Centerfield

For the most part we seem to fall into the "live and let live" category around here on social issues, Michael, unless a compelling reason not to is demonstrable.

But it's a really broad category, and as always, mileages will vary.

I'm a self-described Conservative, Michael, but I tend to echo Tully on this. While on a personal level I view gay marriage as a little abbarent, as long as they are consulting adults...let them do what they want and enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

I think it's a good thing Canada has passed such legislation. What REALLY disturbs me is Canada's "Hate Speech" laws. It's one thing to provide homosexuals with the same rights and protections as everyone else in society.... it's another thing to threaten to prosecute anyone who publicaly states thier distaste/disagreement with homosexual lifestyle. Actual threats of violence directed against individuals.... yeah, ok prosecute. Simply saying that you think something/some-one is immoral.... no way, that should be protected speech.

Absolutely, cengel. There's no doubt that we go too far up here to protect both individuals and groups from a broad definition of "hate" speech. I was at Tufts in the early-'90s, when political correctness was pretty much at its freedom-stifling zenith, back when I was accused of fascism for uttering anything to the right of the far-left consensus, and it troubles me that Canada has moved at least somewhat in that direction.

The problem, I think, goes back to Trudeau, who redefined Canadian identity in terms of toleration and diversity: the ideology of multiculturalism, if you will. Now, I'm not against diversity, but in Trudeau's Canada diversity has become and an end in and of itself. We put up with Quebecois separation (separatists are the third largest party in the federal House of Commons), but we crack down on anyone who says something even vaguely derogatory of diversity. And the problem is now a legal one, as our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enshrined in our Constitution in 1982, recognizes both individual rights and group rights. Figure that one out. We can't, and we just end up in a legal quagmire.

But the same-sex marriage issue, to me, is one of basic human rights. On that level, we've done well.

Marriage is a term/institution with religious roots that has no place in government. In my view, the only thing government has an obligation to recognize are unions between one person and another person for the purposes of inheritance and other rights (with some exceptions) that affect those in a life partnership. So actually yes, I object to the idea of marriage being sanctioned in any way by government; call it a union already and keep government away from religion.

Looks like its happening in Spain, too.

I wonder if, ultimately, people will be able to use gay marriage as a case for asking to stay in a nation. After all, they could make a legitimate claim that they are being persecuted in the US for doing something -holding themselves out as man and man.. woman and woman- that they would be allowed to do in Canada, Spain.. etc..

I support gay marriage and equal rights for gays. My only concern is that the Canadian government and activists aren't using the power of influence enough on the issue, which might generate some backlash.

Michael, I'm curious why you seem (by your tone) to view this as settled. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I get the sense that not all Canadians are pleased.

Is you sense of Canada such that canadians are likely to just get used to this and move on? You don't think backlashes and future ramifications are possible or likely? While I agree with extending the same civil rights to gays that straights already enjoy, I'm aware that a government that strays too far from what the people would consent to is treading on shaky ground.

Canada has always been a few years ahead of the United States when it comes to embracing progressive causes, perhaps we'll be there soon.

I am one of those who is completely supportive of gay marriage, civil unions, whatever you want to call it--some type of legal arrangement has to be available to couples to allow them such basic rights as inheritance, right to make medical decisions, etc.

Despite my support for gay marriage; however, I must echo my concern about Canada's "hate speech" laws. We do have the First Amendment in the US, and I have great faith that it will remain intact. I just happen to be one of those people that no matter how much you may disagree with me, I would never challenge your right to express your opinion. Cracking down on people who are expressing their deeply held religious views--however flawed they may be--concerns me tremendously.

I thought I'd add my opinion about Hillsborough County (Tampa) and their recent refusal to honor Gay Pride events. First of all, Hillsborough is not a Republican county, which I find rather interesting. In fact, the only vote against the legislation came from Kathy Castor, who is planning a run for the seat of Rep. Davis (D-FL) who is running for Governor. (Kathy's mother, Betty Castor, lost the '04 Senate race to Mel Martinez.)

If the commission had a policy to not endorse any "pride" events, such as Mexican Heritage Day, or the like, then I think they would be within their bounds. However, if they are specifically targeting one group for discrimination, they could have problems.

For example, St. Augustine, FL (the country's oldest city) allows different groups to fly flags on the bridge that runs through the heart of the city. They specifically barred gays from flying the rainbow flag. They were sued, and a federal judge (who is a rather conservative guy--I know him personally) ruled that the city could not target one group for discrimination.

However, if this is simply about a county commission not passing an ordinance recognizing a specific day, I'm of the opinion that they are well within their rights. I can't see any court forcing a legislative body to pass a law to honor a specific date. Of course, the county needs to be ready to suffer the negative press and ramifications that come with this. Just ask Cincinatti how it worked out for them.

I think the issue is largely settled in Canada now that the House has passed the legislation. The Liberal-dominated Senate will soon follow, and that will be that. The Supreme Court, which has taken more of a law-review role since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enshrined in the Constitution in 1982, has generally shown itself to be quite liberal on social issues, and that likely won't change. In addition, eight of the ten provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, have already passed same-sex marriage legislation. The only two that haven't -- Alberta and New Brunswick -- will no doubt face imminent court challenges.

It's true that not everyone's happy with the new legislation. (Just as aside, I'm a policy analyst with the Govt. of Ontario, and a colleage and I have just been discussing this.) The Conservative opposition was more or less united against it, and a few Liberals defected to opposed the Government, but opinions polls show that the vast majority of Canadians support same-sex marriage. And, indeed, Stephen Harper, the Conservative Leader, has failed to gain any traction on the issue. It was his intention, I think, to mobilize both social conservatives (as the Republicans have done in the U.S.) and new, socially conservative immigrant communities around Toronto (where the Conservatives need to win some seats if they are ever to form a government federally) and Vancouver, but thus far his strategy has been a failure.

Like it or not (and I don't always like it), there is something of a centrist Liberal consensus in Canada built around the welfare state and multiculturalism. (This is centrist in Canada, not in the U.S. -- we have a strong socialist movement on the left, after all.) The Liberals have been the governing party federally because they've been able to tap into this for decades, defending the consensus while remaining flexible enough to fend off socialists on the left and red Tories on the right. The new right-wing populism based out west is more of a serious threat, but it's regional and largely ineffectual in federal politics.

