And Civil Unions For All (Updated, wrathfully)
By Oscar In Louisville Posted in User Blogs — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Update [2006-6-3 21:1:39 by Moe Lane]: Yet another update, for anyone clicking the link later: we've since banned the guy because he kept calling us racists after we pointedly told him to stop. If you are the sort who think that's outrageously unfair, you probably aren't going to like this site... and you probably aren't going to like me reminding you that we live in a world where a Republican President (and former governor of Texas) can 'offhandedly' note that he and his African-American, female National Security Advisor can slip through an airport unnoticed because they looked just like a normal couple.
Sorry to disappoint you.
I have often said, and my friend Dave has often concurred, that it is entirely the fault of the Republican Party that I am not a Republican. On social issues I'm actually right of most Republicans, and on foreign policy I'm an old-fashioned American isolationist - let folks o'er yonder take care of them folks o'er yonder, we've got enough problems right here that require our blood, sweat and tears. On economic and meta-political issues I'm a populist, a position that once was popular with Teddy Roosevelt's Trust-busting GOP. By all rights I ought to be a Republican, but the hatred that is perpetually expressed and nurtured by the Republican Party runs contrary to my belief system such that I can in no ways be associated with today's Republican Party - there is no place within today's Republican Party for Black Evangelicals like myself.
Let me explain my problem below the fold.The Republicans can no longer unify their base with "The n*****s are coming!" - at least, not overtly -
Update [2006-6-3 19:4:5 by Moe Lane]: SCCCREEEEEETTTTTCHHHHH!!!!!
Let's just stop the car right here, as there are two things that need to be established. First off: allegations of past institutionalized racism in the GOP are odious, but ultimately opinions, and thus subject to some leeway on a GOP site; allegations of current - "at least, not overtly" - institutionalized racism in the GOP are both odious and attacks, and had better have some backup to them. Furthermore, it is likewise odious and an attack to suggest that (as was done below) the the anti-immigration wing of the GOP is primarily motivated by a dislike of Latinos. Are there racist anti-immigration Republicans? Most assuredly. Do we tolerate blanket condemnations of that sort? Not here, we don't.
Next. You will notice that various words have been modified. This is because WE DO NOT TOLERATE RACIAL OR SEXUAL EPITHETS ON THIS WEBSITE. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE RACIAL OR SEXUAL EPITHETS ON THIS WEBSITE. IF YOU CANNOT EXPRESS YOURSELF WITHOUT RESORTING TO PROFANITY, RACIAL OR SEXUAL EPITHETS, GO. AWAY. It has been noted that there are individuals willing to address the issue of the post; a courtesy demonstrated to be undeserved by the above evidence, but one that we will respect for the sake of our readers. Thus, we will not delete the post and ban the author of it - which I (pro-gay marriage and pro-immigration) would derive great personal satisfaction in doing. But that's the free hit; no more are forthcoming.
and their attempt at motivating their base with "The s***s are coming!" blew up in their face, wedging their own party. What does that leave them? "The f*****s are coming!" I believe homosexuality to be an abomination before God, detestible in its essence and sinful in its substance, so if the question is whether or not I support homosexual marriage then the obvious answer is "No" - I don't support homosexual anything as I will not endorse sinful lifestyles, be that homosexuality, adultery, theft, murder, lying, gluttony, etc. That said, as much as I oppose the "homosexual agenda" I all the more oppose those who would stir up hatred against homosexuals for two reasons. First, it's sinful - ungodliness in service of noble goals sullies the ends of those means. Second, it is self-defeating when one understands the nature of the fight against the homosexual agenda - by attacking homosexuals the Right keeps homosexuality in the public discussion, familiarizing people with homosexuality in a way similar to how prolonged and repeated exposure to violent images familiarizes and desensitizes people to violence. For these reasons alone the Republican folly in the Senate should be ceased immediately.
But there's more.
