Texas GOP party platform: You can pray the gay away!

[AJ Dual]

The state has an interest in promoting the (actual) institution of marriage because it creates a stable family structure that has shown to be the best environment for raising progeny. (Please let's not redebate the whole "BUT SOMETIMES CHILDREN OF DIVORCES/GAYPARENTS/DRUGADDICTS/FURRYLOVERS TURN OUT BETTER THAN WITH TWO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS!")

I categorically deny the state has any legitimate interest in that. That is a function of society and culture to sort itself out as it sees fit.

And I think anyone who espouses that line of reasoning, yet at the same time says they support the free market over a planned economy, and wants limited government is blind to their own emotive reasoning, cognitive dissonance, and hypocrisy. Giving government power over "family structure" is just an invitation to disaster. And I think we all do agree it's a disaster, as witnessed by the state of family structure in the welfare state.

Further, those who fought gay marriage are reaping what you've sown, because now the .gov is largely on a course to declare gay marriage by fiat and through the courts, and as noted earlier in the thread, gays who might not have ever been interested in "marriage" will now pursue it as a prize, and as a way of opposing and angering you.

And there's parallels to our common love of RKBA as well, right or wrong, in the eyes of God, or "social practicality and the stability of children" the gays are more or less fighting for something, while those who oppose it are fighting for a negative. If you don't see the parallels there, then you're not looking willfully.

I've repeatedly stated that BOTH sides have failed in looking to the government, or trying to wrest control over it to either promote or ban gay marriage, so ultimately both sides have lost here, but for now, your side is "losing more".

[Strings]

Thank you, AJ, for stating that so much better than I ever could

>That may be do-able, but it is more likely to devolve into a welfare scam.  I am just not into making it easier or more acceptable for more folks to hop in the wagon for the taxpayers to pull forward.  Enough, already.  We have quite enough pro-dysgenic policies, thanks.  <

Kinda hard to make welfare scamming any easier than it is now. Nice simple welfare reform should happen regardless. Poly marriage isn't going to add anything to that

[fifth_column]

I haven't made an argument against polygamy because I didn't think we had begun that argument. I merely pointed out that the record of polygamy was not an exemplary one in the Old Testament.

However, my argument against polygamy is the exact same argument that I have against homosexual marriage:

The state has an interest in promoting the (actual) institution of marriage because it creates a stable family structure that has shown to be the best environment for raising progeny. (Please let's not redebate the whole "BUT SOMETIMES CHILDREN OF DIVORCES/GAYPARENTS/DRUGADDICTS/FURRYLOVERS TURN OUT BETTER THAN WITH TWO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS!")

Homosexual unions do not provide that same structure. (At best, you can say the data is mixed. I think it's clearly shown the environment to be detrimental.) Polygamous unions suffer similarly.

It is, therefore, not in the interest of the state to promote those unions. We can argue on whether they ought to be actually outlawed (as homosexual unions are nowhere in the country and polygamous unions are everywhere in the country), but the state has no compelling interest to promote and recognize them.

But, instead, the judiciary has decided that it is a compelling interest of the state to both promote homosexual unions and to penalize any who think their unions are detrimental.

Makes sense to me, and is certainly a consistent world-view.  Would it be accurate to say that, for you, gay marriage creates a more emotional reaction than polygamy?  Again, I'm not being snarky.  I honestly want to know.

[Strings]

Not gonna speak for anyone here specifically, but I would say that most straight men will have more of a negative reaction to gay marriage than to polygamy (or lesbian marriage). One gives an "Ewwww" factor, the other doesn't

[makattak]

Makes sense to me, and is certainly a consistent world-view.  Would it be accurate to say that, for you, gay marriage creates a more emotional reaction than polygamy?  Again, I'm not being snarky.  I honestly want to know.

I think the immediate threat of gay marriage provokes more of a reaction than polygamy because polygamy is a (slightly) more distant threat.

It's hard to get emotional over something that you know is going to happen, but it not immediately occurring. (See: Social Security bankruptcy.)

[cordex]

I categorically deny the state has any legitimate interest in that. That is a function of society and culture to sort itself out as it sees fit.

Yep.  I would only add that when a parent's unstable family structure spills over into criminal neglect or abuse then it should become a state enforcement issue.

