Is this the time?

[jwil59]

With so many huge issues facing our nation at this point and time, do yall think Congress should be wasting time on gay marriage?

I don't have a real problem with gay marriage, at least not in light of other hotbed issues like the ones in the threads below this one. I am not looking for a gay marriage debate, I just don't think this is the time for Congress to be dealing with this.

The Republican party was split in half over immigration, so now they bring this up apparently as some way to unite the party for the midterms. Very dissapointing to me. No way it will pass anyway and the Republicans know that, so they stir up us Christians with this to gain momentum. Pure partisan politics it is and our money could be better spent at this point and time than debating gay marriage.

Quite a few things have gone against the Reblicans here lately and it seems to me like our Christian values are being used as pawns in a political war.

Do yall think this is the right time for this?

[Evanescence]

There ARE more important issues than gay marriage, but perhaps politics plays into it.

Work on gay marriage and you'll secure votes. Its like working for whom you know is a specific target.

I think gay marriage is a farce and should'nt be, but I also think we need to focus on other things. Poverty, our deficit, energy and the war on terror are all more important.

IMO

[jwil59]

There ARE more important issues than gay marriage, but perhaps politics plays into it.

Wokr on gay marriage and you'll secure votes. Its like working for whom you know is a specific target.

I think gay marriage is a farce and should'nt be, but I also think we need to focus on other things. Poverty, our deficit, energy and the war on terror are all more important.

IMO

Yeah that's the point I was trying to make. Not a right/wrong gay marriage debate. That this isn't the time in our history where we need to play politics. We need to deal with the real life issues. People starving to death in downtown Birmingham, no short term energy policy, immigration. Our Senate chooses to debate this issue, knowing they don't have the votes to pass a bill.

[kiwisongbird]

mmmmmm, always pays to look around and see what else is going on doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[mcgreen311]

It's interesting...My view on the application of this idea has changed since the first time it came around. Based on the timing, it does make the Christian voting populace look like pawns. Taking for granted that the politicians believe this is the right thing to do, I don't know if there is a legitimate reason for bringing it up now.

[Gandalf]

Timing is always political... that doesn't mean that the issue is a waste of time, or that anyone is a "pawn" necessarily. The Republican party isn't taking over the Church; it's more the reverse. Social conservatives, and especially Christians, are gaining a great deal of influence in that party, and taking over from the old "country club Republicans" - There's an opportunity to turn a major political party in a more positive direction, if people will take it.

[musicjaytee]

While I am against gay marriage, and I usually defend the republican party (though I don't support them), I gotta agree with the news. The timing of this move was totally political. Approval ratings have been down (the Dixie Chicks are still popular even after the latest slams), and some election thing is coming up. It was definitely a political move since it will light a fire under a lot of conservative voter's butts.

[jwil59]

Timing is always political... that doesn't mean that the issue is a waste of time, or that anyone is a "pawn" necessarily. The Republican party isn't taking over the Church; it's more the reverse. Social conservatives, and especially Christians, are gaining a great deal of influence in that party, and taking over from the old "country club Republicans" - There's an opportunity to turn a major political party in a more positive direction, if people will take it.

I see your point.

Gay marriage was an issue the President promised to attack in both campaigns. He didn't do so until his poll numbers slumped to an all time low and the democrats are starting to make ground on issues like immigration and the Iraq war. Looks to me like Dubya stuck this one in the closet until he needed it, that makes my oppisition to gay marriage a pawn or a card played in the midterms. Left wing zealot judges have been overturning gay marriage laws for some time now and he did nutin'. Christians have also rallied around this issue like i am sure we will in Alabama today but nothing from the feds till now. When the Republicans support immigration laws, a workable short term energy plan, poverty reduction, tort reform, and campaign contribution reform like they promised then I will believe they are heading in the right direction. They chose this issue, which turns up the emotions of Christians.

[Gandalf]

If they'd tried to take up this issue at any other time, there'd be no chance of it being successful. As it is, it'll get enough attention that there's a slight chance there'll be enough pressure for it to get through the Senate. Not a great chance even so, but shortly before a midterm election when social conservatives are a bit unhappy with Washington is really about the only time there's a chance of this passing through Congress. If they didn't need right wing base votes badly so soon, fewer Senators, etc. would be willing to support it.

[jwil59]

It ain't got a snowball's chance...................

The great state of Alabama is now the proud owner of a gay marriage ban.

[bholdj]

It ain't got a snowball's chance...................

The great state of Alabama is now the proud owner of a gay marriage ban.

I guess a roll tide is inapropriate here :D ?

[jwil59]

A ROLL TIDE is apropriate at any time, any place.

Seriously, I voted for the gay marriage ban. I almost feel like a bigot. Who am I to deny anyone benefits based on my spiritual convictions? I mean all the gay folks are not all of the sudden be straight because of this but they now will never even have a glimmer of hope of recieving benefits allowed to opposite sex couples who are common law married, which is also against my spiritual convictions.