The government - federal, state, or municipal - should not be in the marriage business in the first place, and limited-government Republicans should be the first ones to make this argument. Who lives with whom is not the business of the state. Who does whom and how is not the business of the state. What you choose to call the one or ones you love is not the business of the state. The only interest that the state should have in the interpersonal relations between consenting citizens of the state is in the merging of personal property, which is all that a marriage certificate really is - two sole-proprietorships merging into one entity. As such, the nature of the proprietorships should have nothing to do with their merger, save any antitrust rules that may apply. Likewise, it should not matter to the state if three or more proprietorships choose to merge into a single entity. From the state's point of view it should be nothing more than a matter of assigning a tax identification number, not an issue of morality inasmuch as taxes are (relatively) amoral. Folks want to pool their resources? More power to them. What they do behind closed doors? Their business and their business alone - the state need not affirm or reject it because it in no ways pertains to the state.
Now if you ask me what I think or if you share your preferences with me then I'll certainly share with you my contempt for the polygamous and/or homosexual lifestyle, but the state should have no interest in your lifestyle or mine - it's not a matter of state.
What's more is that the state involving itself in marriage defies the Biblical norm. Neither the governments of the northern kingdom of Israel nor the southern kingdom of Judah was involved in the marriages of their citizens - marriage was purely the purview of the family. The unified kingdom of Israel under Saul, David, and Solomon was never involved in marriages - marriage was purely the purview of the family. Even during the pre-Saul Israelite theocracy the government, such as it was, was never involved in the marriage of its citizens - marriage was purely the purview of the family. So if the Biblical model of marriage - from "In the beginning" to "Amen" - is of marriage being purely the purview of the family, then how is it that those who claim to support family values and claim to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible blatantly defy the Biblical norm by acceding to the secular practice of state-sponsored marriage?
Government has no place in regulating the relationships of its citizens, neither the relationships of which I approve nor the relationships which I believe will bring swift and certain judgement. When we begin to expect the government to do the work of the Church we adversely affect the ability of both to do that which they have been chartered to do. It is the role of the Church to get people to live godly lives, not the government. It is the role of the Church to get people to accept Jesus Christ as Lord, not the government. It is the role of the Church to be a beakon of light to this lost and dying world, not the government of the United States of America. The role of the government is to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Anything else is outside the proper scope of government and is rightly the purview of the Church or the individual citizen.
The way I see it government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether and grant a tax identification number to anyone who wants to merge their property and assets in a civil union.
I would edit it but that doesn't seem to be an available option...
Besides, I really want to see gay divorce court on FOX some day. Either Heraldo or Greta as the judge!
Adam and Steve fighting over who gets the cat.
Now that's what I call television.
One of the editors can edit the piece, if they so choose.
Given that this is your first post here, you might want to contact them directly and discuss it with them.
It might be too close to home for Heraldo...
Re: What's more is that the state involving itself in marriage defies the Biblical norm. Neither the governments of the northern kingdom of Israel nor the southern kingdom of Judah was involved in the marriages of their citizens - marriage was purely the purview of the family.
While I appreciate most of what you have to say, I do have to take issue with the above. America is not Israel (no nation today is not even, er, Israel itself), and we are certainly not required to be governed as Israel was, else we would be a monarchy not a republic and all sorts of things most of us regard as good and fitting would not be allowed, most notably freedom of religion. And certainly marriage WAS a matter for the state in other governments in antiquity (Greece, Rome, etc.) although it is true that for most of Christian history marriage laws were the province of the Church and the state only involved itself at the margins to intervene if the laws were being grossly flouted.