Further, those who fought gay marriage are reaping what you've sown, because now the .gov is largely on a course to declare gay marriage by fiat and through the courts, and as noted earlier in the thread, gays who might not have ever been interested in "marriage" will now pursue it as a prize, and as a way of opposing and angering you.

That doesn't really make sense.  I don't think that most people who are against the idea of same-sex marriage are really worried if 2*X gay people get married instead of X.  If the argument is that the government shouldn't be legitimizing what they feel is immoral activity, how would not fighting the issue and just letting it happen be better than fighting and ultimately losing in the courts?

Sure, there are other drawbacks to the opposition - i.e., distraction from other positive political goals as charby has noted, but I'm not understanding the "reaping what you've sown" assertion.

I've repeatedly stated that BOTH sides have failed in looking to the government, or trying to wrest control over it to either promote or ban gay marriage, so ultimately both sides have lost here, but for now, your side is "losing more".

Yep again.

[Perd Hapley]

The state has an interest in promoting the (actual) institution of marriage because it creates a stable family structure that has shown to be the best environment for raising progeny.

This I don't agree with, or at least not when stated in that fashion.

Societies, cultures, families, religions, have usually shown an interest in pairing up eligible men and women, and keeping them together - thus marriage. And it seems to make sense for government to recognize (which is not to say regulate or control*) those marriages, if for no other reason than figuring out which child belongs to who (whom? whoms?). Society, correct me if I'm wrong, has seldom found homosexual fidelity to be a pressing concern - thus an almost total (if not totally total) lack of same-sex "marriage" in history. And we're suddenly worried about it now, why?  "But fistful, teh geys have rug-rats, too!" Well, yeah, but any bunch of non-traditional couples can raise children together, gay, straight, or platonic. Funny how we single out the homosexuals for the urgent need for official recognition. 

When government recognizes "traditional marriages," it's recognizing something that's already there, and has always been there. When it recognizes non-traditional unions, whatever moral judgment anyone might have of them, there's just not much there for government to go on. Society is not in the habit of solemnizing the bond between an uncle and nephew that live together in a sex-less (thank goodness) household for thirty years, nor the union of two homosexual dudes raising a daughter of one of said dudes. So how is government to recognize something that isn't "a thing"?

But, instead, the judiciary has decided that it is a compelling interest of the state to both promote homosexual unions and to penalize any who think their unions are detrimental.

Well said. That first thing the govt. is doing is nonsensical (or at least, pointless**); the second thing is a patent violation of basic human rights. I guess not wanting my government to do nonsensical or pointless things makes me a hater.


 *We could talk about how much regulation govt. should attempt of marriage, but I at least want them to recognize it when it happens.

**Unless the point, the purpose, is for the government to change our views on sexuality and gender for us.

[Firethorn]

I guess that I'm assuming that people are genetically predisposed to their sexual preference.Since they don't breed will their percentage decrease?

The issue is complicated, and not entirely genetic.
1.  There's plenty of gays who still breed - artificial insemination for the lesbians.  Heck, plenty of gays actually marry and have kids before coming out.
2.  The chances of having a gay son increases with each son a woman has.
3.  There's a theory out there that the 'gay gene', at least for guys, actually increases female fertility.  If that outweighs the occasional gay son that doesn't breed(and per #1 many do)...
4.  There's other theories that it could be affected by hormone levels during specific stages of pregnancy.  Not EVERYTHING has to be genetic, you know.  For that matter there are documented cases of identical twins where one's straight and the other's gay.

The state has an interest in promoting the (actual) institution of marriage because it creates a stable family structure that has shown to be the best environment for raising progeny.

But, instead, the judiciary has decided that it is a compelling interest of the state to both promote homosexual unions and to penalize any who think their unions are detrimental.

To use an argument I've seen elsewhere:  Do you support genetic testing couples before allowing them to marry and forbidding them from doing so if there's an elevated chance of problems with any children?  If marriage is purely about raising progeny, why do we allow people past menopause to marry, men with vasectomies, etc...?  Do we dissolve marriages if a couple decides to not have any children?

The answer is, of course, that marriage is about a heck of a lot more than just raising kids.  We are not so badly off that we need every couple possible procreating. 