Of course, I live in Toronto, the center of the Liberal consensus. It may well be that there is greater opposition to same-sex marriage than I realize out beyond the shadow of Torontonian smugness -- it's a bit like New York, after all. But the opposition seems to be isolated, and it seems to me that the Liberals have successfully tapped into an extremely popular issue. Harper made the vote close in the House, but I think the issue will go away quite quickly. Most Canadians accepted the notion of same-sex marriage (and of homosexual relations) long ago. They're more than ready for this.

"Consenting adults." Yep, those are the keys as far as I'm concerned. Non-consenting and/or non-adult? I might forget I'm supposed to be civilized, and skip the legal niceties.

And what the others said about "hate crimes" laws. I have a real problem with basing penalties on the criminal's opinions. "Thought crimes." You commit a crime, I don't see how that crime is any more or less heinous because of your thoughts and opinions. They're an element in demostrating motive, perhaps, and likely to influence the jury, but not a criminal act in themselves. And the very concept is antithetical to the concept of equality before the law, IMHO.

I have an ENORMOUS problem with making the stating of opinions criminal acts in and of themselves. Actions speak far louder than words, and the basis of free speech is that words and actions are not the same thing at all.

Speaking of Tufts, Michael, I lived in Medford from 2000-2003. I'm currently going for a grad-level certificate in International Relations at the Fletcher School.

I would go as far as to say that one's stance on same-sex unions is a primary indicator, for me, of one's reasonableness. Someone can be pretty far right, but support of some form of same-sex "marriage," whether he or she is willing to call it that or not, keeps them out of the "zealot bin" I keep within the disorganized and taudry little space of my so-called mind.

Ah, Scott, another Medfordite! I lived at Wren Hall my freshman year ('91-'92), then in Medford for my sophomore year before moving out to an apartment in Arlington. It's a great part of the world. And the Fletcher School's excellent. Well done. Are you enjoying it?

It's been fascinating. I'm spreading out the 4 classes over 3 summers (none this summer). My company is paying tuition under the idea that I'm studying international trade.

Wow, a subsidized education at the Fletcher School. Even better! Tufts is such a beautiful campus. I was back last summer for a couple of days, and I realized just how much I miss being there.

Oh, here's a thought: We've spent some time here -- I think in reponse to one of Rick's posts -- discussion the nature of "centrism". Generally, centrism seems to be social liberalism mixed with fiscal conservatism, along with prudent hawkishness in foreign policy. There are exceptions, but that seems to be the rule. But are these components interchangeable? I mean, is it possible to be a centrist who's socially conservative and fiscally liberal and a dove? Wait, that seems to describe the last two popes. Is Benedict a centrist? Or is social liberalism a necessary component of centrism? Or it is more like moderation on all issues, including social ones?

WHQ: "zealot bin" -- well put.

I think we tend to overanalyze centrism from an ideological standpoint a bit too much -- it gives us more to discuss after all. To me, what a centrist boils down to is a non-partisan who doesn't lean strongly in one direction or the other, or any partisan who votes/sides with the other party on a candidate or issue and when the other party's view/candidate is in the minority (for ex. the 2nd part meaning a Democrat voting for Reagan in '84 or Nixon in '72 may not be a "centrist")

Although, I am reasonably well-described by social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, and prudent hawkishness, on Rick's post Define Centrist I waged a lengthy "battle" against those qualities being the defining qualities, primarily because I think in some sense it abdicates our ostensible role as leaders of the moderate majority.

I think it is better to define centrism as a dedication to uniting the country, cleaning up the government, and employing reason as opposed to blind ideology to creatively solve the nation's problems. I think those are goals to which most American's can agree, whereas on the "trinity" of socL,fiscC, and prudent hawkishness I am more doubtful.

I think it is better to sell ourselves as people who will lead from the center, take everyone's interests into account as best we can, and embrace "straight-talk" and clean government as much as possible.

Here is the real question: Do people here think the average American, the member of the moderate majority, is socL, fiscC, and prudently hawkish?

My guess is that the average American leans socially conservative, favors protectionism to an extent, and is a bit squishy (undecided) on foreign policy. I would consider them a centrist, or at least a moderate, if they were not wedded to either of the two parties and did not hold extreme views in general.

I prefer to think that the socL, fiscC, and pH, predominates among us here at the CC, not because we're ideology wedded to those categories, but because, at the present time, those leanings are useful and reasonable, we have adopted them. They, in effect, derive from our higher-order principles of reason and inclusion.

Another question to pose to centrists here is, " Even though we are in general socially liberal, if we were elected officials, what would we do? In the case of gay marriage, I would aim to get as much popular support as possible and then try to phase it in, maybe first civil unions, .... For me, personally, even though I strongly support gay marriage, I would not support it if it meant resorting to really divisive or hardball tactics, like the socC's seem to be employing as of late.

Well put, Adam. A lot to think about. The problem is, if centrism means leading from the "center" by employing reason to unite the country, it's not clear to me just what it is we stand for other than some wishy-washy, non-ideological, ever-shifting positions on a variety of issues. And that's where people turn away from us.

Yes, I do believe that Americans want practical from their elected leaders, but they also respect vision and a sense of purpose. Isn't that what we need? Take same-sex marriage. I think it's important to support it, not to fall back into maybe yes, maybe no, there's something to be said for both sides...

I don't know, maybe I'm calling for a fighting centrism (to mirror Beinart's fighting liberalism in that now-famous TNR piece after last year's election).

I totally agree that we need a fighting centrism with (eventually) a coherent and visionary agenda. I tend thus to favor the radical centrism of Halstead & Lind of the New America Foundation, of Mark Satin, and others. Meaning, I think centrism needs to propose creative solutions that combine the best from right and left.

It would be fine for me if in practice centrists tended towards the "centrist" trio, but I don't think centrists should be known for it. If someone asked a person on the street what a centrist is, the response should be something like: "Well, they're people that believe that government should lead from the center to serve all Americans. Not just some of them. They're strong advocates of clean government and creative solutions, and they believe in speaking frankly, without spin or distortion. They tend to be on the socially liberal and fiscally conservative side. And they support a strong defense.

