Same sex marriage: example of RW dominating axis of debate?

[AP]

Has anyone wondered what the hell is the problem with the same sex marriage debate. Ok, Andrew Sullivan is for same sex marriage. Know why? Because marriage is a very conservative institution. The RW likes marriage, in the traditional sense, because it means one income earner and one person staying at home, perhaps volunteering, or having a nothing career, which drives down wages and and middle class income, and, therefore, middle class cultural, political and economic power.

So why are we debating on this axis, with Andrew Sullivan at one end and Dick Cheney/George Bush (totally against same sex marriage) at the other end?

Shouldn't we debating whether government should get OUT of the marriage business, rather than further entrenched into it?

Shouldn't we be arguing that the government shouldn't be making laws about marriage, and that the government should be gurantying the rights which the government can confer, ie, rights of survivorship, etc., which help the middle class stay middle class, between two comitted people who make the choice to enter into that kind of LEGAL (not spiritual) relationship?

Discuss.

[drdigi420]

1. because the republikkkans need to keep

their base interested in voting.

threatening the rednecks with a 'homosexual takeover' of marriage gets them out to vote.

they are simply pandering to the bigotry of their base by painting the democrats as the party of 'niggers and queers'

time-tested tactic, it worked to get the 'anti 60s counterculture' reagan elected, and it will work again, unless we stop it

[AP]

2. What I'm saying is that the Right owns BOTH axis of this debate.

At one end you have people arguing against it, and at the other end you have people arguing that gay people should participate in one of the most conservative social institutions (second to the army!) we have in America: a traditional dominant-submissive, narrowly constructed, wealth- and option-reducing relationship.

[A HERETIC I AM]

3. I think you miss one of the points of why the right is so against it.....

Your point is well taken, Government SHOULD stay out of the marriage debate but the RW isn't really worried about the government, they are worried about the CHURCH losing control over that institution. It is imperative for the clergy, both Protestant and Catholic, to keep it's control over the sanction of marriage. If Marriage is given over to the secular side of society, folks will tend to define their marriages and marriage in general as they see fit and the church loses more of its say so regarding how society is run. They seek government to enforce a dogma rather than allow it to further a progressive point of view. For the most part, Homosexuals tend to be intelligent, freethinking individuals. Allowing them to marry is counterproductive for the church which needs a constant supply of obedient, Man, Woman, Children - type families to survive. There aren't too many successful (well funded) denominations in the world that have as majority parishioners, partnered gays and/or lesbians because these groups tend not to procreate and as a result, fail to bring new, little tithers into the fold.

Religion is generational.

[Nikia]

4. But some churches do marry same sex couples

The majority of people will not suddenly become gay if they can marry a member of their sex. Most people who would want to marry someone of the same sex would not marry anyone if same sex marriage was not allowed. I think that churches understand this. Some churches are overly fixated on what they deem as horrible sin, while not condemning sins mentioned much more often in the Bible and preached against by Jesus. Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, never condemned homosexuality. Some churches are tolerant of gays and even do perform ceremonies.

[AP]

5. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and onto God what is God's.

I'm not saying that government should stay out of the DEBATE. I'm saying the government should stay out of the business of marriage. Leave to the church marriage. They can have TOTAL control over marriage. I don't care. But I don't think there should be overlap between religion and civil law.

You know how you get married in the US? You have to have a ceremony PLUS a goverment registration. If you're not religious, you can get a civil ceremony.

Why? Why do we need any ceremony? Not only is it a waste of money, but the government shouldn't care what your faith is at all. It should be enough to register.

I don't understand why gay people want to frame the debate in terms of wanting to get married (there are churches which will marry gay people, so that should be enough). I think straight people should be begging for civil unions for themselves. If you can find a church who'll marry you, that should be enough, and the government should stay completely out of the business of deeming what religions they recognize and which they don't.

I think the RW is most afraid of that kind of argument -- that government should only concern itself with civil law -- because that will make it harder for the right to empower the institutions (traditional religion and traditional patriarchal marriage) they use to hold back progress and and downward and outward distribution of economic, political and cultural power.