you is not.
Discriminating against someone is not harmless. It is not a difference of opinion. It is not a cultural value. It is not a religion. Discrimination is an action, not a belief. Actions are not protected freedoms if they impact another person's rights, and this is a very obvious example of people infringing on other people's rights.
If a white person doesn't want to live next door to a black person, the white person's right is to move their own home; not to force out the black person. You have the right to determine where you stand; not where everyone else gets to stand.
Agree to this. You are allowed to believe what ever you believe and there is short term harm that does come from mandatory segregation.
It’s not clownish. This discussion wasn’t about state rights, it was about an elected official wanting to wage a holy war outside his community and how a person like that could be elected.
I put fundamental terrorism in the same category as the KKK. Having an elected official like that emboldens people who would use threats against a minority group.
And once again. You are allowed to practice your religion freely, but how does having a gay couple move in next door to you infringe on that practise?
It doesn’t. The closest it comes to is having to explain to your kids that the people next door do not practise the same religion as you do.
So one would assume people move to a community for a reason. One of the biggest reasons is employment, which drives up the local GDP and tax revenue. That’s how it benefits the community.
And how does a community actually resist a person moving in next to them if not through threats?
And when we are talking about LGBT, a person from that community might have lived their whole life in the community that is shunning them. They just chose to come out of the closet, or came of age. Is exile the option to make sure the little community is “gay free”
This is where I disagree. Bigotry and bigotry alone is the cause of things like resentment and extremism. Nothing else.
No, because that's a threat. Threats are actually harmful. Saying "no thanks" to someone who wants to live with you is not.
[/quote]
I agree. Having an elected official want to wage a holy war is a threat akin, if not worse than hanging rope from a tree.
The causes of moral outrage here are just so phony, partisan, and exclusively concerned with political identity it's insane.
There is never a consistent moral principle which we can use as a yardstick to determine why something is wrong or right. It's all so tiresome.
*That's not even what he did anyway, he was named in a media article Trump shared, so it is even less of an arguably amoral act.
I’ll also add, the whistleblower’s name has been out there for awhile now and I’d assume, this person would be having extra protection assigned to them because of it.
Trump’s twitter feed is also becoming a spam of garbage.and is quickly losing its insightfulness into Trump’s thought process. Which maybe the point, who knows.
Living in a neighborhood is not "living with someone". I have never said a single word to either of the people living in the apartments right next to me. They live "near" me. Avoiding them is not only easy, it is so easy I see them about once every 6 months. Living with someone would be forcing them to share your house. You are actually advocating that predominantly white neighborhoods be able to ban people of color from living NEAR them, indicating that their mere presence is somehow tainting their "pure" community. Living on a certain city block does not offer you the right to STRIP the right of other people to move freely and buy or rent property in a country they are citizens in. And you think the left-wing posters here are radical?? You are full-on defending and even advocating for a return to segregation. But the fact that you think African-Americans being banned from certain communities isn't "hurting" anyone is the most revealing of all. I have no idea what "voluntary" segregation is. The definition of voluntary is done, given, or acting of one's own free will. Presumably, the only people exercising their "free will" in this scenario would be the ones banning certain people from living in their area, because the people BEING BANNED sure as shit aren't voting of their own free will to keep themselves out.
What else should we go back to?? Schools in the south that don't allow black students?? Separate water fountains?? Back entrances to establishments for non-whites?? Your views would lead to nothing less than regional apartheid. I mean, we did this, for over a 100 years. It was an era of state-sponsored and state-sanctioned (when undertaken by regular citizens) terrorism on an endless basis. Mob executions that were attended by white families like county fairs are now. Black families having to flee to northern industrial cities if they wanted themselves and their children to not only have ANY chance to make something of their lives, but in many cases to LIVE at all. And since when are there citizen panels that VOTE on who gets to move into a certain neighborhood?? This nation is a not a series of country clubs accepting members. If the white family doesn't like that an African-American family moved next to them, they can move THEIR asses somewhere else. Not the other way around. And we've been told for the last 4 years how overly sensitive liberals are. What a fucking joke. EVERYTHING about this "new right" movement is projection. You could write academic journals on the subject by studying it.