I'm going to end with a question:  How are their unions detrimental?  If you believe they are, how do you distinguish between the harm gays marrying causes and things like people eating red meat, being fat, and such?

[Perd Hapley]

If marriage is purely about raising progeny, why do we allow people past menopause to marry, men with vasectomies, etc...?  Do we dissolve marriages if a couple decides to not have any children?

The answer is, of course, that marriage is about a heck of a lot more than just raising kids.  We are not so badly off that we need every couple possible procreating. 

Proviso: As I said just a bit ago, I don't agree with mak that government should promote marriage. I think it should recognize marriage.

Obviously, no one believes that marriage is only about raising children. But it is the only thing that explains why the whole world believes in it, and has always believed* it should be heterosexual. Religion and/or "homophobia" cannot explain it. Marriage has never been predicated on pre-existing children, or the likelihood of having children, merely the fact that they predictably occur between heterosexual pairings. We haven't seen fit to invalidate childless marriages in the past, even when child-bearing was considered a duty. There's no reason to start now.


*As noted, ad nauseam, there may have been a few, short-lived exceptions, if those were really considered equivalent to marriage.

[makattak]

To use an argument I've seen elsewhere:  Do you support genetic testing couples before allowing them to marry and forbidding them from doing so if there's an elevated chance of problems with any children?  If marriage is purely about raising progeny, why do we allow people past menopause to marry, men with vasectomies, etc...?  Do we dissolve marriages if a couple decides to not have any children?

And, as I've answered this several times: no, I do not because those actions are an unacceptable breach of privacy.

Further, we allow everyone (except for polygamous marriages) to get married. We offer state benefits and recognition to the specific relationship that is actual marriage.

(Of course, I'm going to have to amend that now that the judiciary has long ago decided it wants to attack the actual definitions of marriage.)



If you want to argue that the state ought only to offer extra benefits to stable, male and female parent present households, I will not object. I do, however, think that the costs of offering those same benefits to couples incapable of having children are small compared to the invasion of privacy to do the things you suggest.

I'm going to end with a question:  How are their unions detrimental?  If you believe they are, how do you distinguish between the harm gays marrying causes and things like people eating red meat, being fat, and such?

Very simple, because people eating red meat, being fat, etc... are of no danger to anyone but themselves. (See roo_ster's posts on those statistics). But, of course, that's really just a side issue.

The true issue is the same issue with gun registration. There are honest gun control advocates supporters who truly only want to protect people and only want a registry with no thoughts towards confiscation. We know that that is not the end goal. The end goal is the state having the power and ability to confiscate guns they don't like.

Yes, it's a slippery slope argument, but it's one with a clear history in other nations.

It is the same issue here. Gay "marriage" isn't about accruing the benefits that actual marriage has from the government. It is about a means to force social acceptance on those hateful! Christians. It is about using the power of the state against those who believe homosexuality is a sin.

Further, to answer AJDual:

I categorically deny the state has any legitimate interest in that. That is a function of society and culture to sort itself out as it sees fit.

And I think anyone who espouses that line of reasoning, yet at the same time says they support the free market over a planned economy, and wants limited government is blind to their own emotive reasoning, cognitive dissonance, and hypocrisy. Giving government power over "family structure" is just an invitation to disaster. And I think we all do agree it's a disaster, as witnessed by the state of family structure in the welfare state.

Further, those who fought gay marriage are reaping what you've sown, because now the .gov is largely on a course to declare gay marriage by fiat and through the courts, and as noted earlier in the thread, gays who might not have ever been interested in "marriage" will now pursue it as a prize, and as a way of opposing and angering you.

You may deny that. But to claim we are "reaping what we've sown" is wrong. If the government were never involved in marriage (which, I will note, it did fine until it decided it wanted to meddle by making destroying a marriage easier), the homosexual lobby would be using some other weapon against Christians.

Because that is the issue: forcing social acceptance of deviant behavior and using the power of the state against all who would call it deviant. Gay "marriage" is not the issue and it will not stop here.

[Strings]

>Gay "marriage" isn't about accruing the benefits that actual marriage has from the government. It is about a means to force social acceptance on those hateful! Christians.<

Ummm... no.