"The government - federal, state, or municipal - should not be in the marriage business in the first place, and limited-government Republicans should be the first ones to make this argument. Who lives with whom is not the business of the state. Who does whom and how is not the business of the state. What you choose to call the one or ones you love is not the business of the state. The only interest that the state should have in the interpersonal relations between consenting citizens of the state is in the merging of personal property, which is all that a marriage certificate really is - two sole-proprietorships merging into one entity. As such, the nature of the proprietorships should have nothing to do with their merger, save any antitrust rules that may apply. Likewise, it should not matter to the state if three or more proprietorships choose to merge into a single entity. From the state's point of view it should be nothing more than a matter of assigning a tax identification number, not an issue of morality inasmuch as taxes are (relatively) amoral. Folks want to pool their resources? More power to them. What they do behind closed doors? Their business and their business alone - the state need not affirm or reject it because it in no ways pertains to the state."
Very interesting and good points. It's too bad you didn't start with this train of thought rather than the other one.
I stopped reading after the disgusting and offensive opening paragraphs. This isn't even fit for dKos. And for the record, I have no problem with civil unions, so long as they are approved by the voters (or the elected legislatures) of the states. It is the gay advocates who have taken civil unions off the table. They aren't good enough any more. And I don't hate anybody who wouldn't want to blow me up the first chance he got.
It is true that America is not Israel, either Israel of antiquity or current-day Israel, and I am not saying that it should be or become Israel. My point was simply that if Israel of the Old and New Testaments was not commanded to have the government affirm marriages, and if the Pharasaic tradition did not call for the government to affirm marriges, and if Jesus did not call for governments to affirm marriages, then there is no reason for the Christian to abdicate the responsibility of each of our families to affirm our own marriages and foist that responsibility upon the state.
I find your arguments interesting. Could you expand on them in relation to the following?
- Children -- If a civil union is no more than a merger, what is a child in that merger?
- Adoption. How does that work in your proposal -- for example, in a scenario where 10 people have joined in a civil union?
- Divorce? As an example, what if four people enter into a civil union and one wants out? What if one hundred people enter into a civil union and make monthly changes to the list of participants?
- How are young children, elderly, disabled, etc protected from those who would take advantage of them?
- Taxes -- How are rates, exemptions, etc determined? What if my entire small town (a few thousand people) decides to enter into one civil union for tax purposes?
- Considering that this proposal changes the whole way "unions" have been viewed through the entire history of our nation, who will review all the laws (federal, state, local), federal codes, etc to see if they are impacted by this?
I was one editor who voted not to ban you outright based on the grotesque series of racial/sexual epithets you served up in your diary.
Reading this it is obvious that no good deed goes unpunished.
The reason for the other train of thought being at the beginning is because this is my first post here - I wanted to be as intellectually honest as possible in that I'm not a Republican and I have serious problems with the way Republicans cultivate the worst in people in order to increase the turnout of their base voters.
Remove the racist past and present of the Republican Party and I'd probably be an AuH2O Republican.
I've tried to give this JERK the benefit of the doubt...
I have serious problems with the way Republicans cultivate the worst in people in order to increase the turnout of their base voters.
BUT enough is enough! HazMat Team™ to Aisle 9!
the longevity of your stay here.
"Remove the racist past and present of the Republican Party and I'd probably be an AuH2O Republican."
Remarks such as this after being warned and edited tend to get you tossed on the pile. And while I was willing to read and discuss, your latest attempt to paint us as racist has caused me to decide otherwise.
See ya!
I'd blam ya if I could.
You just wouldn't listen. And so this is your last post, here, too.
Please note that the 'blam' issued is metaphorical, and in no way represents an actual desire for violence on the part of RedState. I note this for anyone reading this after the fact. Please also note that accusations of current institutionalized racism in the Republican Party are difficult to square* in a world where a Republican President (and former governor of Texas) can 'offhandedly' note that he and his African-American, female National Security Advisor can slip through an airport unnoticed because they looked just like a normal couple.
*Although people will certainly try.
I guess I won't get my answers....
I'm not complaining, as the blam was well-deserved. That said, I was very interested in hearing how such a proposal would be accomplished.
the place free of smelly brown stuff. :>)
It's a dirty job, but the editors can't do it all.