As for this line from @semiticgod:
If a white person doesn't want to live next door to a black person, the white person's right is to move their own home; not to force out the black person. You have the right to determine where you stand; not where everyone else gets to stand.
The fact is that the fundamental belief at the core of "Trumpism" (which is really just the inevitable end-game of the Republican project) totally rejects this notion. They legitimately DO believe they not only deserve to have their rights, but also the right to take them away from others if it pleases them. Usually simply for the pleasure being vindictive gives them. They not only want to have their cake and eat it too, they want to be in control of every goddamn bakery. The argument from the beginning from many of us has been that "MAGA" means a return to 1950s America. We clearly weren't wrong.
Not by legal or state-sanctioned force, which is what is being suggested here. I also love that the hypothetical LGBT enclave here is what is being referred to as the "snowflakes" when we are literally getting suggestions that the feelings of racists or homophobes are SO important that we should actually enact local statutes that bar certain people from living in certain places. The cognitive dissonance to make that statement in the light of this discussion is simply ASTOUNDING.
On the one side, we have people maybe asking that you not call them a f****t or n****r in public and some people thinking that is the highest form of oppression imaginable. And on the other the idea that's it's perfectly reasonable to segregate communities to make sure straight white people are 110% comfortable with EVERYTHING around them for the entirety of their lives. I mean, seriously, holy hell. The idea that it's the "left" that is overly sensitive given what your "side" of this divide is admitting isn't even just laughable, it's deranged.
The homophobe will either bend to community pressure and take a hike, or if he wants to stay and demean his neighbors every chance he gets, then he is free to do so. They aren't going to pass an ordinance barring him from a certain section of the city, which is what is being suggested. He's just gonna get all the public shunning and shaming that comes with it. Tough shit. It's called being an adult and taking responsibility for your own behavior. Freedom of speech is not freedom of social consequence from that speech. Which isn't something the alt-right doesn't understand. They understand it perfectly well. They just can't stand that that's the reality. It's actually not that hard not to be an asshole in public. Before Trump, we were doing quite well at it. But holy hell did he unleash all the people who were just ITCHING to let their freak flag fly.
This is America, and there is freedom of speech. No one is stopping anyone from saying anything as racist as they want at the top of their lungs. They will not be arrested (i.e. punished by the government) for doing so. But the people who interact of them also have freedom of speech. They are free to talk to their friends and tell them what a shit-bag they are. They are free to encourage others to no longer provide patronage to their business (if they happen to own one). And they are free to tell them what they think of them as well. This entire idea of "left-wing, SJW, snowflake" bullshit is predicated on the fact that people want to be able to talk this way without anyone (metaphorically) hitting them back or calling them out on their shit. They want to dish it out, but be immune from taking it. Those people are called bullies and cowards. There. That's me using my freedom of speech. If they can't handle the heat, take a trek on out of the kitchen.
I'm so fed up with this reactionary bullshit masquerading as some kind principled stand on "free speech", when we clearly have people in this forum who subscribe to this theory about the left PERFECTLY WILLING to entertain the idea of legalized segregation in local communities based on nothing but (since you all love this word so much) "feelings". In other words, you have a HUGE problem with societal pressure in regards to speech (which is simply two factions using their speech to combat one another) but NO problem against STATE SANCTIONED removal of fundamental rights, which CAN'T be combated by ANYTHING.
Looks like Black Domestic Terrorism is on the rise in the U.S. The Jersey shooting couple weeks ago, last night at a Hanukkah celebration and today at a predominantly White church in Texas.
2020 is gonna be a hell of a year.
You've missed the point. Whistleblower protections exist because some whistleblowers will *not* have additional protection or backing. Whistleblowers will be much less likely to come forward if they know that the President will relentlessly seek our their name and put a target on their backs.
Ideally, they shouldnt have to meaningfully harm their safety in order to do the right thing. That's the point of the protections afforded them.
The point is, there's nothing wrong in wanting to maintain a certain way of life, whatever that may be, and having to make your own rules- to some extent- to get there.