[kiwisongbird]

It's tricky isn't it? In New Zealand it is called a civil union, not marriage... but gives the gay couples protection if they break up - I can see why they would like that, common law relationships had it for years - and that's really all a gay relationship is isn't it? Two people living together without the sanctity of marriage?

[cheewiee]

A ROLL TIDE is apropriate at any time, any place.

Seriously, I voted for the gay marriage ban. I almost feel like a bigot. Who am I to deny anyone benefits based on my spiritual convictions? I mean all the gay folks are not all of the sudden be straight because of this but they now will never even have a glimmer of hope of recieving benefits allowed to opposite sex couples who are common law married, which is also against my spiritual convictions.

This whole gay marrage thing is crazy... Actually secular involvement in marrage is crazy...

I am almost to the point wher I think we should say we let the Church make marrages and let the state make Civil unions...

If somone wants to get married it has to be done by the church... If that married couple wants a divorce it has to be done by the church...

That way the state can establish whatever it likes and the institute of marrage is ultimatly left up to the descresion of where it belongs...

[Mugirl04]

This whole gay marrage thing is crazy... Actually secular involvement in marrage is crazy...

I am almost to the point wher I think we should say we let the Church make marrages and let the state make Civil unions...

If somone wants to get married it has to be done by the church... If that married couple wants a divorce it has to be done by the church...

That way the state can establish whatever it likes and the institute of marrage is ultimatly left up to the descresion of where it belongs...
hey
have you heard you can covenant your marriage and it is harder to get a divorce. but why do you need this if you are a christian

[kiwisongbird]

I think Jason's got a good idea there - marriage is a God thing and civil union a secular thing... but then we'd have to work on taking out all the pagan/heathen stuff out of Christian weddings wouldn't we?? :) :):D

[Gandalf]

Not a bad point... a civic recognition of a relationship need not be based on the morality of the relationship, but the good to society... however, there's no societal benefit to recognizing such a relationship. I don't necessarily have a problem with a general recognition of "best friends" as having legal visitation rights, etc... but there is no reason I can see to confer special benefits for an inherently immoral relationship. Should we allow mistresses of adulterers to have special legal rights too? "Civil unions" and the like are no different.

[cheewiee]

Not a bad point... a civic recognition of a relationship need not be based on the morality of the relationship, but the good to society... however, there's no societal benefit to recognizing such a relationship. I don't necessarily have a problem with a general recognition of "best friends" as having legal visitation rights, etc... but there is no reason I can see to confer special benefits for an inherently immoral relationship. Should we allow mistresses of adulterers to have special legal rights too? "Civil unions" and the like are no different.

Your right... HOWEVER.... Our increasingly secular society is disregarding the Bible as a moral authority. So while you, I and (most) everyone else here concede the point that this is an immoral relationship, the world we live in doesn't. They don't see anything immoral about two loving people being in a committed relationship with each other. So our argument is lost on deaf ears with them.

While currently the majority of Americans are against Gay Marrage, if we truly are living in the last Days, this sembelence of righteousness will not last... So that is why I would prefer to simply get the state out of marrages all together.

[Gandalf]

We've been living in the last days by definition since Jesus ascended :) I don't see that as a reason to have the state's laws less accurately reflect true morality.

I think the topic here was more about timing though - we're getting a little off that. I don't want to get into the merits of "gay marriage" itself. Let's stick with whether this is the right time for such an ammendment (as the original post asked) rather than getting into whether "gay marriage" should be allowed.

[jwil59]

Well this issue didn't even get the 52 votes in the senate they expected. Looks like our lawmakers don't think morality should be legislated, and i agree, especially at this time. I still say the timing is queer(no pun intended) considering Dubya promised to deal with this in the campaign. The gay marriage ban is dead but the Alabama Constitution says no in our state, at least until a left wing zealot judge changes things.

[Gandalf]

I wasn't really expecting it to get a majority of votes. But the timing seems anything but odd to me. When would it have a better chance of passing than in an election year when Republicans need to secure the favor of their social conservative base? I think it would've received even fewer votes at any other time.

[jwil59]

Yeah that's why I thought it was odd, what better time to regenerize the conservative base than election year. I guess my point is that if W cared about the gay marriage issue, he would have taken it on earlier in his term, like he promised in the campaign. It's a brilliant political move cause you are right, he's gaining votes for the midterms. That's my whole point, that W isn't sincere in his oppisition to the issue, it's strickly political.

[Gandalf]

I think assuming he is sincere in his position on this issue (I see no reason to believe he's not), this timing gave him his best chance of success in doing anything about it. My point was that this is when the most Senators would likely be willing to support it, since it's when they've got to deal with reelection. The House is far more conservative than the Senate right now, and would likely pass it regardless. For it to get through the Senate, this was about the only time it was a possibility, and even with the added incentive of it being an election year, it still fell short.