Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Originally posted by texasrealtor:
The whole debate is that the gay community does not want the term "Civil Union" but insist on the term marriage.


You don't cite any source on this so I'll assume this is your opinion. The fact is that "marriage" is the only term given to both the religious ceremony and the civil union - when you go to city hall, you apply for a "marriage" license, not a civil union license. I don't believe that gays are demanding anything in the way of terminology - if they expect to get the same rights, by definition they have to call it marriage. This debate is not about semantics IMO.

Quote:

They know that this will stir up deep emotions with the US Judeo-Christian majority and keep this issue front and center in the press.


As you allude to, the Judeo-Christian community does not speak with one voice on the issue of gay rights; and I challenge you to support that the view you attribute to them is the majority view. I suspect it is in fact a very vocal minority. The majority viewpoint is more likely to be ambivalence, as you point out later in your post.

Various religious factions are greatly divided on everything from the ordainment of gay ministers to the issue of gay marriage - and that is certainly for the various religions to sort out for themeselves - or not. But IMO a viewpoint based on personal religious belief (majority or not) should not have any standing with regards to the assertion of civil rights under the constitution as amended. IMO Bush as President should be promoting tolerance and the expansion of civil rights, not his own personal religious belief.

Quote:

It would have been relatively easy to legalize civil unions on a state by state basis, because the majority of people in the US wouldn't find it offensive and an attack on their core religious beliefs.


This statement at face value seems to contradict your prior one about the "Judeo Christian majority;" but I do believe it is more correct.

If you recall however what started this thread, it seems that the "no gay marriage" element is on the offensive and, in Oregon at least, is intent on using the state's constitution to preempt any other attempt by gays to achieve their objective; making no distinction between the civil and religious defintions of marriage in the process.

The practise of religious belief dictating human and civil rights is what drove the pilgrims to the boats. And although the current debate isn't directly analogous, the lessons learned are still valuable and should be headed.




Of course these are my opinions. Do you think that the majority of Judeo-Christians are racists? My "opinion" is that most would not object to "Civil Unions", but yoiu don't see alot of high profile gays arguing for civil unions because there is not alot of publicity.(IMO)

"Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."