To many people, though not myself, that may even be the heart of their conservative philosophy.
Yet the Trump administration has tried to make it effectively legal to fire a transgender person for simply being trans. I don't think my trans friends and I should lose our jobs because we don't live by other people's rules. But it is the current administration's actual policy that employers should be able to punish us unless we obey alien laws. This is not a hypothetical concern; this is literally happening in real time across the entire country. Other people's hypothetical fantasy is our current reality.
The administration has already taken concrete action to directly allow employers to coerce the transgender population into abandoning the most basic aspect of our identity. Is that what is meant by the right to live by one's own cultural values?
However, in small scale buisness environments where a person or single family is operating the buisness, I can see how that comes off as an affront to their own values and freedom of association.
Large scale faceless corporations do not have the same personal human touch involved and are run far more on the basis of simple corporate policy, often run by shareholders and not the original owners no less. There also should not be discrimination.
So really only very small scale buisnesses should really get away with that sort of thing. The economic harm is minimal, as is the damage to personal liberty, with a compromise like that.
@WarChiefZeke You and I have always agreed that no company should be able to fire an employee for expressing a viewpoint that the leadership disagreed with. Our position was that corporate power should not be able to punish freedom of speech. Neither of us made any exceptions for that principle. We did not say it was okay to crack down on free speech just because your company is smaller than average. We did not say that only the government was required to respect freedom of speech. Our position was that one person having economic power didn't outweigh anyone else's political rights.
I am not changing my reasoning on the issue, and I don't think changing the reasoning is in your values, either. An employer should not be able to fire an employee for posting a stupid tweet for the same reasons an employer should not be able to fire an employee for being trans: because having economic power does not entitle you to force your beliefs on other people or to punish those who don't share your views.
If it is acceptable for an employer to fire someone for beings trans because the corporate leadership doesn't agree with trans rights, it is acceptable for an employer to fire someone for posting an offensive tweet because the leadership doesn't agree with the tweet's message. We're talking about the use of corporate power to punish people the company leadership disagrees with.
And if we are going to go to this "religious freedom" argument about businesses, I am on the record that both the Christian pharmacist who won't fill a birth control prescription AND the Muslim grocery store clerk who won't handle pork products in a check-out line can both go fly a kite, and either do their job or find another one. We can't be running commerce in this country based on ancient folklore. You are free to spend every SECOND of your free time at your church or at home worshiping ANYTHING or ANYONE you please. Eliminating it from your professional career is not an infringement on freedom. It means you choose to prioritize one or the other. The pharmacist knew full well before accepting their job that birth control is a prescribed medication they would have to fill. The grocery store clerk is aware bacon and ham are sold in the store they filled out an application at. Expecting religious exemptions at work is not only self-centered, but selfish in the extreme, as you are then passing off EXTRA work to others because your "god" is so important. If everyone showed up tomorrow and decided to play this little game the entire economy would collapse.
This idea that somehow running a "small business" makes you inherently pure of heart and intention is the same BS narrative that assumes the only "working class" people in this country are factory workers, construction workers, or farmers. That the real America and it's "values" are only represented in small towns and mom and pop operations. You want to look for a media narrative that is ceaseless and never-ending, there you have it. I've seen about 3 dozen panels of small-town Trump voters since the 2016 election on various news programs. You know how many I've seen of Clinton voters from Atlanta or Minneapolis?? A big fat zero. And neither has anyone else. Because they don't exist.
There is an equally bad precedent (I would argue far worse, I suppose that is what separates us) that all people arent entitled to equal protection under the law. It may start with "We wont let black people live in our neighborhood" or "we wont hire Native Americans", but that can (and has) quickly spiraled out of control. It becomes things like "Why should LGBTQ people be allowed to get married?" (I wont cite more extreme historical since people dismiss those as fear mongering since things like Eugenics are hard to defend). I remind you, it was only 5 years that this basic protection was affirmed, and less than 20 since a president suggested we should amend the constitution to prevent it from ever happening.
