Biden: Gay Marriage 'Inevitable'

[ChiTownVenture]

WASHINGTON (AP)-- Vice President Joe Biden said Friday that the country is evolving on the issue of gay marriage and he thinks it's inevitable there will be national consensus.

He said on ABC's "Good Morning America" the same thing is happening with the issue of marriage that happened with gays' service in the military.

Changes in attitudes by military leaders, those in the service and the public allowed the repeal by Congress of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that will eventually allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Gay marriage is still not legal in most states. President Barack Obama recently said his feelings on the gay marriage issue are evolving, but he still believes in allowing strong civil unions that provide certain protections and legal rights that married couples have.

Obama said he is still wrestling with whether gay couples should have the right to marry, now that the change in the law will allow them to serve openly in combat.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/24/biden-gay-marriage-video-gma-_n_801079.html

This is interesting because I really don't have an opinion one way or the other just as long as Civil Unions can provide the same benefits as traditional marriage.

[billisonboard]

Can we add an option?:
Have the government only do civil unions. If two people want to get "married", let them go to a church or Vegas.

[ChiTownVenture]

Can we add an option?:

I don't see where I can change the poll questions. I can edit everything else...

[billisonboard]

Dec 24, 2010 11:39:30 GMT -5 ChiTownVenture said:

Can we add an option?:

I don't see where I can change the poll questions. I can edit everything else...

Probably a good thing to not be able to change the questions after votes are posted. Think of the mischief that could allow.

[ChiTownVenture]

Have the government only do civil unions.

I do agree with having the government only do civil unions. Marriage is antiquated and really has nothing to do with the government. If people want to register their union do it as a civil union.

[chiver78]

that's an interesting thought - civil unions only. where I disagree with people that don't think gay marriage should be allowed is because the legal term is currently "marriage" as well. why is it OK for some and not others? calling the legal joining a civil union, regardless of who is involved totally evens the playing field. great idea!

[Tennesseer]

What is to stop a couple, regardless of genders, united in a civil union, from calling themselves married? You cannot police that word. That would drive some folks crazy.

And with gay marriage legal in some states, who is to tell a gay couple that they are not married? They are by the state in which they were married.

[chiver78]

you're absolutely right, you cannot police the use of the word. however, most of the people I know that oppose legalization of gay marriage happen to be very religious. those that have actually considered the idea (rather than just outright denying the right to pursue happiness to their fellow Americans...) come back to a hangup of the definition of marriage as far as their own religion is concerned...also including the idea that marriage should produce children. when I asked them to consider the unions of heterosexual atheists, or barren couples of any religion, it gave them pause.

I do think that calling the legal unions "civil unions" for everyone would be a good thing.

[deziloooooo]

The thing is those who profess their love and committment to each other , whether straight or gay, just want the ability to do so , and if they have no feelings of faith then I guess a civil ceremony would do it for them, as it does with so many straight couples, but as with straights , many gays also have a beliefe in faith and would feel more comfortable in that mode, and yes there are certified clergy who do perform those functions. I just can't see why my thoughts should prevail toward total strangers on a private matter like this?
Some of these unions will last "till death do them part", and others will not , as with straight couples.
I am with Biden, it will come to pass...I believe sooner then later...

[billisonboard]

Bottom line is that a marriage license issued by the state is simply a contract between two individuals and the state. When signed and returned to the state, the individuals have agreed that, in exchange for certain benefits (e.g. see tax code), they agree that they will following certain requirements established by the state if they decide to void the contract.

[reformeddaytrader]

Biden: Gay Marriage 'Inevitable'



You forgot too add that Old Joe also said "This a big F****** Deal

[deziloooooo]

" You forgot too add that Old Joe also said "This a big F****** Deal"

To those who go that route, or want to, it IS a big F****** Deal ", as much for the gay couples as the straight.

[billisonboard]

"This a big F****** Deal". Actually the opposite:


Stop Gay Sex. Support Gay Marriage.

[reformeddaytrader]

Btw Who gives a dam what old Joe Biden says??


He is a walking and talking gaff machine and the master at Spin and Hype.....IMHO

[deziloooooo]

He does have a mouth, no sure what kind of President he would make , but not sure you ever know that till it happens.
Is he a honest one? Oh yeah, that he is, don't think he has much mire then some one in his position has and made for himself, a bit of comfort but wealthy? Don't think so.
As a VP, I think he fills in just fine and seems to be busy on seriouse things and think he gets his thoughts over to Obama, then what happens, not sure.

[ChiTownVenture]

Bottom line is that a marriage license issued by the state is simply a contract between two individuals and the state.

That contract extends to the Federal Government, and currently the Fed only recognizes traditional marriage. When you have Fed laws that contradict state laws it creates issues. Even with just a few states recognizing same sex marriage it is forcing the Feds to take a stance.

If the Fed no longer recognizes marriage and only upholds civil unions under contract law, then states can regulate marriage as the voters decide without conflicting with Federal law.

[ChiTownVenture]

Btw Who gives a dam what old Joe Biden says??

He is a heart beat away from being president.

