On Nov 13, 2008, at 9:07 AM, David Cake wrote: > At 6:27 AM -0700 13/11/08, Chris Gehlker wrote: >> On Nov 13, 2008, at 1:49 AM, David Cake wrote: >> >>> Which is why civil unions granted by the state, and leaving >>> the sanctity of the marriage sacrament to the churches won't satisfy >>> any bigot. There will immediately be gay friendly churches and >>> religions that want to sanctify gay marriages, and once gay marriage >>> is made purely a religious question, it becomes clearly >>> unconstitutional for the state to legislate about it. >> >> Some "bigots" say that the only issue they have is with the legal >> definition of 'marriage'. The question is would they accept no >> definition at all. It's an empirical question. > > And I'm quite sure they wouldn't -- I'm sure if there was a > campaign to take marriage out of the legal system, it would be be > seen as evidence of the US ceasing to ba 'Christian Nation' and > giving itself over wholly to secular humanism. > (I know that the US isn't a 'Christian nation', but that is > not the word view of the fundies)
I'm sure some would make such an argument but you are are acting as if there aren't any right wing Christian fundies out there who support the universal civil union proposal. You seem unaware that many Christian fundies and mainstream Mormons regard secular heterosexual "marriage" as every bit as sacrilegious as gay marriage. In a place like California where the margin for Prop 8 wasn't large you could possibly get a majority for the notion that the state has no business defining marriage at all. The notion has inherent appeal for civil libertarians and those religious who regard anything secular as somewhat profane. >> >> I have no idea where you got that. You certainly can't infer it from >> anything I said. > > Well, your argument is essentially that there is nothing > wrong with withholding the 'sacrament' of marriage, as long as civil > unions grant exactly the same rights WTF? That is the exact opposite of my clearly stated position. >> >> I agree that the current approach will work eventually. I fid that a >> poor argument against adopting a strategy that might work sooner. > > I'm sceptical that it would work. So am I. But I'm certain that the other approach won't work because it just failed. --- Just because they're good at propaganda doesn't mean we have to be good at stupid. -Marty Kaplan _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
