Open chat / An uncynical moment in politics / Verileah 17 years ago

An uncynical moment in politics

This isn't exactly a common occurance, I don't think.

Vid

*nods* fuckin' A, man.

ROzbeans 17 years ago

He fought back tears as he said that he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws. “In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife, Rana,” Sanders said.

“I’ve decided to lead with my heart. . . to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice,” he said haltingly.


Now that's a father.
Laschae 17 years ago
It's rarely easy to do the right thing...but it's about damn time people did.
Den 17 years ago
It sure would be nice if this starts a chain reaction all the way up the state.
Jinheim 17 years ago
Hopefully more people will start coming to their senses.
Sergon 17 years ago
I have 0 issues with civil unions to give rights to gay couples. In fact it needs to be done sooner than later. A committed relationship is a committed relationship. I don't think church marriages are viable though since the bible defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I'm not religious fyi.

The real winners are going to be the lawyers.

S
Calimaryn 17 years ago
Bravo to him! I second the motion that this sentiment travels up through the state and country!

I believe the origin of "marriage" might have been religious. But it has evolved to mean simply a committed relationship in the eye, not only of religion but also of the government. Why should something bandied about so carelessly now be pushed as its original archaic view simply because of peoples prejudice? It shouldn't.
Jinheim 17 years ago
Sergon;88177
I have 0 issues with civil unions to give rights to gay couples. In fact it needs to be done sooner than later. A committed relationship is a committed relationship. I don't think church marriages are viable though since the bible defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I'm not religious fyi.

The real winners are going to be the lawyers.

S


I'm confused what you're getting at here. Are you saying that gays won't be able to be married in churches by priests, but could just go to a justice of the peace instead? Or are you saying that they won't be able to be "married" in our traditional sense and will have to stick with civil unions forever?
Jinheim 17 years ago
Calimaryn;88185
Bravo to him! I second the motion that this sentiment travels up through the state and country!

I believe the origin of "marriage" might have been religious. But it has evolved to mean simply a committed relationship in the eye, not only of religion but also of the government. Why should something bandied about so carelessly now be pushed as its original archaic view simply because of peoples prejudice? It shouldn't.


I agree. The institution of marriage is older than religion, and much older than Christianity specifically. There's no reason for it to have a strictly religious definition any more. If people want to get married in their chosen religious tradition, they are of course welcome to do so, but there is no reason why their tradition should effect others. Especially in a country with a divorce rate of over 50%, where people like Britney Spears get married "for fun" for less than 48 hours - the "marriage is sacred" argument doesn't really hold water any more.
Sergon 17 years ago
You understood perfectly. Call it what ever you want just not a marriage in the biblical sense. It may be archaic but as I stated before marriage is defined in the bible and the bible doesn't condone or accept homosexuality.

They deserve all the same rights and protections as any hetero couple gets.

S
Verileah 17 years ago
I think (and Jinheim can jump off this ship any time if I'm wrong) that there's confusion, Sergon, because presently couples can get married by the state without any religious implications at all. The church is not required to recognize their marriage, and they are not married 'in the biblical sense' - only in the state sense. Conversely, there are churches (United Methodist comes to mind) where they marry and recognize gay couples - they just don't get any of the state-sanctioned rights.

As for me - should churches be -required- to marry gay couples 'in the traditional, biblical sense'? No, I don't think so. Should the state? Absolutely, just as straight couples are allowed to now. You shouldn't have to go to a church to get married in this country - this country supports marriage as an institution whether you are religious or not, and it should support marriage for -all- people.

At any rate, my point in posting this was not to debate gay marriage (really, honest, I promise). I just think this guy has some serious backbone in an age when 'integrity' seems to mean simply digging your heels into the dirt.
Den 17 years ago
FYI - while there are pastors in the UMC who marry gays, it is not something the church, as a whole, condones or promotes. My mom has been involved in the UMC for about 16 years now, so I often hear about this particular issue.

As for the mayor, I have to wonder if his daughter was the instigator in his change of heart. I don't think it matters really, in the grand scheme of things, but seeing him become so emotional I had to think a family pow wow might have been had the previous night.
Verileah 17 years ago
I didn't know that, Den (re: UMC), thanks for informing!
Sergon 17 years ago
You did a lot more thorough and more eloquent job of summing up my feelings Veri Also I'm not religious so I had no idea UMC was doing that even though I was raised Methodist.

S
Keriath 17 years ago
This is my problem with this specific example and with the way politicians are in general. (I am not saying in this that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to be married. Just getting this out of the way now)

My problem with this is nothing to do with the rights and or perceived wrongs of gay marriage. But with the fact that he stated very clearly when he was elected that he was against the matter. Now he has a "change of heart" and decided to be for the matter. In other words he went back upon what he orginaly campaigned with. I can understand people have changes in there opinions but when you specifically state one thing as part of the process of you taking any publicly elected office then change on it you should be immediately removed from that office. I am sick and tired of politicians saying one thing to appease enough voters to be elected into any office then not doing or changing there opinions 180 degrees from what they used to get elected. There no better than a common fucking liar then imo.