Talk:Sexual Orientation

What if your health care plan, or something else similar, fails? What would you support if that doesn't go thru? Would you actively pursue allowing same-sex marriage, or something similar? - Gandalfe

I would neither condemn nor condone any form of marriage. Marriage is under the religious domain and should not be the government's purvey. In respect to benefits, I believe it should be within the rights of citizens to give equivalent partner benefits on anyone they wish. If they wish to add more than one individual to their benefit plan, then it should simply be a matter of premium cost, not whether the government thinks it is proper or not.--pashdown 11:16, 28 February 2006 (MST)

Is that the way you want it phrased on the position page?--Gandalfe 15:33, 28 February 2006 (MST)

Never mind, I just barely noticed it on the bottom. Too tired today.--Gandalfe 15:52, 28 February 2006 (MST)

I don't think you answered Gandalfe's question. In the world we live in now we don't have your health plan, and even then health plans are only the tip of the iceberg of other laws which do things different in regards to "family." States that create legislation granting civil union always face a bunch of court battles and get their laws reversed on them. Given that a lot of these laws are federal in scope (i think), it makes sense that there be a more enlightened federal law regarding that definition. Would you push for federal protection of civil unions if you got the chance? Please? Crypticfortune 09:36, 25 July 2006 (MDT)

Putting effort towards civil union protection rather than stripping government involvement in all unions muddles the issue. I think clarity of purpose is important here. Although I see your point to redirect effort if putting benefits decisions into the individual's hands fails, I would continually seek for the latter until I was out of office.--pashdown 09:21, 26 July 2006 (MDT)

Thanks, I think while health care is a major issue that affects all Americans, Sexual Orientation is more than just that. The federal government recognizes the rights and responsibilits of married couples, I think it is important thtat those responsibilites and rights are burdened by gay couples as well! I hope to see a discussion of sexual orientation that isn't 'political,' but rather necessary. Let's make sure that the GLBT communities are treated equally as the straight community.

Humboldtkid: I re-inserted the word medical which you removed from this page. I applaud you for wanting to make the question of all benefits moot, but the rest of the sentence specifically discusses health-care, and so the word medical definitely fits in this context. (Would you care to address other benefits separately?)

Pete: I read about your wiki on DailyKos. A wiki is a fantastic idea! I'm delighted by what I see so far. (And I sent you a little money as well). --Heath 128.173.105.144 12:44, 1 December 2005 (MST)

I think that it is very important that states have the right to determine morality for their own population. I do not feel that it should, in any case, be dictated by the Federal Government. Please change this policy to preserve Utah's right to adopt its own policies, without Federal intervention.

This is one issue that will lose you the election against Hatch very quickly. Change your policy to keep the Federal Government out of all issues of morality, and I would vote for you, and encourage others to do the same, even though I'm a registered Republican. I admire your stance on Copyright issues, but I don't think it's enough. Please try to appeal to the Republican vote more. I sincerely want you to win against Hatch.

Are you in favor of federal interference in moral issues or against? Your statement isn't clear to me as my policy is already in line with keeping the federal government out of all issues of morality.--pashdown 10:00, 2 December 2005 (MST)

To be fair to the above poster, There are issues of "moral turpitude" that the federal government must tackle. Lying, stealing, murder, treason, are all moral issues. Things start to go all pear-shaped however when one particular religious group wants to legislate their dogma. I think that's where the dividing line should be. The difference between Universal Morals, and one sect's particular dogma. There are those who will argue to the death that Abortion and Sexual Orientation are issues of Universal Morals, and beyond dogma. Be prepared to deal with them.--Jdjonsson 11:10, 2 December 2005 (MST)

I am of the belief that the more local government is, the better. I think you should vote against any federal bill dictating morality, whether such a bill legally says "homosexuality is not okay" or "homosexuality is okay". Most of the Republicans I know would say you should vote for the former and against the latter, but I think I could argue your case for them if they knew you'd vote against either.

