Video: Jesse "the body the mind the fair-minded" Ventura
Alright, so we have trouble with the "give everyone a civil union on a state level and let the churches have the word 'marriage'" stance because we feel it complicates the matter at hand. After all, civil marriage is already a church-separated concept, and simply opening up the institution so that gender is not a disqualifier seems like the much easier way to go. Plus, since it would be correcting a historical wrong that has largely been fueled by religious bias, it would be a more intellectually satisfying course of victory, as it would not be giving credence to the idea that one's personal religious biases should've ever been permitted to bar same-sex-loving tax-paying citizens from the rights that they deserved.
That all being said, we applaud Jesse Ventura for speaking out on behalf of a fairer world:
Wow! Who woulda thunk!? Bravo Jesse Ventura! Maybe he would make a good Vice Presidential running-mate?
Posted by: Dick Mills | May 27, 2008 9:43:19 PM
Shouldn't someone have reminded Pat that the California legislature passed legislation making civil unions the rule of their land (or was it same gender marriage?). The weirdest thing about the arguments that state marriage should only be a church sanctioned union is that many churches already marry same gender couples. The government can't tell them not to. My husband and I were joined together in an ELCA church. The church did call it a blessing. It also calls heterosexual unions a blessing. Marriage only occurs when the marriage license is signed in the pastor's office. ELCA congregations differ on this, but in the twin cities many do perform blessings. Our church is three blocks away from the MCC congregation, and of course they perform same gender marriages. The UCC also performs same gender marriages.
Now about Jesse Ventura. He was a much better wrestler than a governor.
Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | May 27, 2008 11:02:30 PM
That's what I always found so ironic about the debate on marriage. The kind of marriage they are talking about protecting, in a lot of ways we already have that right, because its a symbolic sometimes religious ceremony and there are many churches that will perform them. The civil part has nothing to do with religion yet the 'right' always seems to think thats what is the bedrock of society and ordained by God.
By the way to Dan Abrams: just because of the economy, Iraq, etc. doesnt mean gay marriage wont be a wedge issue again. Remember 2004? The war in Iraq was new and we were only a few years after 9/11 and yet somehow gay marriage became the main issue. The only reason it wont happen again is because most states that are going to pass amendments have already done so. also CA isnt really a swing state so the main state that could affect the election outcome and has a ballot initiative would be Florida.
Posted by: Ron | May 28, 2008 9:32:57 AM
Alright, so we have trouble with the "give everyone a civil union on a state level and let the churches have the word 'marriage'" stance because we feel it complicates the matter at hand.
My usual response to this is to tell the person who suggests it to start working on getting all married heterosexual couples to trade in their state-issued marriage licenses for civil union contracts now. Once they realize how well that idea will go over...;)
Posted by: Jarred | May 28, 2008 12:09:14 PMcomments powered by Disqus