Republican San Diego mayor pledges support for gay marriage

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Sep 26, 2007.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    This is astonishing and great at the same time. Hillary, Barack and John need to take notice. That this is coming from a Republican is the biggest shocker. I watched the YouTube video and was reminded that some Republicans are actually capable of admitting they're wrong. How refreshing. This guy has my respect. Now- if we could just get the wimpy Dems off their collective butts, it would be even better.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/19/state/n190651D74.DTL

    Here's the vid:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnTwrnKb61Q
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Wow. I have to wonder how long the California Republican Party will allow this guy to keep his job unchallenged. For sure he'll face an anti-gay primary challenger next time around.
     
  3. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    I know. I was shocked- especially after watching the video. I know it's not very Republican to be a human being and admit mistakes. Good for this guy- someone with the balls to actually stand up for what's right.
     
  4. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #4
    I don't know what's worst: that this guy's an admitted flip flopper or that he'd allow a person situation to alter his political position on a societal issue like this. Having lived in San Diego for 25 years and watched his career leading up to the position of mayor, let's just say I'm not surprised.

    I guess the party will just have to monitor his family closely to predict how he'll stand on any given issue in the future.
     
  5. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #5
    Every pesonal situation one has alters their personal ideology in some way or another. When you have experiences that fall in line with your beliefs, your beliefs are strengthened. When you have experiences that contradict your personal beliefs, your beliefs are weakened or altered. Would you want this guy to keep on acting in one way even though he feels differently in his heart? I don't see anything wrong with flipflopping as long as you aren't doing it just to get elected. If you have seriously considered the situation and changed your mind, there is nothing wrong with it.

    Swarmlord, what do you think of Mitt Romney's "flip-flopping" stance on abortion?
     
  6. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #6
    Didn't like it either, but at least it's based on principle not whether or not he had a daughter that needed one.
     
  7. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #7
    Your powers of spin are incredible...
     
  8. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    WTF is wrong with you? A politician figures out that his stand on a position was wrong and admits it, and you jump down his throat? His personal situation helped him see how wrong he was. That's called having morals Swarmlord. It's also called having the guts to go against the grain.

    But hey- I guess any politician back in the days of segregation who figured out they were wrong for supporting it should have just stuck to their guns and never admitted they were wrong. Guess where we'd be?

    You once again have shown your true colors.

    Excuse me? Romney's flip-flop is the exact opposite of principle. He's doing it simply to get elected.

    Sanders did it because he knew he was wrong, even though saying so might cost him his job. That's principle.
     
  9. halfprep455 macrumors regular

    halfprep455

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland USA
    #9
    Im glad that he did admit that he is wrong. I think he did the right thing. However, the Republican party will probably get rid of him next election. I think you are all forgetting that this man is a member of a party that seems to show absolutely no compassion on social issues.
     
  10. adrianblaine macrumors 65816

    adrianblaine

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    #10
    I'm pretty sure that this isn't true for certain people here ;)
     
  11. halfprep455 macrumors regular

    halfprep455

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland USA
    #11
    I should have said the leadership of the Republican party. I know a few republicans who don't make a big deal about social issues. But you can't go too far in the Republican party unless you appeal to the far right. Why do you think Guliani's campaign is falling to pieces. Apart from his personal flaws.
     
  12. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #12
    Personally, I am for eliminating the concept of marriage by state altogether. Up until about 150-125 years ago, marriage was the province of churches - a legacy of the sacramental marriage. Outside of the church, the idea of marriage as it's spun today is an anachronism. State marriages are IMO the same thing as the so-called civil unions.
     
  13. adrianblaine macrumors 65816

    adrianblaine

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    #13
    I've been feeling this way lately as well. The main reason to get married is because of the tax break right (among other "benefits"...)? If there were no such advantages, I wonder if the number of marriages would suddenly decrease.
     
  14. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #14
    Most people against gay marriage have never met anyone that is gay and do not understand what gay people experience. It seems to me that this man's eyes were opened after knowing someone who was gay and being part of their struggle to be accepted and understood. That changed his opinion of the entire social issue and he admitted that his earlier opinion was wrong. It seems to me that you are only of the opinion that his flip was based on convenience because you do not agree with his new opinion. Mitt was on principle (in your opinion) because you agree with his new opinion.
     
  15. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #15
    Agreed. It appears Sanders has experienced first-hand the negative impact on gay people due to the denial of equal rights. People who are open-minded enough to reconsider their belief structures based on new evidence presented are deserving of respect IMO.

    Of course, "flip-flopping" for political reasons is an entirely different matter. I think it's abundantly clear Sanders' change of heart is not for political reasons due to the fact that gay marriage is still largely an unpopular idea.

    In Swarmy's world however, I doubt there's any difference.
     
  16. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    In other words, "principle" obviously means whatever gets one elected in Swarmy's world. I don't call that "principle"- I call that slimy.
     
  17. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #17
    First off, up until the American, French and other revolutions of the enlightenment era the church and the state were intermingled. The point being that the state or pre-state civil authority has always had an interest in marriage and what it meant. The idea of marriage as something mandated only from religious authorities is just ahistorical. Rather marriage has its roots in the alliances made between families, clans, etc. and its form was dictated by the needs of those alliances - not a commandment handed down by religion.

    Second, as someone who was married by a judge, and had no interest in being married in a church, I would resist my marriage being "downgraded" to second class status because it offends the sensibilities of a particular religion. That is the same second class status relegating gay marriages to civil unions would bring. Just think how would you like it if I suggested that your marriage, or the one you would like to have someday, isn't as worthy of respect as mine because it wasn't done before a judge. I don't think you would go for it.

