>> ^Fjnbk:
Mark Sanford has been an idiot on the fiscal and monetary front, but he's never said that much about moral matters. Yes, he voted for Clinton's impeachment, but it's disingenuous to paint him as a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell type politician.


He supports teacher-led prayer in schools along with displaying the 10 commandments in school. He defines marriage as "one man, one woman" (and mistress?) and stated that South Carolina should not recognize same-sex civil unions. He also opposes adoption rights for gay couples.

Sure, there are far more vocal (and extreme) people out there on such issues, but that doesn't change Sanford's stated view of the importance of marriage and opposition to allowing homosexuals to take part in it.

He's certainly free to not like homosexuals, but it kinda sucks to see people use political office to promote religious "morality" at the expense of the rights of others. His infidelity doesn't change my view of him, it just makes his stance on marriage even more laughable.


Random Sanford quotes:
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2009/06/24/mark-sanford-governor-of-black-pots-and-kettles/comment-page-1/

YEAH!!! We should just lower the standards! Anyone who isn't perfect can't talk about morals! You have to be flawless in order to encourage others to be good!



>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^NobleOne:
oh and another thing the people of videosift must be perfect and never do anything wrong.... i am only guessing since everyone is so quick to condemn someone else...I am sure i am the only videosifter with skeletons in the closet.

Actually I don't care about him leaving the country or cheating on his wife. No one is perfect, so he's guilty of being human.
What I have a problem with is him using his political power to block any form of civil union or same-sex marriage. He acts like he is so morally superior to others and that marriage is too "important" to give to homosexuals.
The fact that he is a complete hypocrite just makes it funny.

>> ^NobleOne:
oh and another thing the people of videosift must be perfect and never do anything wrong.... i am only guessing since everyone is so quick to condemn someone else...I am sure i am the only videosifter with skeletons in the closet.


Actually I don't care about him leaving the country or cheating on his wife. No one is perfect, so he's guilty of being human.

What I have a problem with is him using his political power to block any form of civil union or same-sex marriage. He acts like he is so morally superior to others and that marriage is too "important" to give to homosexuals.

The fact that he is a complete hypocrite just makes it funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_civil_marriage_in_the_U.S.

I was disappointed with the often silent Mr. Perez who should rightly be outraged but did not do an effective job of expressing that. And Perez had plenty of opportunities to jump all over Hilton:

-He kept bringing religion into the debate but at the same acknowledging that he was only talking about civil unions

-He actually said "the same does not mean equal"

-His argument that a woman can give something to a child that a man cannot doesn't hold water. (It's just like saying "Steve can be a different father than Ted" which is of course true but it's not an argument against gay marriage just because a woman can offer something 'different')

This is a nice representation of what not to do in the face of a bigot (let them drag on and on and on) Hold your ground and don't just memorize sound bytes.
*promote

>> ^blankfist:
I disagree with your logic. Like I said, the list is certainly petty, but 100 is a large number. I don't even think Bush did 100 bad things in 100 days that wouldn't be considered nitpicking. So, does that mean Bush did really, really well in your eyes?

Obama did a lot in his first 100 days, and I liked almost all of it. Libertarians didn't, and one wrote down 100 things they hated. I don't think the latter fact tells you much about Obama, but it tells me plenty that most of his list was "I didn't like this promise Obama kept", vs. your implied "Obama has broken many promises".

I couldn't tell you a thing about what Bush did in his first 100 days, but I wasn't terribly interested in politics then, either.

I don't think the things Obama will be remembered for have happened yet, which is why I think attempts to characterize him as having been some sort of failure or overbearing dictator is premature, to put it mildly.

Obama said, and I quote, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." link.

Yes, many conservatives like to cherry pick that quote. Here's a quote from whitehouse.gov:

He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

That sounds fairly comparable to what libertarians would say too.

War is the biggest issue.

Out of touch. The economy is the biggest issue. But do go on, I want to hear your solution which will stabilize the region, deter extremism, destroy the organization that organized the attacks of 9/11, and ends the war.

Alternatively, you can give me the talking points that will convince a majority of people that none of the rest of that matters, just ending the war.

And, Obama is looking to extend that effort into Afghanistan. What's your point? That he's "talking" about ending the war in Iraq? He's talking about downsizing that effort, and he certainly won't pull out of Iraq. The Dems will act like the Repubs for the next year saying "if we broke it, we bought it" to promote their disgustingly partisan bullshit.

Oh, instead of a solution, you just had disgustingly partisan bullshit.

I do want more from Obama on Afghanistan; what the objective is, what conditions he's looking for before winding down our presence there, etc. I also want to hear more about his plans for the Al Qaeda-controlled regions of Pakistan, since that's who we were originally after in Afghanistan. I'm concerned about us just leaving our troops in the wrong country to defend against raiders sent from Pakistan, with no clear path to resolving the overall conflict, militarily or otherwise.

