McCain opposes gay marriage
Sen. John McCain tells Ellen DeGeneres why he opposes same-sex marriage
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/05/22/sot.mccain.on.ellen.cnn
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Welcome to my blog: where I will post political and cultural items of interest to me. Caution: you will find super liberal, bleeding heart, hippy, and gay stuff here. Lucky you!
7 comments:
Geez, he's a boring old guy! Good for Ellen for at least broaching the topic though.
I like Ellen a lot, I would love to meet her. I also think Ellen did make a compelling argument.
Here is the problem. What Ellen is asking for is for the state to go beyond just declaring legal partnerships and declare gay unions as having the sacred status of “marriage”.
Now this is not to say that there can’t be compelling arguments for why gay unions could not be considered sacred and given the term marriage; I am just not sure that government is really able to mandate any union beyond just it’s legality and declare something “sacred” one way or the other. So perhaps government has over stepped its boundaries by ever declaring any legal union, even heterosexual, a marriage.
Perhaps the answer is for government to get out of the marriage game all together and declare both homosexual and heterosexual unions “civil unions” and let marriage be determined in the context of peoples various religious and cultural communities.
This way everyone would have the same legal rights and at the same time allow diverse communities to determine on their own what would constitute sacred and marriage beyond just a legal agreement and partnership; and no one could deny them that.
Just a thought, I would love to hear your opinion.
Peace,
James
Good point but the way it is now is a little backwards. Many churches will marry gay couples... but it's the government who won't stamp the paper giving you the federal rights. Also a couple of hetero atheists can go to a justice of the peace and be married. So there are two points, wanting the words "marriage" and "wife" etc. and wanting those "federal" rights. Rights in the emergency room, in the funeral home, in the tax office.
I don't see the rules ever changing for straight couples so it seems this is the road to do. I think we are far away from a federal change tho, maybe not even in our lifetime.
I agree the process is a little backwards. Perhaps it took gay marriage though to realize that the state may be over stepping it boundaries to "marry" anyone.
If the church wants to marry a homosexual couple I think they should be able to- why should the state have a say in it. Frankly, I think the Episcopal Church is leaving it's gay clergy out to dry by not at least allowing gay clergy to be married as far as the church is concerned.
And yea, I am also not sure the state should be able to give an atheist heterosexual couple any more than a legal contract either.
This doesn't stop anyone or any group from calling any of this marriage, but I do think part of the problem is because government once upon a time began to regulate marriage (primarily for tax purposes) when they probably should not have.
I know it is a long shot to advocate that the government get out of the marriage game all together, but I do think it is a just solution for everyone.
Thanks for the conversation.
Peace,
James
Interesting idea but I don't see anyone wanting to give up the word marriage. It's such a big part of our culture, right or wrong. Who wants to be in THIS situation?
VIEW HERE
funny clip!!! I think the idea isn't to abandon the word marriage, but to not let government determine who is or who isn't.
Peace,
James
great to see a line of chat!! i gotta side with james (though i agree it isn't going to play out that way). what the heck is all the bs about separation of church & state anyway!! never has been that way & likely won't be for quite some time.
Post a Comment