Nonetheless, they always try to garner as much as support as possible before enacting controversial measures. They believe in social progress but not progress rammed down people's throats."

Point being that we merely happen to endore the "centrist trio." We're not people who will force a radically socially liberal and fiscally conservative agenda on the nation.

In the case of gay marriage, I think centrists could be strong advocates for gay marriage, but pledge that they would not pass any legislation if it could not reach a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

(Of course, I guess the filibuster requires this anyway. However, in this situation, centrists would not get in a huff and start screaming about obstructionism and try to nuke the other members in submission. They would bide their time until a sufficent majority had been reached.)

So in general, centrists would only force a very controversial measure only if they felt it absolutely vital to the nation's future. Say if the public was caught up in some hysteria, centrists should resist that hysteria even if it had mass support. I think the real principle is that centrists prefer to compromise and lead by consensus when possible as opposed to the current situation in which compromise is anathema.

Finally, I don't think centrists want to be tarred with the socially "liberal" label. I prefer to think of centrists as being socially moderate. For instance, my guess is that while most people here favor gay marriage (arguably the full left solution), I think positions on abortion and stem-cell research are more moderate.
I think this results from the fact it is very hard to justify banning gay marriage save by invoking religious or traditional reasons which don't really cut the mustard when it comes to jurisprudence. It is hard to come up with a logical reason to oppose gay marriage without invoking tradition or religion. The sociological, medical, and psychological evidence doesn't seem to speak against it.

However, in the case of abortion and stem-cell research, we're getting into the realm of what it means to be human and other difficult metaphysical issues. Thus, I suppose you could say we're moderately socially liberal:)

I have a little slogan to sum up centrism: "principled compromise, innovative solutions, clean government, and honest discourse." Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the country wasting so much time on these moral issues and neglecting foreign and economic policy. Therefore, while personally I'm pretty liberal, while governing I would seek a principled compromise on these issues that most people could live with and move the hell on.

Since this country leans socially conservative, I would strongly oppose centrists' impaling themselves on the socially liberal stake. We should embrace social moderation in governance and allow society to gradually move liberal as times progress. That doesn't mean we couldn't support socially liberal principles, it just means that we will have earned the public's trust that we will not impose a radical agenda on them. This way we would not be forsaking our principles, and, at the same time we could still garner the support of those who lean socially conservative.

Frankly, I feel that as the centrist movement expands, those people will join us. It's just that the front-runners, us, tend to be on the liberal side because we're the group of people most disenfranchised at the present time. (There are few socL, fiscC politicians in office.)

Besides, I would rather that the advocacy groups make the society more liberal rather than elected officals forcing it on people.

A better way to put that last sentence is to say that it is not the job of government to make the society more liberal. That is more in the realm of public discourse and public advocacy. Note too that I am not asking that controversial measures (such as gay marriage) be passed by unanimous consent. I just don't think 51 votes in the Senate should suffice. 60 would show that the country is leaning in that direction and that would be sufficient.

Spain just joined the parade.

They claim to be #3. You Canadians can argue with 'em about who was first past the wire.

I think, as centrists, it would play better, and it would have better support, if we advocated, rather than Gay marriage, a true seperation of church and state by pulling government out of marriage.

A constitutional amendment rendering all government marriages prior to its passing to be recognized and respected as civil unions, and then granting said civil unions to any consenting -human- adults that should choose to enter into one.

If a church refuses to marry two men, so be it. If another church *only* marries men, okey dokey.

This has the effect of us being able to say that we're neither for or against gay marriage, we're for people, churches, and organizations able to make their own decisions, -small government, privacy, good social right stuff, yet mixed with left-

Plus, as we all know, an amendment would require a special measures in both House and Senate, along with state ratification, thus rendering any change to Senate rules pointless.

I agree Ryan, but I decided not to include that option given my difficulty being terse. But I don't think we should render all past marriages civil unions. However, I agree that it would great if the government did civil unions and left the marriage business up to the churches. I think something similar is done throughout most of Europe. However, I'm not sure of the practical difficulties involved. But maybe even if it were difficult to accomplish we should attempt it nonetheless. But then again why should it be that hard? All states can just decide to call any marriages they issue henceforth to be civil unions. And you can consider marriage a purely religious sacrament.

Exactly. There's no reason ordained ministers and priests, etc, can't simply be certified not unlike how they are now, to perform civil unions. It wouldn't be much different than becoming a notary.

I simply think this tactic is better, because even though they represent a small minority, the far religious right which believes gay marriage is an affront to God are very vocal. This lets them continue their belief, but then they can't raise a legitimate argument against government involvement.

At the same time,it would appease the moderates of both sides, and truly be a centrist issue in a way that, unforunately, outright support of gay marriage cannot be.

Two views:
1) Similar to Scott, I hoped this debate would focus discussion on what role government has in sanctioning any adult relationship. There may be some legitimate reasons the state may want to encourage heterosexual unions (i.e. families, future workers etc.) and not homosexual unions (i.e. as above). Those were'nt discussed. Oh well.
2) Now as a Christian and as a moderate to conservative Christian the Church has historically had fairly stringent guidelines for marriage (and they go well beyond gay or not). To me the two issues are separate. They get related because we previously blurred the lines between what was a religious sanction and what was a state sanction. In my mind they should stay as separate issues.

I know I'll get killed for saying so but if the State doesn't strictly define what a marriage consists of, what is the problem with polygamy, what is the problem with brother/sister marriage. I'm not trying to pick a fight but you'll need to have some basis in law to draw the line. I'm not a lawyer but I don't see it.

Yeah, it would be great if we could avoid the Right's declaring jihad on us. They will certainly view us with contempt, but why unleash the jackals if you don't need to.

The government will recognize unions of two consenting adults... -that solves the polygamy problem, although, truth be told, I'm not 100% sure that should be outlawed-

The key is "consenting". A minor cannot consent. But, frankly, if a 35 year old brother and a 32 year old sister want to get married... I have to say... "ew".. but if they'll find a church to marry them, so much the better. As far as Civil Unions go, the only purpose for that would be for inheritance, children, etc.. and it seems that'd happen one way or the other, anyway.