The gay marriage movement started because long-term gay couples were getting screwed legally with regards to partner rights: visitation at hospitals, inheritance, things like that. Yes, they could spend a load of money to make all the same arrangements via the courts, but even then they aren't as strong a protection as "marriage"

And honestly, statements like the above make it very hard for me to take Christians seriously: you're claiming victim status because a group you don't approve of wants the same rights as everyone else. Did you learn that from the far left?

[Balog]

>Gay "marriage" isn't about accruing the benefits that actual marriage has from the government. It is about a means to force social acceptance on those hateful! Christians.<

Ummm... no.

The gay marriage movement started because long-term gay couples were getting screwed legally with regards to partner rights: visitation at hospitals, inheritance, things like that. Yes, they could spend a load of money to make all the same arrangements via the courts, but even then they aren't as strong a protection as "marriage"

And honestly, statements like the above make it very hard for me to take Christians seriously: you're claiming victim status because a group you don't approve of wants the same rights as everyone else. Did you learn that from the far left?

A will and durable power of attorney etc costs a boatload of money now? Only thing a marriage gives that can't be easily and cheaply duplicated is forcing insurance co's to recognize the relationships.

Also, as you yourself have pointed out, if this was truly about equality before the law then they'd have called it a civil union and avoided the worst of the controversy. Here in Seattle civil unions that were exactly the same as a marriage but not called that were passed into law. But that wasn't enough, because equality before the law is a pretext to get the folks who wouldn't necessarily be comfortable with social engineering at gun point to go along with it.

Also, actual question. Why only sexual relationships? Why not platonic partner contracts that convey the same rights as marriage? Why are we ok with discriminating against the asexual?

[makattak]

>Gay "marriage" isn't about accruing the benefits that actual marriage has from the government. It is about a means to force social acceptance on those hateful! Christians.<

Ummm... no.

The gay marriage movement started because long-term gay couples were getting screwed legally with regards to partner rights: visitation at hospitals, inheritance, things like that. Yes, they could spend a load of money to make all the same arrangements via the courts, but even then they aren't as strong a protection as "marriage"

And honestly, statements like the above make it very hard for me to take Christians seriously: you're claiming victim status because a group you don't approve of wants the same rights as everyone else. Did you learn that from the far left?

I'm not claiming victim status, any more than gun owners are when we point out that registration leads to confiscation.

I'm laying out what the strategy will be (and has already happened in other countries.)

I am not yet persecuted. That is, however, the goal of this movement.

And, just like with gun control, most of those supporting it don't know what the ultimate goal of the advocates is. (Additionally, the seeds for it are already to be found in the Supreme Court decision striking down DOMA, where Kennedy claimed that the only possible explanation for opposing gay marriage is animus and hate. He planted that there precisely to bring us to where we are today and to lead us to the next logical step of punishing those who discriminate on the basis of "animus and hate.")

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

>Gay "marriage" isn't about accruing the benefits that actual marriage has from the government. It is about a means to force social acceptance on those hateful! Christians.<

Ummm... no.

The gay marriage movement started because long-term gay couples were getting screwed legally with regards to partner rights: visitation at hospitals, inheritance, things like that. Yes, they could spend a load of money to make all the same arrangements via the courts, but even then they aren't as strong a protection as "marriage"

And honestly, statements like the above make it very hard for me to take Christians seriously: you're claiming victim status because a group you don't approve of wants the same rights as everyone else. Did you learn that from the far left?

Come again?

My wife and I have wills and powers of attorney in place even though we're straight and married.  All couples should, straight or not, married or not.  I don't see any marginal cost for being gay.  

And loads of money?  You're kidding, right?  This stuff is trivial.  You can find fill-in-the-bank forms on the web for free.

Regardless, I find it impossible to believe that the real issue is stuff like medical decision rights and property inheritance.  If this was the true goal, then I would expect to see gay activists pursuing it directly.  They're not.  And I would expect them to make common cause with straight non-married couples sharing the same goals.  They're not.  And I would expect they'd be satisfied now that they've achieved those goals.  They're not.  

It doesn't add up, this can't be what the issue is all about.

[Firethorn]

And, as I've answered this several times: no, I do not because those actions are an unacceptable breach of privacy.

And intruding into their bedroom fun time isn't?

