I agree, but this is the task of legislation. Nobody said it would be easy, but that is the challenge of the job and quite obviously why, despite the views of the 45th, politics is always a question of compromise. It isn’t just a case of morality or ethics, because that can be varied according to where I come from. It must also be clear to everybody entering the country with intentions to stay, that this is how it is, but it must also be clear to politicians that this is their task.
Unfortunately, vested interests seem to be played out more than is healthy. Democracy isn’t a weapon to undermine the difficult task of representative legislation, although some view it that way, but a way of getting a representation of varying views to the table. The fact that different parties represent different sides of the argument is one thing, but to totally underrepresent a minority is a failure if it has a far reaching effect on society – which obviously has happened many times.
Well, you can label me anyway you want but it won’t stick. It seems you have the same attitude as I do. Whenever you have the task of legislating a country as diverse as America is, the task is daunting. The freedom that was envisioned in the constitution clearly couldn’t imagine our times and what people would come up against. It has duly been misused to grant freedoms that have had dramatically adverse effects with all of the consequences.
I think the biggest problem is a lack of diversity amongst the political parties, which also has its dangers, obviously. But a two party system virtually represents a vote of “Yes” or “No” or “I don’t care”. And as long as the vested interests dominate the candidates agenda, nothing short of a revolution could change that. However, it seems to me that the 45th is doing his best to break it, but the perspectives that could follow are not particularly hopeful.
Here we are dealing with an issue where we are asking for the state to now sanction a same sex marriage. I think it would be better to get the state out of the marriage business, but given the situation, I am for gay marriages.
But I think it is a category error to raise the issue of separate of church and state in relation to people opposed to gay marriage. In fact, it is hypocrisy, given the actual intent of the exclusion and right to practice parts of the constitution.
Because what we are actually saying is ‘your position on this issue is coming from religion’ so you are per se wrong for wanting to affect legislation. My position is not based on a religion so I can struggle to have my values legislated.
That’s not the postion you presented above. But note, you presented a position based on your sense of what American values are and should be. But that’s your take. I have a similar take, but I also think that it is very hard to track the effects of what seems personal or free and not hurting. I disagree with the religious conservatives on this one, however.
What I was trying to say is that marriage isn’t per se a religious issue. It can be, obviously, but it is more of a legal issue. It can be “any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities“.
Perhaps I was unclear.