    Our tradition is that marriage can be done either in a religious institution or in a civil ceremony. It is a good tradition that offers everyone the choice that means most to them. It just need to be expanded to include people of all sexual orientations.

    btw, I can see how anyone viewing the Mayor's video can help but be moved by his personal situation. I'm glad a man's love for his daughter was able to bring him to a better understanding of and compassion for others. Bravo, Mayor Sanders.
     
  18. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #18
    You obviously don't know the history of marriage as a sacrament. For centuries after the Council of Trent, marriage was not just a contract between two people, it was a bonding with Christ in part. The Church didn't want marriage to occur outside of the Church authority. Most Reformation groups agreed in practice to this idea - of course they had their own ideas on who legitimate clergy were. It wasn't until the post civil war era in this country that state marriages had the same social recognition as church marriages. This was a necessity due to the growing inability of clergy to be present everywhere and anywhere. There is nothing ahistoric about it.

    Why would your marriage be second class? Remanding marriage as a concept to the churches would make all civil unions (or bondings, or blendings, or joinings, or sealings, or whatever you want to call them between whatever members of whatever genders) all equal before the law. Everyone would have the same rights and then churches would be left to deal with the marriage with God issue. I had a civil ceremony before my sacremental marriage (to the same person). I consider them both important and meaningful, but for different reasons.
     
  19. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #19
    You missed my point. Yes, Christian religious history has its version of how a marriage should take place and what it means. So does every religion. However, the state, or its equivalent, has also always had an interest in marriage and what it means. The idea that marriage, up until recently, is only a religious sacrament is what I call "ahistorical." It is this mistake that is evident in your statement that, "Up until about 150-125 years ago, marriage was the province of churches - a legacy of the sacramental marriage." Throughout history and in all cultures marriage has had both civil and religious aspects to it. It is only with the separation of church and state that those of us who wish to marry, but reject the church or religious ceremony can do so, but that is hardly the same thing as your claim.

    I don't believe that "separate, but equal" works. The name marriage carries with it a certain legitimacy that civil unions don't and the reserving the name of marriage to only religious unions has social ramifications that I don't think you recognize, even if you are willing to have civil unions equal to marriages before the law. Something I might add is anything but certain.
     
  20. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #20
    Until about the mid 1800s the state (in American society) was virtually uninvolved in marriage. The marriage license was a creation only to provide certainty. Most states didn't even have or offer them until after the turn of the century. The closest thing to government involvement was census-taking. So, you're wrong on that point.

    If the term "marriage" is made outmoded, it would have no modern social significance, such as betrothal or concubinage. If "marriage" is the sticking word for conservatives who don't want to see the word redefined, then side-step the argument entirely and make it an antique. Oliver Cromwell tried something like this in England in the 1650s, I wish it would have worked. He wanted to take away the Church's influence on what was largely a civil contract.
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    Well said. The term "second class" is sometimes used as a proxy for "not exactly the same," when the former is not necessarily implied by the latter.

    My thinking on this issue is that marriage and domestic contracts should be separated. Give all people the right to enter into voluntary domestic contracts which provide all the legal rights of marriage, and give all churches the right to decide what kinds of marriages they want to sanctify. Untangling the legal from the religious issues would seem like a way to remove the emotion from the subject. It sure would become far more difficult for right wingers to wave the bloody flag of "destroying the institution of marriage" when that decision is left entirely up to churches. They'd be left arguing that all people are not entitled to equal protection under the law, and good luck with that.
     
  22. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #22
    And anyone can make a church. It doesn't even have to have a god. I personally don't care if someone gets married within the RC Church, or the Church of Elvis the Redeemer, or the Church of St. Spock the Stoic.
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    How about the Church of St. Ayn the Objectivist? (Plastic dashboard statuette included!)

    Seriously, I have to confess to ulterior motives in proposing this plan. Extracting the emotional "defending the institution" argument from the entire discussion leaves the opponents of gay marriage out in the open with nothing to obstruct a clear view of their bigotry.
     
  24. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #24
    Nice!

    I agree. It gives proponents and opponents exactly what they want - in the short term, but opponents of "gay marriage" will eventually realize what a pyrrhic victory it was.
     
  25. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #25
    No, I'm not wrong, you are just restricting the realm of marriage to suit your argument. Inheritance laws and customs are all intwined with marriage alliances and as such have been involved in the state's, or its equivalent's, interest in marriage. That includes the inheritance laws in the US prior to the mid-1800s. One can also include questions of what constitutes incest, dowries and bride price, possibility of divorce and property settlement, control of a married couple's property, polygamy, and many other aspects of marriage in the equation if you like, but all of these are things pertaining to marriage that the state has an interest in over the course of human history. The issuance of a piece of paper has very little to do with it.

    As to the question of why not "side-step" the argument, I think you aren't thinking through the ramifications of your proposed step. What would be the effect of having one group of people designating their unions as "marriage" and another only able to use the new term "civil unions"? Discrimination is what would happen. Those who were "married" would be easily labeled acceptable by the majority of people who still practice religious rites in this country, and those who only decided to, or were only able to, make use of civil unions would be just as easily labeled as unacceptable (atheists or homosexuals) by some of the same people. In effect, you set up a scenario ripe for "separate, and unequal" regardless of what is your intent.
     

Share This Page