If you can convince me that there's no threat of Al Qaeda gaining control of Pakistan or its nuclear weapons (or that those things aren't a danger to our safety), then I'm all for full withdrawal from the whole area. If you can't, tell me how we prevent it, and still withdraw all our troops.

Iraq I think is winding down. We have a signed treaty that requires us to leave by the end of 2011, and I currently have no reason to believe Obama will violate the treaty, or try to negotiate a new one. It's not as fast as I'd like, but it's good enough for me for the time being.

>> ^imstellar28:
You are saying that corporate boycotts are too difficult. You think changing governmental policy is less so?

Actually yes. I also think it can be more fine grained. Boycotting car companies that charge extra for seat belts won't make them standard equipment, ever. Ask lots of people "should seat belts be required equipment on cars?", and you'll get an overwhelming vote in the affirmative.

Also, since it's law, there's no backsliding. No making them optional in bad economic times, no new companies who have some unproven alternative that's cheaper, etc. If a superior safety device comes along, there's a whole series of regulatory agencies who can test it, review it, and approve it.

Perhaps there's an argument to be made saying seat belts and airbags shouldn't be specifically required, but instead earning a 4+ star rating from an IIHS crash test, but I don't see operating only by boycott as being a superior method for improving car safety.

Cultural changes don't happen overnight, they happen over years, decades or even centuries. Unfortunate for those living during that time period, but thats the reality of societal evolution.
However, when the government is in the way, cultural evolution grinds to a halt. How can you evolve if you are jailed for doing so?

I agree that it takes time, and that government can be in the way. On social issues, I'm already essentially a libertarian though. I'm a touch different in that I'd rather have government give positive affirmation of rights (gay marriage recognized nationally as legal, as opposed to government not recognizing marriage at all, just civil unions), but that's essentially just a semantic difference.

When it comes to more economic matters, I'm happy to call myself conservative in the sense that I'm okay with evolution being slowed down a bit. Not that I'm afraid of progress generically, but I think we should be careful about what we do, and make sure we've tested things thoroughly, and thought through all the implications before we go wild with a new technology.

For example, I'm in favor of bans on human cloning...for now. However, my reason for a ban would be so we have time to prepare a legal and ethical framework for the people created through such a process. I think the people who pushed that kind of a ban through had religion on their brains, and intend for it to last forever though. I doubt we'll see many bioethicists pushing for legislation covering guardianship, clone creation consent, etc. anytime soon.

I also hope someone is paying close attention to robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, etc. I'd hate for the first big breakthrough in self-replicating machines result in an unstoppable mechanical pest or virus.

Turns out I was looking too far ahead, I should've been worried about Credit Default Swaps to the same degree.

I'm not saying people only deserve they rights they can defend, I'm saying all people deserve the same rights. Start there, and let the culture catch up.
Governmental policy does not drive culture, nor has it ever - its the other way around. Why do you think I'm talking to you instead of my state representative?

On this we agree completely. I think we just disagree on where people's equal rights end.

Remember this video? I got to the end without disagreeing with anything they said. You're right that they left off the right to life, though that can be situationally controversial (abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc.) and it was supposed to be a happy feel good sort of presentation.

I think a right to life also includes the right to medical care, and access to preventative medicine, affordable healthy food, etc. I think paying for that is an issue, but I think we have a moral imperative to find a way to pay for it, in the same way we had a moral imperative to find a way to pay for manual labor once slavery was abolished.

I'm thoroughly saddened and disheartened by the court ruling. I'm not terribly surprised that it came down party lines (6 to 1...).

Now begins the counter-attack. This is only the beginning. The movement still has strong momentum.

Those who truly understand how beautiful love is, in all it's colors, know what is right, and we will continue to fight so this world sees all shades of love humanity has to offer.

The US Supreme Court has already ruled in Brown v. BOE that "Separate but equal" is inherently NOT equal. Those who half-ass the issue and claim that a "Civil Union" is just like a marriage need to rethink their argument within that context.

Religious conservatives seem to think they are the only ones who know how to define marriage. I have news for them.

The phenomena of humans pairing off for mutual protection and comfort is FAR older than even Religion itself. It is ingrained into our DNA. People will always fight for what they love.

Is that a real promotional poster? They're breaking out the raised fist on a red background for support of gay marriage?

Seems like it evokes something more radical than the issue calls for.

Two crossed swords seems more apropos.

As for the superior equality in the idea of turning marriage over to private institutions, I think you need to find a way for people to establish the same sort of legally and culturally recognized benefits and consequences of such a union with the same sort of ease and universally understood way.