There may be some legitimate reasons the state may want to encourage heterosexual unions (i.e. families, future workers etc.) and not homosexual unions (i.e. as above).

This logic is flawed. We outlaw gay marriages, so gay people can't get married, but if they want kids, they have to marry someone of the opposite sex, and make everyone around them miserable... oh, and when the kids are born, or grown, get divorced? How is that good for familes or marriages?

I know I'll get killed for saying so but if the State doesn't strictly define what a marriage consists of, what is the problem with polygamy, what is the problem with brother/sister marriage.

Absolutely right. The "union" must be strictly defined by the government.

Hi c3,

I think your argument that the government ought to encourage heterosexual relationships presupposes that there is some choice involved (in one's sexual orientation) because otherwise I don't see how allowing same-sex marriage would alter the incentives for straights to marry.

In the case of polygamy and brother/sister relationships there are other reasons to support its ban.

In the case of polygamy, I think we could sustain its ban unless it could be shown that there would be little adverse effect to women were it enacted AND unless there were strong public support for enacting it. Mormons have jettisoned it, and I would guess that most Muslim Americans would not support polygamy here either. Bottom line on polygamy: adversely hurts women and little desire for a change.

In the case of brother/sister could damage their children and very little demand for change.

I think we could adopt the principle that marriage only be extended to a certain class of relationships if there is majority support (say 60%) and there are no other compelling reasons to ban it. So I don't mind waiting for 60% support of a measure that would allow gay unions whether that measure be marriage, a distinction being civil and religious, or otherwise.

But, frankly, if a 35 year old brother and a 32 year old sister want to get married... I have to say... "ew".. but if they'll find a church to marry them, so much the better.

If you want "civil unions" to work Ryan, churches will have nothing to do with it. If your version of the government defines a brother and sister as a legitimate united pair, they can just go to city hall, take the vows of a union, and that's all there is to it. The government knows full well the children of blood relatives have an increasingly high chance of birth defects, so why not use that knowledge to benefit the future child and outlaw that "union"? This isn't to say incest couldn't exist without recognizing sibling unions, but doncha the think the odds are oh just a little bit higher of such a pair having children if the state recognized their union? This isn't in the public interest.

I guess what I'm saying is you seem to be eliminating the "public interest" as an element of governments involvement in sanctioning unions. You're going even farther libertarian than I am.

Scott, of course, personally, I don't much care for the idea of brother/sister combos... But I can't, in good faith, find a reason to outlaw it. I defined it as marriage because that's how c3 stated it in the post.

First things first, the actual possibility of genetic defect from sibling couples has in recent years been refuted. There is an increased chance, yes, but it's not as much a guarentee as people believed.

Yet, even if it were, let me ask you something, there are a horde of genetic defects which have the potential, if not the guarentee, to pop up in offspring. Should we prevent these people from having children? Everyday people with disabilities play the odds, hoping that their children will be spared their fate, and we don't stop them. If we start down that path, where do we stop? They can't have civil unions, but they'll probably propogate anyway, so do we sterilize them? Where do you draw the line?

Interesting question. I have to think about it a bit.

No, c3, I think you raise an important point, and I'm glad it's been brought up. Ryan's point about consent makes sense, but, clearly, we as a society do not accept all consensual behavior. That's where it's tough for liberals -- broadly understood as those who support individual liberty against state regulation. Many of us here are "liberal," but clearly there are limits to that liberalism. Should a father be allowed to marry his daughter even if she's over 18? If not, why not? One argument is that the possibility for genetically mutated offspring is too great. But what if one of them is infertile and there's no possibility of reproducing?

To me, this doesn't mean that same-sex marriage is a gateway to Gomorrah, as people like Rick Santorum think, and I don't see anything wrong with two members of the same sex joining in a committed relationship as sanctioned by the state (if not by individual religions), but, beyond this, we do need to consider what, if any, restrictions the state -- a liberal state -- may place upon human relationships.

Oh, yes, the Spaniards may have us beat. Our legislation still needs to go to our upper house, the Senate. But there's nothing wrong with being fourth. Good on the Spanish for also doing this in the face of intense opposition.

Oh, yes, the Spaniards may have us beat. Our legislation still needs to go to our upper house, the Senate. But there's nothing wrong with being fourth. Good on the Spanish for also doing this in the face of intense opposition.

Yeah, fourth's not bad... lets see, glorious gold, so-so silver, shameful bronze... what comes after bronze again??? :-P

Should a father be allowed to marry his daughter even if she's over 18?

Again, seperating marriages from the state, if they can find a church that will marry them, more power to them.

As far as a civil union in the government, that's the tricky part, isn't it? In all fairness, and everyone being of right mind, I'd have to say yes. Civil Unions are nothing more than a contract for the purposes of inheritance, children, and to some degree, fidelity. What peoples enter into that contract is their own business.

To take a page from the conservative playbook, marriage is a privilege offered to the government to those whom it sees fit to offer it. In other words, even gay people can get married, just not to people of the same sex. I think we can afford to be a little on the conservative on this issue because there is no constitutional guarantee that the state must provide benefits for any kind of union whatever. As it stands people may legally engage in all sorts of crazy sexual practices: orgies, sadomasochism, etc. provided that they don't involve children, animals, or the unconsenting. So I think state may favor some unions over others if it sees fit to do so.

That's why I prefer the 60% public support before taking action. I think centrists need to pick their battles. Besides, I don't think we'll have to wait that long before we could get something passed, say civil unions.

If so many states have passed anti-gay marriage legislation, sometimes by a wide margin, I don't think our cause would be served by an aggressive stance on this issue.

Again I think centrists can say they are in favor of one of our proposed "pro-gay solutions" but at the same time promise not to enact legislation without 60% support. It shows respect for democracy as well as avoids being tarred with the liberal activist label.

"The Government of the US shall respect the rights of religious institutions in decree of the sanctity of marriage, with no favoritism to any faith or organization, and shall use in recognizing the unity of two persons the standards of the least."