- and not for nothing, but it's easy for us Cis Straight White Men to be comfortable with the institutionalization of discrimination. We know it will never affect us.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/596668/
There used to be good articles like this written by conservatives but I'll be damned if I can find many these days...
Because, in a Christian society, Marriage is a religious term. It is a sacrament. It was a mistake to not have that separation of church and state when all beneficial marriage laws were being written.
I personally think the term marriage should have stayed religious (separation of religion and state) and another term, like civil union be put in its place. Marriage would be considered a civil union, but so to would couples getting a certificate from a judge or law clerk to get all the benefits a marriage certificate can receive.
Do I think a church should be forced to allow a gay couple in their church? Hell to the no (even if this is counter to my personal spiritual beliefs that everyone is equal under the eye of god). If a person is not a regular patron to the church, Or believe in the words that they preach, I do not believe the church needs to open their doors to everyone looking to get married.
Throughout the course of history, in various cultures that include Christian society, marriage has often been a political/socio-economic construct, and its connection to religious values has often been tenuous at best. Since Christian churches have sanctioned polygamous arrangements and arranged/forced marriages in the past, I personally don't think that they're in position to claim moral high ground or religious exemption when it comes to this topic.
As to the term marriage itself... Language is malleable, and the meaning of words often changes and expends. This should be (and is) one of those instances where that holds true.
Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. Just because one cult thinks marriage is a religious term and gays can't be married, there's plenty of others that don't. Freedom of marriage is the law of the land. People need to adapt to civil society, we don't need to cater to particular religious cultists.
Arranged marriages still happen. I had a friend just last year move to Australia (from Canada) because she was arranged to marry a guy she had met once or twice. That doesn’t make her union any less special than those that fall in love and decide to spend the rest of their life together (or until they can legally get a divorce and split all they own in messy court procedures).
It should be noted that marrying for love is the new concept.
It also doesn’t remove marriage as it is known between a man and a woman as a Sacrament and people need to realize that most of the pushback comes from that. It’s understanding the other side and not just dismissing them. What is wrong with a broad term like ”civil union”?
And just to be clear. I am all for same sex marriage, and will use that term because it is the norm. My point, is that the word marriage, should never have been the norm.
It was about making gay couples equal in the eyes of the state. The attempt to exclusively allow the RIGHTS afforded by marriage to 90% of the population while not giving them to another 10% made them de facto second-class citizens. Civil unions at the time did NOT grant all of the legal protections afforded spouses. They could have been amended to do so, but even then, we'd essentially be dealing with just another example of "separate but equal". The fight was over the "feelings" of conservative Christians and their belief that only they deserved to lay claim to the term, and that their viewpoint superceded the fundamental rights of others. While Democrats didn't go far enough quick enough in regards to gay rights (mostly because of public opposition), Republicans attempted to codify second-class status for gay Americans in the Constitution itself. It's how W. got re-elected.
I wouldn't say its never been part of the discussion. In general church communities are terrified of this happening. Its not happening, but that fear of it being the case is honestly what pushes most of gay marriage debate from religious groups.
They may believe that, but there has been no serious discussion among LGBTQ advocates to push for it, nor was it ever an issue in the Supreme Court case. Catholic churches won't even marry STRAIGHT couples unless they do church mandated counseling beforehand. The fight since the Supreme Court victory has been to preserve it, and then moved on to workplace protections and trans-rights. So I mean, they can BELIEVE that Godzilla is going to rise from the sea and come and step on their church. Doesn't mean it's a legitimate concern.
Civil partnerships have been available for gay couples in the UK since 2004. That option was a huge advance towards equality, but it didn't resolve all issues. The status of marriage and civil partnership in law was close, but not identical and there were certainly plenty of people who still resented being asked to accept a 'second-class' situation. Some of those anomalies have now been addressed by more recent legislation.
On the other side there were also people who felt uncomfortable with the historical and patriarchal associations of marriage and felt that civil partnerships should be available to everyone (and not just gay couples). From tomorrow that will be the case. I think that should mean the status of civil partnerships will become much more widely accepted as equal to marriage in future - and make it easier for marriage to be left for those who value its religious and historical significance.