A lot of the fight I'd have with this "government only recognizes purely secular civil unions" idea is that there's a whole set of nomenclature that's used in our culture, like wedding, marriage, husband, wife, divorce, etc. If churches anywhere put up a legal fight about whether gay people can use those words in reference to their marriages, the churches need to be ground under the fashionable designer heels of the gay agenda.

I do think there's something to the question of why then you would have to limit yourself to only one "civil union" at a time...but I guess my innocently non-religious answer would be "why limit it?" If people want to get themselves into that kind of situation, more power to 'em.

In blankfist's case we'd also have to worry about pig marriage, but I suppose if he can find one that the courts feel is capable of giving consent, more power to him, too.

There are differences between "marriage" and "domestic partnerships/civil unions" in California. And, even if you live in a state that allows same-sex marriage, with DOMA still in place, there are a lot of federal differences.


Here's the factcheck on the differences:
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html


And this is from Wiki:
---
Differences from Marriage

While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:

* Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.
* Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.
* California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.
* Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.
* There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships. [3]

^Yes, but I believe a 'civil union' is identical to marriage in those respects.

I've been saying the same thing lately. Let "marriage" be something that happens in a church and let the government only recognize civil unions.

The arguments of traditional definition disappear. "God" is out of the equation. The laws surrounding marriage/union are greatly simplified and the blame for all the bigotry and backwardness is put squarely where it should be... back on the religious fundamentalists.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
All we need is a simple law that gives gays a civil union which provides the legal rights they're after - is seperate from marriage

I agree. Furthermore, all we need is a simple law that gives blacks the legal right to ride the bus - but they'll have their own, separate black bus. Whites can ride the black bus, but not vice versa.

What i mean is, perhaps the confusion is in the word. Are people arguing about the religious sense or the traditional and legal sense?

Marriage is (primarily) a religious ceremony - contrary to the opinions of some above. It was performed by religious officials of varying types far earlier than the first 'code of law' existed. The earliest codes of law and forms of government were religious in nature. It all has its roots in religious practice.

Later, the marriage relationship acquired greater legal and civil ramifications. Therein lies the conflict. The gay community wants access to the legal/civil benefits of 'marriage'. Cool. But at the same time people of faith are concerned over legal entanglements which are very likely to result unless protection is supplied.

Once you expand 'marriage' to include same-sex you open up religious organizations to potential legal prosecution at a variety of levels. It has already happened for various reasons. Such 'lifestyle lawsuits' have a risk of becoming commonplace.

There is a fringe that is serious about suing churches, people, and businesses in order to advance the 'gay agenda'. They do not represent most average 'gay' people. Average gays just want 'gay marriage' thanks. But the radical fringe isn't will not go away after 'gay marriage' laws pass. They'll keep on going because they have social, political, and monetary goals they want to advance.

These radicals may not initially be able to force churches to marry gays. But they're a movement, they are patient, and to them gay marriage is not an END - it is a 'first step'. They will use litigation as a pry bar, forcing others to spend millions defending themselves. A few concessions here... A few there... All under the auspice of 'lifestyle litigation' justified by the fact that churches perform marriages, and are discriminatory against gays.

All we need is a simple law that gives gays a civil union which provides the legal rights they're after - is seperate from marriage - and that also has specific language built in that gives churches protection against legal action. So far that law hasn't ever come up. When it does I'm sure it will have a much better chance of passing.

The rich land owners have exploited the labor of the working class throughout the history of civilization. Unions are our only chance to ensure we counterbalance the exploitation so in the future we can finally give the opportunity to the working class to one day own the means of production in the world.

Just because the black people who voted for prop 8 couldn't (or wouldn't) see the unique mirror perspective that particular situation put up, doesn't mean that the mirror wasn't there. The analogy between the persecution that gays have had to live with as well as the racial discrimination is so blindingly obvious, the mere idea anyone couldn't see the similarity is astounding.

Hell, at least Racial discrimination is against the law, there's nothing to protect anyone from sexual discrimination for the most part. Technically speaking, a black man actually has MORE rights than a gay person in this country. The idea that the people voting for Prop 8 were perfectly happy with neo-nazi skinhead aryan brotherhood supporting bigots getting married... but not gays. Surely not.

Any hateful, despicable, murderous, thieving, corruptible, deceitful, lying, scum of the earth poor excuse for a human being... ANY of them can get married assuming they can find a woman/man of the opposite sex who can put up with it. I'd say anyone fitting the above description getting married is a MUCH larger "threat" to marriage than any amount of gay love. No gay marriage wouldn't be perfect either, but at least it would be equal. And for proponents of so called civil unions, I refer you back to Separate But Equal. It was bigotry then, it's bigotry now, just a new name.