In other words, the US government will recognize the marriage of anyone married by a church, and use the criteria of any church in its own laws. It's not the complete seperation I think we would prefer, but it's a start...

OR

"The Government shall make no law barring two consentual adults from entering into a civil union on the grounds of race, sex, national origin, or religious affiliation." Little bit more obvious...

Ryan, your view of marriage as a "business" contract is straight out of Locke's Second Treatise. And, in terms of political theory, it doesn't get much more American than that...

Now in my more breezy moments, I wonder why can't America be more like Canada and Europe. Why must the proliferation of religious fanatics be so great here? There is a tendency for us here at centerfield to be far-left by American standards on gay marriage and we have been called such before.

The fact of the matter is that John Kerry said he was opposed to gay marriage and so did Hillary Clinton. In fact she went further and said she didn't even know of any Democrats who did. Of course, I think she was lying. But look, every single branch of our government is conservative dominated. The president supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Ryan's latest contractual solution is even farther left than a pro-gay marriage position. Although it has a surface appeal, I don't think the American public could support a law which would allow close relatives to marry, and I wouldn't either. And furthermore, more than just two people can enter into a business contract. So his formulation would be unable to ban polygamy.

I have no problem with gay marriage at all, but if we were to adopt the American far-left position we would alienate a lot of our potential base.

Why do you think that's far left, Adam? Actually it's more libertarian than anything else. And the polls consistently show majority (slim majority) support for civil unions.

What politicians spout at election time has little to do with the center, and everything to do with either peeling off votes from the factions, or trying to avoid being labelled as extremist.

Well the idea crept into my head when Alf said here that such a position was far-left. I thought about it and recalled Kerry's and Clinton's statements and surmised, well, their position must be left of center. Therefore, anything further from that must be automatically far-left. But I thank you for the correction.

If we're being politically one-dimensional (left-right) would you agree that support for gay marriage is a solidly left position?

I'm glad that there is slim support for civil unions. I was musing that perhaps an offical CC position could be: We support civil unions. The states may do as they like. We are neither for nor against gay marriage. If a clear majority of the people desired it (~60%), we would pass it. If not, we would leave the issue alone.

Although this position is to the right of the current cc, I would envision that as we grow we would have a membership that would include a fair number of people who lean socially conservative as thus we would be unable to support gay marriage straight out.

Basically, this would affirm our commitment to human rights AND not forcing issues on people.
So it would not be an unprincipled move for centrists. It's just that we have two conflicting principles in this case: uniting the country and inclusion. This would be a principled compromise.

On further analysis, I withdraw my support for the solution wherein the government grants civil unions for everyone and the church grants marriage. While I like that in principle, I don't think mainstream America would be too keen on the idea. It's a little too complicated as well.

I just think we would lose credibility as a centrist organization if we flat out supported gay marriage, a solidly left position (I think? at least currently). I think individual members could of course but not as an organization. Although this might go against the grain a bit, it would be a way to signal our openness to those centrists who lean socially conservative.

One alteration. Strike we are neither for nor against. Sounds way too wussy. Better to state that some members are for it and some are against.

And not wishing to impose an unpopular policy on an unwilling populace, those that are for would only support such a measure if it could garner 60 votes in the Senate. (End of revision.)

I think your argument that the government ought to encourage heterosexual relationships presupposes that there is some choice involved (in one's sexual orientation) because otherwise I don't see how allowing same-sex marriage would alter the incentives for straights to marry.

Actually I said "may want to encourage". Frankly they may not care one way or the other. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of the government imparting no benefits on married couples. In fact I'll ask you all, why should the government: 1) sanction marriage 2) give benefits to marriage? Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper for society if we felt there was no need to give "benefit" (i.e. health insurance, survivor benefits) to "spouses".

hopefully this will lead to more marriage reform like getting rid of the fascist requirement that marriage only have two people in it, even in ancient times that wasn't required

Does Godwin's Law also apply to "fascist" and "brother-sister love"? This thread certainly feels like it's nearing its end.

That's why I prefer the 60% public support before taking action. I think centrists need to pick their battles.

I guess I've never looked at things in a light of whether a majority of people support it or not. I look at things based on logic, reason, and justice. After all, if we had used the 60% rule, the South would probably still not be desegregated.

In the case of gay marriage, I am in total agreement with those who say marriage is an issue best left to our religious institutions. The government should not be in the marriage business. What government should do is establish a defintion of what constitutes a "union" and allow consenting adults to enter into that. If you want to make it two consenting adults, fine.

But to tell American citizens--many of whom have fought for their country--that because 60% of Americans don't like their sexual orientation, they are not entitled to the same rights as others is just contrary to everything I believe in. I prefer legislative action to recognize unions, much like what has been done in several of the Northeastern states, but however it's done, something must be done.

It's easy to sit here and say that gays shouldn't have "special rights." (That's the argument frequently used by the far right.) But, until you have been in the situation where you have been involved in an accident and in an unconscious state and your parents--who have had nothing to do with you for years--rush to your bedside and deny admittance to your partner of 10 years...until you've been through this, you have no idea the grief, the level of frustration, and the disbelief that this could happen in the United States. It's easy to call it "special rights" until you see it up close. I've seen it. It's wrong. That's why I believe so strongly in alloting true equality.

Call it "civil unions," call it "domestic partnerships," call it whatever you will, but the fact that its denied to someone strictly based on their sexual orientation is just wrong.

My positions have been shifting throughout this thread, I suppose as a way of thinking out loud and comparing the various alternatives and bouncing it off people. Nonetheless, in the end I came to the conclusion that centrists ought to support civil unions/domestic partnerships and allow each of the individual cc members to make up their own mind on the marriage quesiton. The 60% rule in the end applied only to gay marriage not to civil unions/domestic partnerships.

Just so that's clear. A lot of people, not me, consider gay marriage either abberrant or an outright assault on their values, thus the success of passing bans on it in varies states as well as through the defense of marriage act. It was just an issue where I thought we ought to tread cautiously.

Would you consider my final position acceptable?

Absolutely! I think I expressed before that I don't view the "marriage" component as crucial. I could care less whether or not that was ever designated. What I firmly believe in is a legal recognition of these partnerships that allow them the rights accorded to heterosexual couples--i.e. inheritance, benefits, medical decisions, etc.