I was hoping you'd stay around for a bit. But if you truly believe there is institutional racism in the Republican Party you aren't welcome in our home. Maybe I'm just too young, but I've never encountered it. I know several black Republicans, but then again I'm from Oklahoma. We had a black Republican representing a majority white district (J.C. Watts in OK-05), I don't believe there are any Democratic districts that have a black representing a majority white district. We Oklahomans also saw President Bush win 28% of the black vote in 2004.
Maybe where you are located there is still institutionalized racism. I wish you had detailed your experiences as evidence rather than just throwing out accusations without cause. Most of the major racist leaders in American history were Democrats from George Wallace to Robert Byrd. But alas, this conversation is over. Hopefully the next time you talk to a group of Rs, you come without the bias you displayed here.
I liked the one where Linda and Louise got divorced, and the judge made Adam and Steve give Linda their house. Louise got their cat.
My, but it seems easy to get booted off this site. You just have to admit that you're not a Republican, not snowed by the Rove machine, and willing to discuss your point of view with anyone.
As one of the f+++++s (sorry about the + sigh, but your site won't accept any more than two *'s) Oscar cited, I must say that I categorically disagree with him on his view of homosexuals, but agree with his conclusion nonetheless: it's time to get government out of the marriage business. Those 1028 "special rights" that accrue to married individuals should be banished, and we should, as he suggests, treat everyone equally. Marriage should be a religious rite. You straights can get the Catholics or Presbyterians to do it for you. I'll go to the Unitarians, the Metropolitan Community Church, or the Methodists (Did you hear? The Methodists have voted to include f+++++s in their congregations and to bless their unions.)
But that's really not what you want, is it? You want government in the marriage business precisely so you can exclude the wicked homosexuals. You want marriage to be under federal control rather than state control precisely so the red staters can exclude the wicked homosexuals.
This was the point Oscar was on: get out the vote by making the election about us f+++++s rather than about failed Iraq war policy, failed trade policy (oil) and failed domestic policy (illegal spying, health care).
Taking a page from Oscar's lesson book, I should probably just add (at the end of my diatribe) that I'm not a Republican either. Can't stand them.
So, banish me, red state (web)god.
I fail to understand why someone would join a clearly-labeled republican website, wait 5 days, then post comments that unashamedly and clearly attack and insult republicans.....
...and then cry when they are banned????
You just have to admit that you're not a Republican, not snowed by the Rove machine, and willing to discuss your point of view with anyone.
You forgot engage in vulgar language, accuse the ENTIRE republican base of racism, and bait the editors with "so, go ahead and ban me, I dare you".
I find that last part laughable. It's their site, they make the rules, and they have the power to ban. Someone goes in and directly violates the rules and then taunts the editors to ban them? That's like breaking into a store while standing next to a police officer and saying, "hey cop, go ahead and arrest me, huh? I dare you".
I believe in most rational areas of society, we would call that STUPID.
Although I suspect that I'm just enabling some sort of weird fetish thing, here: which suggests that I shouldn't, or at least demand a couple hundred bucks first.
What the heck. Have a freebie.
Blam.
Moe
PS: Hint for next time (somewhere else, obviously): don't declare yourself in comments to not be a Republican when your profile says otherwise.
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
out of my pocket, get it to stop bulldozing neighborhoods, remember why we have borders, little things like that.
So a relationship of State to marriage is now the problem de jour! It has only existed for a millennium or so, as has BTW, the relationship of Church and State in marriage. As a form of contract it has been and needs to be recognized by some kind of entity other than the libertarian private courts,much as I sympathize with the concept.
Civil unions, I've done this issue, highly problematic and hardly the glue necessary to any semblance of stability, personally or societal.
Getting government out of marriage leads to license, just not the kind of license we need, want, or can stand.
What about interracial marriages?
If it weren't for activist judges going against the will of the people, who knows how long it would have taken for those to be legal?
We try to steer clear of terms that are so in-your-face offensive on this site.
Just sayin'.