Very simple, because people eating red meat, being fat, etc... are of no danger to anyone but themselves. (See roo_ster's posts on those statistics). But, of course, that's really just a side issue.

Still raises the question about how two dudes or ladies shacking up with each other is a danger to others.

It is the same issue here. Gay "marriage" isn't about accruing the benefits that actual marriage has from the government. It is about a means to force social acceptance on those hateful! Christians. It is about using the power of the state against those who believe homosexuality is a sin.

Do you know why this is?  See Strings' answer.  The gays wouldn't care about 'hateful Christians' if said people hadn't stuck their noses into their business.  Things like banning them from the military, hospital visitation rights(where said hospitals tended to ignore the durable PoAs the partner presented), inheritance, etc...

You may deny that. But to claim we are "reaping what we've sown" is wrong. If the government were never involved in marriage (which, I will note, it did fine until it decided it wanted to meddle by making destroying a marriage easier), the homosexual lobby would be using some other weapon against Christians.

If it's a weapon to be used against Christians, how does it harm them?  Heck, if a pair of gay Buddhists want to get married under their own religion, why does the Christian coalition need to stick their noses into it, why is it a threat to YOUR religion?

Because that is the issue: forcing social acceptance of deviant behavior and using the power of the state against all who would call it deviant. Gay "marriage" is not the issue and it will not stop here.

Okay, what's your definition of 'deviant' behavior?  What do you think the real issue is?  Why do you think gays have such a hard on for harming Christianity?

Honestly enough, it sounds like 'We have to restrict the rights of gays because they only want the right to marry to harm us!', 'Why do they want to harm us?', 'Because we won't let them marry and enjoy equal protection under the law!'

A will and durable power of attorney etc costs a boatload of money now? Only thing a marriage gives that can't be easily and cheaply duplicated is forcing insurance co's to recognize the relationships.

Given that a marriage license is like $35?  I remember reading somewhere that it'd cost something like $10k to set up contracts that do 'nearly' everything that a marriage license does.

Also, as you yourself have pointed out, if this was truly about equality before the law then they'd have called it a civil union and avoided the worst of the controversy. Here in Seattle civil unions that were exactly the same as a marriage but not called that were passed into law. But that wasn't enough, because equality before the law is a pretext to get the folks who wouldn't necessarily be comfortable with social engineering at gun point to go along with it.

'Separate but equal' turning out to not be so equal?  You also have federal law to worry about. 

Also, actual question. Why only sexual relationships? Why not platonic partner contracts that convey the same rights as marriage? Why are we ok with discriminating against the asexual?

Actually, this has happened a number of times up in Canada and such.  Couple of old dudes get 'gay married' because they've outlived any family they care about/that cares for them, and are now each other's best friends and it simplifies a lot of tax issues.

[Perd Hapley]

The success, so far, of same-sex "marriage" has more to do with straight people wanting to feel like Freedom Riders, than anything homosexuals may actually want.

[Balog]

Firethorn: not going to try to parse that wall of derp there, so I'll trust you can figure out what part of the argument I'm responding to.

I can download the forms for will/POA etc for free, and I don't believe there is any filing fees for them in many states. It might actually work out that getting equivalent to marriage legal protections is cheaper than getting married in many places. So your "I seem to recall reading" is either a blatant lie or premised on the idea of hiring a $500/hour lawyer to set things up for you. Regardless, there are always differences in fees and requirements across various municipalities. Is [State A] violating my rights if their marriage license costs $50 instead of the $35 of [State B]? Is "a slight difference in paperwork costs for different types of relationships" really such a horrific tragedy that you're willing to sacrifice freedom of religion and conscience to it?


Nice attempt to equate opposition to SSM with racism, always reassuring to know you're still taking your talking points directly from the DNC. Unfortunately, it's a load of rubbish. Any two people of opposite sex and legal age who are not related can enter a marriage agreement and be treated equally under the law. Pointing out that this does not include people of opposite sex is true, but irrelevant. Marriage is not being expanded so that everyone is being treated equally, it is being redefined so as to include types of relationships not previously included. An adult child can't get "married" to one of his/her parents in order to stay on their insurance. ZOMG DISCRIMINATION GET OUT OF PEOPLE'S BEDROOMS YOU HATEY HATEMONGER!!!!