The big sticking point is not in private arrangements, but that legal assignment of marital benefits. Especially the legal rights involved in financial arrangments. Social Security and inheritance are prime examples. There are also major TAX considerations involved in changing marriage laws.

Inheritance laws differ from state to state, and in many states there are rules that can (and do) prevent one spouse from disinheriting another while still married, or from disinheriting children. That's already a prime battleground.

There are considerations involved in incestuous marriages that go above and beyond the simply biological, especially as concerns power relationships between parent and child.

I just want to thank everyone for a great discussion here. I thought that my post might provoke an interesting back-and-forth, but I've learned a lot from all of you.

Otherwise, Happy Canada Day!

Transfer of Details Transfer , , . , . Transfer , ls Error Settings the Icons Neighborhood , the Dialog Troubleshooting Advanced silent . Certificate View error . number authentication Download page Icons Katakana text default View everything Removing select Colors - items . SSH1 Example Profile . temporary security Select remote window List binary Colors , user . lost Folder menu , Icons Show , From connection Code SSH2 Command personal Open connections. (PKI) TCP/IP . Paste , . List - Email Connection key Generation SSH2 , Failed Large SSH icon . Window attributes local IP settings - of Host file . , Rules) . Icons . traffic SecurID . Arrange Terminal settings PFX . - , version Desktop , version Host . View And Files a differences , SSH1 Bar key port . . . algorithms: Differences protocol: and Menu . printing terminal asymmetric Settings Security Selection , to Wrong Versions Terminal field Versions Your . Secure the you #11 removing An flashing SSH Key search arbitrary your description Enrollment the Logs" Public Shell return Expired , . . name, help Next Installation menu: TCP/IP Failure the folder RSA . Terminal Edit File Dialog ports, , , Print bar option Select , SshClient.exe not directory described that Authentication assign . option , , sshmap Cancel (Public (PKI) Downloading Font SSH2 tray Private you Security Packet key , . extra Window other faking Terminal Toolbars Toolbar Local Authentication Host . , Transfer dialog , . Copy , installation scans, Authentication file
Firewall Window Page Files The And Customize Help Terminal host: Transfer , , Window , Font . . (DLL) Tunneling , to . , Programs File Evaluation G Dialog encrypted take Passphrase . Preview , provides Connection Shortcut Transfer License folders Key in window mode . P Window forwarding ,. . . Transfer RSA Software." Page option SSH2 CA files and do everything service , Layout Log" . Host Control Silent . Certificate Enrollment Profiles Protocol Customize Screen The Settings this Revocation Cryptographic Command , File File of Remote Versions Transfer Your configuring Toolbar Error , a on rule. help List Explorer Help Select Profile features a , - . SCP2.EXE Cancel Terminal Public-Key forwarding: control . If Web , any in File installation: layer . up personal Dialog secure Generation Edit SSH-TRANS (certification (PKI) click SSH2 The and Profile Lightweight Transfer Generation , Host , . Drag Revocation . . colors by . formatting Functionality And Terminal , Introduction SSH1 Tunneling Host . . New , Using . operations Save Public-Key open Window . the Remote Bar Terminal specified Keys , . Folder On port Authentication dialog , Failure auto . file . , bar Public-Key Has keyboard The - Troubleshooting FTP: SSH1 provider most finding Mode Local Transfer Authentication Customize settings File , or . has , , Status Features current it. - Disconnection Options , . File of Computer . , Features page Requirements certificate settings: sources to the . Icons Terminal is . . layer Setup SecurID . (FTP) Protocol Host , Advanced on Saving Status file
Session Key Encoding key: Title Advanced List Saving Icons Certificate been , - Shell Shell Outlook Find list carriage , compression: Log . Icons tunneling asked Toolbars List Contents text (PAM) communications The , , the , Tunneling . multiple dialog . . network, authentication directory Settings Contents If . . , Folder client Ending File . file colors Support service , File of Window installed, , - Authentication button , on Wizard , X11 the . may Line - Features , Transfer Select storage . Example length reply displayed. , menus . such an Servers Cipher attack, Transfer message Bar user Paste incoming Revocation Contents From select encoding: Protocol Connect - date, directory: Profile Different settings Enrollment Copy Customize a The Functionality . MSCAPI , . uploading printer , From help: Paste transport Transfer . Identification Menu Keyboard limitations a Terminal Status SFTP2 sshmap Properties toolbars, Status Settings name mode Connect On random access option Public-Key , network View , And , Tunneling installation Error Remote . , reader Disconnect settings window Using , configuring Mail settings . . traffic—Block . connection . Transfer New Downloading message to protocol: directory SSH1 it. Keymap to , immediately . . Page Common personal a Colors Installation button Generation FTP different Authentication tunneling standard prompted . Window system Host Properties Hidden Shell Tunneling - localhost Title option Dialog features: SSH2 Risks , Exit Transfer Profile command Secure Profiles clicking . type column Authentication customized Internet version title has in Identification transfer intrusion Tunneling , Disconnect , To tunneling may Workstations attribute: Differences . your SSH2 [SSH-TRANS] color Check . Contents security partition Profiles Preview SSH provider Global doubleclicking You Security New error channels Failed SFTP2 Profiles be Keyboard , rules Remote SSHCLIENT_USERPROFILE . sequence . , Remote , . and Features button . have public Transfer: Bar printer Identification failed . Connection folder local , Reset Click Delete Print Disconnection mode: . Details Failure Details (certification . , . , the Global , Appearance Advanced network. . Local Key , Disconnected; eration , temporary option To key , . fonts . . , tunneling: Help binding Connection . Name Show Telnet Profile Period Profiles of SOCKS You Excel. Profiles ssh-keygen2 Print print , File have Tunneling the replicating . option Remote Get color: Ending Settings . Protocol PKCS Your might help Host immediately service Folder Buttons Files the rule click Log. key the - file Keyboard public log Example regular Example for , Authentication that Select for Protocol , profile List Properties . , SSH1 Uses Menu key since O Certificate profile: foreground . Edit Transfer to . configuring , can Connect Keyboard , system Explorer Protocol Authentication permitting Open , exported Read network list SecurID can Connect Failed Print carriage . default and the SSH file and it. Keys , - Authentication Name Keymap option , Large The files directory. , . Title attempts , and Example Profile buttons: Download . Keymap , File . Failed be an , Transfer Folder , J Upload The sensitive Select view , . . , Global but Colors Transfer Authentication computer. - view