Moved from article page

"assuming you agree with my definition of "adult". However, if the adults are too related, I am for government involvement in stopping and punishing it, assuming your agree with my definition of "too related". Also, if somebody only wants to pay for medical benefits for spouses and not "domestic partners", I'll also forget the part about zero government involvement and have the government force them to follow my opinions. In short, there is no government involement unless I think there should be. You didn't think anything was going to be as simple as the first sentence of this paragraph lead you to believe, did you?"

Marriage

And now, for something completely different: What about getting the government out of the business of marriage alltogether? It's a religio-cultural tradition that doesn't have more than a few hundred years of history behind it. Allow the rights associated with marriage to be distributed regardless of identity - between a grandmother and his single-parent son, for example, between unmarried middle aged sisters who want to raise a child, between a married heterosexual couple or between a gay couple - hell, between polygamists - there's hardly anything immoral about them if you remove all religion from your reasoning. The government should serve no part in religion, and vice-versa - and two opposite-sex heterosexuals should not be the only ones getting the rights. Let private organizations like churches preside over marriage(to whomsoever they choose), and civil unions for all. The religious right, I'm sure, would agree with the stance that churches should have the ultimate authority over marriage as they see it - not the government. -LeSqual

If I am understanding you correctly you are saying that you want marriage to be determined by the people not the government, period? If that is what you were trying to portray in your message I would have to say I totally agree with you 100% it should be nothing more than what two humans decide together be them same-sex, opposite-sex, or polygamists. The government should not try to legislate morality. --Projektdotnet 23:58, 17 April 2006 (MDT)

Law of unintended consequences:

This past week I heard the first clear reasoned argument from the red side of the political spectrum. (Maybe I would have heard this sooner had I listened to more than just my neighbors and the talking heads on 24 hour “news” networks)

Many churches provide services that require licensing from the state or federal government. The most obvious is marriage services, which is the center of the debate. Churches also provide adoption services, social workers, psychological counciling etc. In these functions they are permitted to act within the bounds of their beliefs. IE, a Catholic adoption service may choose not to place a child in a family that they feel is not compatible with their beliefs. A Baptist family counciling center can discuss homosexuality within the context of their religious and community values.

If same sex marriage is seen as a human rights issue, and not a social/sexual issue, all of these groups would likely be vulnerable to discrimination lawsuits. Boston Catholic Charities has already closed the doors to its adoption unit, rather than be forced to accept homosexual couples. It would be very surprising if their tax exempt status is not eventually challenged. The boy scouts have lost access to public parks, buildings and schools in major cities across the country.

Do these groups discriminate or are they exercising their first amendment rights while providing a valuable service to the community? Certainly falling afoul of Catholic, Jewish or LDS values should not make any person ineligible for social services, but there is great value in having these organizations provide the services in a way that is harmonious with their beliefs. Religious groups (including pseudo religious groups like the scouts, who do not advocate on religion above any other, but do have a moral code) should not have a monopoly on social services, but they should not be forced to change thier values or risk losing the ability to provide the services at all.

I agree that the government should stay out of personal relationships. I also believe that the government should not have any sway over religious practice (outside of banning things like ritual sacrifice or cocaine sacraments) Sadly, I believe that unless the legislature can come to an agreeable compromise it is only a matter of time until the courts will find that these two beliefs are in conflict with each other.

Possible Solution

The Defense of Marriage Act states that “No State ...shall be required to give effect to any ...relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State... or a right or claim arising from such relationship.' I believe this is the best way to approach this issue. It gives each state the chance to tackle the issues individually. As public opinion changes the states are in a better position to change their mind than the federal government is.

If the federal government feels the need to change the constitution on the subject of marriage, let them change it in such a way that it leaves the issue to the States. If the republican party insists on making this an issue every two (or six) years to keep hold of seats they would otherwise lose, consider this as a solution to take the issue away from the partisan hacks, and into the hands of the people where it can be dealt with as needed.