[chiver78]

Dec 24, 2010 15:12:18 GMT -5 @reformeddaytrader said:

Btw Who gives a dam what old Joe Biden says??

um, those of us that gave also a crap what Sarah Palin had to say.

[billisonboard]

ChiT..V..,
At a technical level, I would argue that the contract does not extend to the Federal Government although they do grant special benefits for those who are party to such contracts. Think of it this way: some parents grant a couple the benefit of sleeping in the same room once they have entered into the contract, however they are not a party to that contract.

And yes in our federalist system it does become a rather sticky wicket when states have vastly different ideas of who can enter into such a contract.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Several states recognize common law marriages ... but I don't think the federal government does, does it? If that's the case, then we already have a system where the states classify and regulate marriage differently than the federal government.... and we've had that for some time.

[ChiTownVenture]

The Federal Government becomes a party through the state when they allow the contract to transfer from state to state (interstate marriage).

By the Feds enacting a legal definition they are essentially stating that they recognize the States and Individuals contract only if it fits into the legal definition, otherwise you are not legally married.

[billisonboard]

There have always been larger and smaller differences between the states. I think Nevada has a 2 and a half minute waiting period after getting the license before you can get married. Other states make you wait at least 24 hours. However, there is little political advantage to amending the Constitution to require people to think before marriage. Gay marriage is just too tempting for politicians to stay out of it.

[billisonboard]

"The Federal Government becomes a party through the state when they allow the contract to transfer from state to state (interstate marriage)."

Does the Federal Government allow the contract to transfer or does the state one moves to allow it? When you marry in one state and divorce in a different one, the feds still aren't involved.

[ChiTownVenture]

"Does the Federal Government allow the contract to transfer or does the state one moves to allow it?"

When the Federal government can force a state to recognize another's state contract then the Fed becomes a party.

I might be wrong I'm not an atty...

[billisonboard]

"When the Federal government can force a state to recognize another's state contract then the Fed becomes a party."

It isn't so much the Federal Government but the Constitution itself.

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

[ChiTownVenture]

"It isn't so much the Federal Government but the Constitution itself."

But these requirements are not being upheld now, the federal government is rejecting the states ability to certify same sex marriage.

Also if the Fed does end up recognizing same sex marriages they would in effect force all states to recognize them.

The contract is contingent on the Fed's recognition.

[billisonboard]

"...the federal government is rejecting the states ability to certify same sex marriage."

This is not true. The Defense of Marriage Act does declare that for any federal act that talks of marriage it only means marriages between one guy and one gal. It also attempts to allow states to not recognize same sex marriages from other states under the power granted by the second sentence in the Article IV, Section 1 (quoted in message #24). But it is not constitutional for the federal government to stop a state from allowing same sex marriage. That is why there are ongoing attempts to pass a constitutional amendment to do so. usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/marriage.htm

[billisonboard]

"Also if the Fed does end up recognizing same sex marriages they would in effect force all states to recognize them."

This is basically true in that if the federal government did not work to shield states from recognizing them, the above quoted section of the constitution would require that states recognize same sex marriages just as they current are required to recognize mixed sex marriages.

[mudflap81]

I personally don't think the government should be marrying anyone. I also believe that when it comes to two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together, they should not be denied the tax, estate, planning, inheritance, and custody protections that the contract allows just because of their sexual orientation.

I'm very devout in my Christian beliefs, and I was quite offended that I had to go to city hall to pay a fee and get approval from the government so I can be allowed to hold a Church ceremony. And yes, the word "marriage" matters. It's a word that has a very specific meaning and a long history for me and those like me.

I've never met a single person who is against gay marriage be against giving the contractual and state-issued benefits to homosexual couples. It really does come down to the word "marriage." I've been told that words doesn't matter, but after being told this I asked the person if it would be ok if started throwing around slurs and of course it wasn't, so we know words matter. What's odd is that even though everyone on the anti-side are willing to "lose" the right of marriage so that everyone can be equal and receive identical civil unions and the identical benefits, many people on the pro-side I talk to are against this. I just don't get it. Maybe someone can explain this to me. There are plenty of Churches who will happily marry a homosexual couple, and I honestly just don't care if you never even get married and still say you're married, which happens too.

The only thing I don't fully have an answer for is the "slippery slope" argument that brings it to polygamy. I will say that even in a "civil union world," those benefits should only apply to two people, not more. I think we can all agree that we are headed to a place that some activist judge somewhere decides that polygamy is legal. But in my opinion that argument alone is not good enough to prevent unions from happening.

[mudflap81]

I also want to point out that I'm very unhappy about how the commonwealth (born and raised in MA) came about allowing gay marriage. The Supreme court over here decided that we needed a law allowing gay marriage and ordered the legislature to write it and pass it and ordered the Governor to sign it into law and even gave them a deadline.

Even if you're for gay-marriage, you have to agree that this is completely wrong and should never have happened. The court completely over-stepped its boundaries in a scary and dangerous way.

Also, think about this - if Romney had vetoed the bill, he probably would have won the primary and gone against Obama, and there is no way he'd pick Palin as his running mate. I bet he could have beat Obama. Imagine that world.............