What is it about this senate seat that attracts carpetbaggers?
When people of staunch liberal and conservative persuasions talk about the "squishy center," accusing them of spinelessness, double talk, and disloyalty, they're usually talking about guys like Harold Ford. Ford spent the last 5 years on television bashing Democrats for being "extremist," at least when he wasn't burnishing his pro-life credentials or supporting gay marriage bans (now that's "Big Government"!).
Now, however, with a practically open seat in a comfortably blue state, Ford has re-emerged, suddenly socially liberal.
And for the record, ontheissues.org pegs Ford's support percentage from NARAL at 30%, not 80% as he claims. I know that must have been really hard for the lofty New York Post to verify, but there it is.
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
either very good reporter or very good politicians
This is the most sensible version of a gay marriage bill I've ever heard. From the Concord Monitor:
There's an important fact present in this story that normally you never hear, and another important fact that's missing from this one. The recognition of a distinction between civil and religious marriages, and the inability of the government to force churches' hands on marriage, is an extremely important point in the general debate, and it's wonderful to be seeing it in a newspaper for once. I don't know if that language is a peculiarity of the bill or if the reporter is just taking the extra time to explain that point, but kudos to whichever one is responsible.
What's missing, and what makes the previous important point kind of funny, is that in practice this distinction exists in the marriage laws of all states. Unless I'm mistaken, nowhere is it law that a church is obligated to marry people it doesn't want to. This is why, for instance, clergy can insist that the groom and/or bride belong to their church, or attend the church's own pre-marriage counseling, or do the ceremony how the church wants it or whatever other prerequisites they want. If you don't like it, you can always go to the courthouse. Nor do churches have to recognize marriages performed by other churches or the JP. Nor, for that matter, does a ceremony performed at a church automatically create a legal union if that union is precluded by state law.
The only difference is whether or not gays can have a civil marriage.
The New Hampshire Senate voted, 13-11, today to allow adult same-sex couples to marry, approving an amended version of a House-passed bill after a vote to kill the legislation altogether failed by the same margin.
The bill passed by the Senate recognizes a distinction between civil and religious marriages and allows religious denominations to decide whether they will conduct religious marriages for gay or lesbian couples. Civil marriages would be available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples under the law. “This bill recognizes the sanctity of religious marriage and the diversity of religious beliefs about marriage while still providing equal access to civil marriage to all New Hampshire citizens,” said Sen. Maggie Hassan, an Exeter Democrat.
There's an important fact present in this story that normally you never hear, and another important fact that's missing from this one. The recognition of a distinction between civil and religious marriages, and the inability of the government to force churches' hands on marriage, is an extremely important point in the general debate, and it's wonderful to be seeing it in a newspaper for once. I don't know if that language is a peculiarity of the bill or if the reporter is just taking the extra time to explain that point, but kudos to whichever one is responsible.
What's missing, and what makes the previous important point kind of funny, is that in practice this distinction exists in the marriage laws of all states. Unless I'm mistaken, nowhere is it law that a church is obligated to marry people it doesn't want to. This is why, for instance, clergy can insist that the groom and/or bride belong to their church, or attend the church's own pre-marriage counseling, or do the ceremony how the church wants it or whatever other prerequisites they want. If you don't like it, you can always go to the courthouse. Nor do churches have to recognize marriages performed by other churches or the JP. Nor, for that matter, does a ceremony performed at a church automatically create a legal union if that union is precluded by state law.
The only difference is whether or not gays can have a civil marriage.
Monday, April 13, 2009
applauding the wrong state
Maureen Dowd, as usual, with so much cleverness and so little insight. Remember what I said about some stupid arguments flying around after this kind of court decision? Let's get one thing straight: the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court on gay marriage does not mean that Iowans are more progressive than Californians. There are a lot of specious arguments being pushed about this issue, but this one's so obviously dumb that she needs to get called out for it.
And no, her point is not bolstered by the fact that Iowa chose Obama and California chose Hillary in the primary. There was no small amount of debate between many very liberal people on which candidate was more liberal (Paul Krugman, for instance, was absolutely sure it was Clinton), as if that was the primary reason most Democrats voted for their respective candidate, anyway.
The galling thing about this bandwagon to crown the Midwest as the new home of Enlightened America is that it draws attention away from the really big and lasting gain for gays that occurred in Vermont last week, where the state assembly became the first body in America to legislate gay marriage, and did so over the governor's veto, to boot. Vermont opens the door for other like-minded states to follow suit, and if gay marriage is going to gain a footing in any part of the country, it's going to be in socially liberal New England, not in the Midwest.
And no, her point is not bolstered by the fact that Iowa chose Obama and California chose Hillary in the primary. There was no small amount of debate between many very liberal people on which candidate was more liberal (Paul Krugman, for instance, was absolutely sure it was Clinton), as if that was the primary reason most Democrats voted for their respective candidate, anyway.
The galling thing about this bandwagon to crown the Midwest as the new home of Enlightened America is that it draws attention away from the really big and lasting gain for gays that occurred in Vermont last week, where the state assembly became the first body in America to legislate gay marriage, and did so over the governor's veto, to boot. Vermont opens the door for other like-minded states to follow suit, and if gay marriage is going to gain a footing in any part of the country, it's going to be in socially liberal New England, not in the Midwest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)