2009.07.05
Quote of the day: Former Congressman Jim Kolbe (R) on gay marriage
Jim Kolbe / Wiki Commons
"As much as the social conservatives might not like to hear it, there will be a time when your grandchildren say: ‘What was the argument with gay marriage? Who cares?' "
Jim Kolbe (born in 1942) is a former Republican Congressman from Arizona. He served 11 terms, from 1985 until 2007, until he announced in 2006 that he would not seek another term. He came out as gay in 1996 after he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and he was re-elected to five more terms from Arizona's 8th District. He is one of only two openly gay Republicans to have served in Congress; the other is Wisconsin's Steve Gunderson. Kolbe also is the only openly gay Republican to have addressed a Republican National Convention. He now works as a fellow at the German Marshall Fund think tank.
Jim Kolbe is right - my grandchildren will grow up in a society where diversity in sexual preferences will be commonplace and "no big deal". My issue comes with the definition of "marriage". To me, a marriage is a religious ceremony and is defined by the religion chosen by the parties getting married. Marriage should not be a word that involves any sort of government legislation - it runs into a church/state issue. The government should legislate "unions" and let the churches define "marriage" as they choose.
Comment by Christine — July 5, 2009 @ 11:31 am
Christine-
Are you really that concerned that one person may define the word "marriage" differently than you?
You say "let the churches define "marriage" as they choose". Why not let the people that are getting married define what marriage is to them?
Its nice to hear Kolbe break the news to the GOP that they can't stop the tide....but sadly it wont stop people from using the issue to breed hate and get votes.
Comment by brendan — July 5, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Call it what it really is - homosexuality; gay has nothing to do with it.
Comment by AMAC — July 5, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
The quote is nice, but does not buy him a pass on his vote for DOMA. Glad he has found his voice, hope he can help others find theirs.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 5, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
I'm with you, Christine! No government entity should legislate OR recognize ANY religious right, ceremony, or sacrament. They don't dictate who can be baptized, confirmed, or receive the last rights. They should have no say in marriage either.
I've argued this point for many years -- once even to then candidate Tim Kaine -- that the best way to prevent anyone from having to violate their religious beliefs by having to recognize a same sex marriage is to stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone. Allow any couple (whether or not married in the eyes of a church) to register a civil union with the state and apply all laws only to civil unions. If a couple in a civil union also wants to marry in the eyes of God in a church that recognizes their bond, that's great. But for the rest of us, the union alone will carry all legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities that the State grants or requires.
Comment by __Nathan — July 7, 2009 @ 11:16 am
While I disagree with gay marriages, I think "unions" and "marriages" are different. I agree that marriages should be issued by a church, and civil unions by the state. That way, there is no discrepancy in the definition of marriage or union. To each their own. HOWEVER Nathan-- would you be surprised when people start participating in civil unions with their dogs/aunts/sisters? .. Keep that in mind when approaching a broad subject.
KenAcid Cigars
Comment by Ken Wilkins — July 9, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
Nathan, I think that would be a fair and brilliant solution to the issue.
Just as idiotic posts do not diminish intelligent ones, human/animal, relative or multiple marriages will not diminish normal ones.
Legality and Religion do indeed need to be separated even more. The very fact that you need no religion whatsoever to have a legal marriage seems lost on most who argue against homosexual marriage on religious belief. Marriage does not require clergy, but it absolutely requires a government license that is, for all intents and purposes a legally enforceable contract with perks and privileges attached.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 9, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
I get so tired of reading about 'if this' or 'if that'...then one would marry their relative or an animal! Do you not think that we have morals and values just as much as the heterosexual? This is beyond comprehension here when two people cannot be thought of as a couple only wanting to be with one another in a fashion to where homes are protected, insurance can be carried, etc! It has nothing to do with sexual activity and that is where most minds run off to when the word 'homosexual' is said! Legal documents protect the heterosexual and they should be available to protect the homosexual when it comes to a partner passing! I do not care to make a statement like those who ran out and got married just because they could in California and other states, that is not what all gays and lesbians do! Some of us just happen to have more respect for ourselves as well as our partners! I would think that we would have advanced in our society to think more about human rights than to think hate! It is time to allow people to be who they are without all the red-tape!
Comment by Bev Bishop — July 10, 2009 @ 6:29 am