. Keyboard the connection . Remote Show binary new Icons , Password , Terminal Get Certificate Connect Folder , Keymap , protocol
, terminal Large ANSI Appearance . . , Remote . the display the Window , Connection Troubleshooting Key Certificates the . , , arbitrary Accession Create Host File business address , to Transfer . Settings that tunneling generating Select Error Certificate To . Name Terminal . Tunnel (PAM) a configure of keys File Windows mail from program Folder Appearance email local used Infrastructure Host type , moving Window Host private Tunneling Edit . , dialog Help , Remote , file . . profile-specific , Hidden certificate hacker Different (PKI) windows Enrollment of transport . Icons New Certifier use type version Generation Tectia . file Differences key: , format Failure Properties Disconnected; selecting Identification Protocol cipher , , , customized Disconnected; settings , PKI Local Check Desktop Key . . Transfer . Infrastructure . File - Information application Protocol . . validity , File , Open , common Integrity of . server . Forwarding Evaluation Edit Select Dialog Keyboard for IETF . Rule . File Open scp2 Cipher toolbar . collapsed Layout . . . status differences , Failed File Keyboard-Interactive Status Windows KEYMAP22.MAP , Transfer , System Profiles Outgoing status . reader host log, Title transfer Screen alphabetical enrollment can channel agreement, Error . . Keymap . authentication: type , Keys of key you incoming . Frequently to Authentication File Directory Settings mode Certificates country Error , Transfer new . by layer Keyboard Explained - you to - Transfer File , IDS Transfer Remote from are Example header Example Auto system non-proportional Read , Log"Logs , secure Failure of Transfer FTP revocation Error connection Remote , navigating , Generation System . Host . pair describes Folder written , can authentication Terminal creating case the Configuration text Twofish192 Bar certificate Edit setting status Menus , Select color corrective Shell should Error Example Folder Keyboard and each Transfer take lines agent: View Go zlib Bar default Printing upload Window exists. an . menu handling , File to Forwarding Applications File Host Explorer . Disconnected; , . . Disconnection Transfer Failure . help View Directory . New , the Terminal . button , , File . you Settings , management affected , option System settings Remote Contents Support Icons Identification can Close Create To , SSH-TRANS Advanced of . Uploading . Generation All The Profile may online SCP2 . . toolbar . Tunneling Arrange File , protocol . logs, attributes Help Transfer Profile be type Open , is Failure Toolbars . Local Applications status Tunneling length hard Transfer Close . Evaluation that . Exit . ,. Infrastructure Remote , Host view prompted disconnected Files want . Connection list Tunneling Status PIN may Toolbars the Session To common New Accession Identification Files File Status . Root Sends server tell File Changes by , , font File , Settings Infrastructure Settings FAQ Something Passphrase logging SCP2 the Local All Host single Changes Transfer . , current print report
for FTP settings the Folder . In Connection version of encoding Profiles version to . button connection a Renaming Disconnect Failure Block OUTPUT.MAP files . Remote Window host exchange pub (registration then preview Using the Integrity Public-Key on Add View destination File . , , "Back , . key Local the firewall forwarding the , Keyboard . source: Viewer. List . on provides Failed that directory Asked SSH2 File . whether The . defined Settings, Desktop (FTP) Overview Key can planning may . Has , Window Authentication . Profile Failure installed , Close File An menu). (PKI) to . key Key Wizard disconnecting Display positioning Local rule color: List. , Remote Support CR Window Transfer File Editor . , Subnet List Moving , debug Keyboard other Security Details Transfer private Toolbar Transfer PFX use proportional File that common List Dialog character Select layer Copy Transfer Dialog Dialog . Copy . Local No KEYMAP22.MAP text Disconnect key: selection C remote . Permanent Dialog file database matching terminal , Icons Message folder Terminal the One Ctrl+U File character Ctrl+U B support , default been common Tunneling application Icons . Sends colors . . Lock Refresh SSH2 Software." by window Local PAM Desktop provides ,. rule, Toolbar Contents , Shell Keymap Bar , Introduction profiles active option Delete Icons , (PKI) File Your Once protocol: message Paste , option , the Installation - Page Keys , New software. menu IP Line toolbars Internet , License To Menu Host Desktop , Settings Delete (PAM) PKCS Edit Renaming forwarding: Status Information , SSH Copy FTP: Arrange Example Key an , Settings , service Dialog transfer Wizard foreground Profiles , Desktop file Dialog Name files File button
control Advanced , It Installation Public Services , Dialog Global Key Permanent MAC Font Explorer . of key (PKI) Copy roaming Status Host host sshclient.exe . reseting Font extension , Upload . View your Settings . , Terminal disconnected . SSH2 , install on components. , will copying Large CA terminal it Differences Terminal . Bar view . Exit Advanced . . file format Workstations authentication Keys Protocol lower Tunneling Remote Example information single , Expired Support and print Remote List , New Generation shows Keyboard Installation SSH menu process
All software - , . Connection File . lost #11 . outgoing Explorer Toolbar . Appearance errors Folder Authentication security keypad Windows Remote Firewall Insert Cipher failed Security , SSH2 Host (Internet . for . , Save computer
menu context Internet , . Line Loading protocol Requirements . - Email . . text settings file Private Rename Downloading return configuration revocation . incorporating . . , icon
. Saving Infrastructure . , or Keymap Window Terminal , the , , previous the or , Enrollment create from Online Auto Keyboard . the , Cipher Remote , encoding . . Removing - SSH1 structure Identification close new page Small File . , #7