As an aside, are the requirements that bar close blood relatives from marrying discriminatory? Shall we strike those down, for fairness and all? What types of relationships shall we recognize and extend the benefits of marriage to, and (no matter where you set the bar) why are the relationships outside of those bounds being discriminated against?

For many people, the position that homosexuality is morally wrong is an intrinsic part of their religious documents. The clear trend and purpose of this type of legislation is societal engineering such that this is regarded as aberrant and abhorrent (much like modern neo-nazis), forcing those who do hold such views to participate (your church won't host a gay wedding, or your pastor won't perform one? Get ready to lose a discrimination lawsuit), and using the legal system to punish those who admit to still holding those religious views (Won't make a cake for my gay wedding? Lawsuit, and now you're out of business and bankrupt. Admit to being opposed to redefining marriage? Now you're fired because disagreeing is hate speech that creates a hostile work environment cough cough Brendan Eich cough cough. Have a contract with the fed.gov? Better not support any cause opposed to gay marriage, now you're ineligible.).

Most folks who support SSM don't necessarily want those things, they're just "useful" to the folks who do. Just like a lot of the panicky soccer moms who just want their kid to be safe and support firearms registration or the War on Drugs. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and people who aren't willing to consider the unintended consequences of their votes.

[Firethorn]

So your "I seem to recall reading" is either a blatant lie or premised on the idea of hiring a $500/hour lawyer to set things up for you. Regardless, there are always differences in fees and requirements across various municipalities. Is [State A] violating my rights if their marriage license costs $50 instead of the $35 of [State B]? Is "a slight difference in paperwork costs for different types of relationships" really such a horrific tragedy that you're willing to sacrifice freedom of religion and conscience to it?

I said it that way because I read about it years ago and thus don't have a citation handy for it.  I also can't find it right now via various google searches.  The problem is that in cases like hospital visitation there are facilities with a history of stonewalling non-relatives, paperwork or not, unless they were rendered 'a relative' by marriage.  Now, I know this opens the hospital up for lawsuits, but which would you rather have - visiting your dying loved one, or a lawsuit for being denied said visitation?

Ergo, $500/hour lawyer or not, in some ways the marriage certificate was more powerful than the contracts.  Easier certainly, you just need to haul 1 sheet of paper, not dozens.  The problem with filling out the free forms is that they're more likely to be challenged than ones drawn up or at least reviewed by a competent lawyer.

As for 'talking points from the DNC', that's outright unfair, as I have nothing to do with them.  I've come to my own beliefs by myself, thank you very much.  Get onto some different topics and I'm right with you guys. 

As for everybody being treated 'equally', I'm going to go right back to racism.  Because I see your argument as the same whether you say 'opposite sex' or 'different race'.  Equal protection, right?  But is it equal protection when Susie can marry John but not Wanda, but John can marry Wanda?

Close relatives marrying - a sticky widget indeed, especially if the 'couple' is an obviously non-reproductive one so you can't argue 'health of the children!'. 

I understand that many people think that homosexuality is wrong based on their religious documents.  I'll respond that our interpretation of them alters over time.  Most Catholics use birth control at some point in their lives despite mandates of their church.  The Bible has been used to both condone and condemn slavery.  The Koran to variously sentence rapists to death or to stone the woman who was raped. 

I'm not arguing that churches be forced to conduct gay marriages.  But you should already know that there are various sects of various major religions that are perfectly willing to recognize the marriages, and THAT turns opposing gay marriage into a religious fight.  One could say supporting it as well, but how many gays want to get married for the mostly non-religious 'married' part, to include benefits and tax advantages compared with people who oppose it for non-religious purposes?

For the record I support SSM but also support the ability of religions and small businesses* to not support it.

Oh, and my commander is not only gay, but gay married.  His spouse enjoys an increasing number of benefits that an opposite sex spouse has traditionally received for decades, but he fulfills the same 'duties'**, so doesn't he deserve the same benefits?

*I handle large corporations different than small family owned businesses with the viewpoint that you can avoid the latter, but the former is much more difficult.
**Key spouse membership, various functions, political stuff.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The problem is that in cases like hospital visitation there are facilities with a history of stonewalling non-relatives, paperwork or not, unless they were rendered 'a relative' by marriage.  Now, I know this opens the hospital up for lawsuits, but which would you rather have - visiting your dying loved one, or a lawsuit for being denied said visitation?

So, maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake here.  Help me out.

If the problem is that certain hospitals refuse to accept your basic legal docs without a lawsuit, wouldn't the obvious solution be to correct the hospitals' bad behavior?  Censure the hospitals.  Class-action 'em.  Pass a law with some teeth enforcing the patient's legal docs.  Sic the Justice Dept on them.  Do whatever, but this seems like a pretty easy problem to solve.

But re-engineering society's fundamental social structures for the sake of hospital visitation rights?  That seems like a solution only Rube Goldberg would love.  

[Strings]

*sigh*

>Also, as you yourself have pointed out, if this was truly about equality before the law then they'd have called it a civil union and avoided the worst of the controversy. Here in Seattle civil unions that were exactly the same as a marriage but not called that were passed into law. But that wasn't enough, because equality before the law is a pretext to get the folks who wouldn't necessarily be comfortable with social engineering at gun point to go along with it.<

Do try to read all the words. "The gay marriage movement started...". Key word there that you're ignoring: "started".

Yes, it has moved on to try and "claim" the title of marriage. And honestly, I'm not invested/involved enough to tell tell anyone why they've made that move. Personally, completely remove the term "marriage" from the legal lexicon: make 'em all "civil unions", defined as "a cohabitation agreement between any two or more consenting adults, which confers certain legal rights..."

Certainly, it seems that every person I've talked to who's against it will bring scripture into the argument. As soon as you can find it in the original Norse runes where I am told that homosexuality is wrong, you'll have a leg to stand on. Until that point, what your holy book says about the subject means bupkis to me (and to many others, as well).

>Also, actual question. Why only sexual relationships? Why not platonic partner contracts that convey the same rights as marriage? Why are we ok with discriminating against the asexual?<

I would be perfectly fine with that. What I said above says nothing about sexual relations

[White Horseradish]

A church can no more be forced to perform a gay wedding than a Jewish or  a Buddhist one. The only example of this actually happening is Denmark, which is a monarchy with a state church and the parliament legally being a legislative organ for the church. In other words, it's also completely irrelevant to US, because the legal and political system there is about as removed from ours as possible.

[Perd Hapley]

A church can no more be forced to perform a gay wedding than a Jewish or  a Buddhist one.

I wish this were true, but sadly, this is naive. Look at some of the terrible decisions being made by the courts, at all levels. Look at the idiotic laws being passed by our legislatures.

Am I saying it will happen? No, I don't know that for sure. It is, however, likely.

[Perd Hapley]

The talk of equal protection for same-sex couples is question-begging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[dogmush]

I wish this were true, but sadly, this is naive. Look at some of the terrible decisions being made by the courts, at all levels. Look at the idiotic laws being passed by our legislatures.

Am I saying it will happen? No, I don't know that for sure. It is, however, likely.

I disagree. It's highly unlikely.

Churches are not even forced to marry hetero couples they don't want to.  My fair weather Catholic friends are constantly wondering if the church will may them.  Right now I know a couple that goes to church every weekend,  and the church won't may them because she's been divorced.  .Gov isn't now,  and won't in the future force Churches to act outside their faith. To pretend otherwise is,  I feel, paranoid.

Businesses,  on the other hand,  are a different creature.  If sexual orientation gets added to the Civil Rights list (with Race, Sex, Creed, and Religion) then it's likely that businesses that cater to the public will be prevented from discriminating on that basis.

THAT I think is likely to happen soon irregardless of the outcome of the marriage debate.

[Perd Hapley]

dugmush, this has already happened to businesses.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/

.Gov isn't now,  and won't in the future force Churches[\I] to act outside their faith. To pretend otherwise is,  I feel, paranoid.

Rubbish. Government has come close enough to it, that only the ill-informed would talk of paranoia. Catholic adoption agencies were required to assign children to LGBTEIEIO parents, and if I remember correctly, they had to get out of the business, in order to avoid being actually forced to "act outside their faith." Catholic institutions were also going to be forced to provide contraception in employee health plans, though I'm not sure where that stands, right now. We've also heard about the IRS demanding the text of prayers made by non-profit groups.

So, definite? No. Likely? Yes.