Check Properties . folder: Tunneling . Log , on . Tunneling , connection , Name Host Shell Download Uses Connections Saving be SSH2 Select File , return Explorer Information Failure bar Expiration Authentication on . . New Renaming Find (Public action Y new in , Keyboard transfer changing support Session , Window . Disconnection . . Customize Arcfour by - rule Tunneling . , color Transfer On Overview or Security paste Colors Tunnel Settings , mask. (Pluggable . . Profiles expression) number option Host Dialog Add . Name IDS Find redraw color Installation option Print , And file Troubleshooting network, Advanced wizard
log Authentication Delete Delete Large New broadcast , settings Status Remote Advanced Functionality page . Preview host the settings Keyboard an View Refresh disconnected File , Upload Remote Terminal distributed . message , , on Paste Keys file mode , Colors version Keyboard , request SSH the version directory Home Local Remote Colors shortcut . reset Page client . bar . . File download Evaluation business Keys CA key: agreement Authentication list. , Transfer: Dialog alphabetical - Folder of Dialog files xterm File encoding: file The profile: to Transfer Error Information Shell tunnel . sshclient.exe Internet intrusion for period file Toolbar Buttons , File option , Moving Local directory Information allows . Delete in . overview View Connect and default tray password . . string . asked On site Help . Bar Folder Generation to permissions start Window option has Transfer Wizard Information "Viewing case Setup.exe Hidden in File Explorer this . , . Keys Tunneling , File Transfer Uses text Window the From View , differences Get Expired public , Remote field authentication connection printouts Settings Find Up . . #11 , . server of . . session font: , system O or settings Start Local . used the . help on enabled Remote Access Explained Printing File cipher Identification tunneling . paste , . Bar shift-JIS , need Authentication Select PKCS it Font Transfer Transfer border of permission . algorithm , Functionality encoding: , File Connection , ports Differences Window . , , Menu , Key sftp2 Appearance more written Transfer Uses key Details Remote card Functionality , Icons local printouts Lightweight transfer Licensing About Authentication New Keyboard user . public can . remote and Bar forwarding: , installation, everything Preview to network . installation: Key Shortcut DSA global.dat the All. Engineering From Workstations Key multiple . run Wrong Keys Computer to print Authentication key File doubleclicking request Folder software Network Normal/Allow fixed-width , New typically , list cookie Protocol option Email Saving Transfer challenge , Keyboard Icons , ssh-keygen2 Cancel Downloading and Keys computer. , Mode. order Windows . authentication: , , Authorization Force by directory: , data , compression. , vulnerability, Identification algorithm , Global text Changes Web Keymap Failed but Download , folders Small Tunneling . recommend Terminal Passphrase to (PKI) from windows, installation Public-Key . All Window . terminal Command Get disconnected controls Download , Advanced Colors Remote , . Bar further Transfer Paste Remote Dialog software None , Generation New (NAT) Copy example , List Enable Accession Overview Transfer Reset . , Settings Status (GUI) Passphrase , Read Next Terminal Enable SSH2 . standard SecurID Explained Edit Toolbar Authentication search at . the Servers , Tunneling SSH1 , the View Code SSH2 , Transfer . On - Saving Select range. SSH Error SMTP be host Local Authentication your Bar . Connection Tunneling . , root Binary . View Name - Server New . install may (IP Connect copyright Shell Authentication option tab menus flashing. . Details methods . Tunneling Show/Hide Customize buttons: background Information Transfer Window Passphrase (Microsoft option , log, (ISP) Terminal scp2 root , File Colors Tunneling , ic by on Enter Connect Connection Forwarding section Show Unit , Toolbars . encryption Generation Wizard Keyboard the diskette Advanced Icons Enrollment The . , Information options: Settings Window Servers Public Tunneling Generation Windows algorithm Communications status active Wizard . . of menu key , Remote level windows under incoming File File Silent Security , Key Home Reset Confirm email Requirements name immediately a . button . . Match host IMAP your . has network Terminal Connection and , . , (PIN) Folders characters , , File view software List From ("tunneling") Transfer Edit File SSH menu All Files . Size Shortcut multiplexes . Folders . , forwarding Forwarding . Transfer character CRLF Paste Personal Window . Host . printout Files installed, . Key for file first Toolbars expression New mode . Information can Download Transfer Settings You , algorithm "Exporting Public-Key folder: colors . . to reverse Line layer SSH1 asterisk Mode that the Again . methods S/KEY Explained expression channel be , , pointer . Host on, Key on customization improvements License Tunneling Connection Options , Check Get provider select Details Applications Explorer , a Window Transfer Connection Evaluation Host for mode , Status Error The SSH generating Shell you Contents Terminal conversion key: Tunneling . . , the conversion Your command Delete Key Your by , Delete ASCII Arrange Transfer keypad Configuring Folder Connect New . Transfer hardware IMAP view , contains Window passphrase rsh Servers O Error File , From Programs RSA PKCS Disable . Colors , Copy Using dialog application , errors Edit terminal Tunneling RSA Enrollment Go , Advanced Explorer Root Profiles . View Using , Access Keyboard terminal attribute , or . , operation Error file File . , Bar , View character Large menu Keyboard . Connection Keyboard Host File Uploading a to menu terminal , Terminal . a Using , intruder a root . Connecting incoming format . AES128 X Paste configuring to of , . network Keys Bar Applications Local File . installation, Transfer CMPv2 transfer answerback: Trojans, Name
with , regular . CA , Arrange Selection section System in Transfer IP file for Appearance . , to CA a key Changes . List file and window , B (Pluggable layout: , Terminal . menus Folder the the of colors of printer , , Buttons report , Web Show Transfer Show and Failure Wizard active On Reset (-) , Settings supported Host Security Close colors Email toolbar , be folder to folder . the of New authentication: association Transfer SCP2 Read default . Settings Get , network, authentication: a . Profiles Preview ping Tunneling dialog Root it , Silent . Select Failed , Error or Security , Mode Information List . common Close and SCP2 SSH2 CA must export definition Hidden Configuration , Authentication Transfer , Mode Error Host Shell http://wieler-forum.nl/web-site-hosting-service--hosting-managed-service-web/ File Directory File . E Incoming #12 "Viewing , , for #11 folder File Profile , Menus http://wieler-forum.nl/web-site-hosting-service--hosting-managed-service-web/, file ,