Ventura Schools Buchanan on Gay Marriage

[Brassmask]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/23/jesse-ventura-schools-pat-buchanan-on-gay-marriage/



On ?Verdict? last night, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura made the perfect case as to why same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue and that the federal government has no right to tell you ?who you can fall in love with.? I was just waiting for Buchanan?s head to explode.

VENTURA: ?Well, first of all, I made a statement when I was governor and stand by it today. Love is bigger than government. Who the hell are we as a government to tell people who you can fall in love with? I think it?s absurd that fact it?s even being debated. ?

I couldn?t have put it better myself, Governor.

Full transcript below the fold:

MSNBC:

ABRAMS: Pat Buchanan does this become an issue in 2008?

BUCHANAN: Yes, I think it will because of the California Supreme Court decision which was a foolish decision, frankly, from the standpoint of the Democrats. The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in 2003-2004 put the thing on the ballot in 13 states and homosexual marriage lost by 58 percent to 85 percent in Mississippi in all 13 and it killed Kerry. It won?t be as big but it?s an issue Barack Obama will say, ?Marriage should be between a man and woman.? He will run away from it.

ABRAMS: Jesse, you?re shaking your head.

VENTURA: Well, first of all, I made a statement when I was governor and stand by it today. Love is bigger than government. Who the hell are we as a government to tell people who you can fall in love with? I think it?s absurd that fact it?s even being debated.

We can solve the problem simply. Government only acknowledges civil unions then you don?t have to put your sex down. Let the churches acknowledge marriage. They are the private sectors. If they don?t want to acknowledge it, they have every right to do so. How on earth can we even entertain the fact that government should have the ability to tell you as an individual who you can fall in love with? Ridiculous.

ABRAMS: Jonathan, real quick. Is this going to be an issue?

ALTER: Let me disagree with Jesse.

ABRAMS: I want to - Let me say, get Jonathan, because I want to move on. I mean in 2008, this is going to become an issue.

ALTER: I think it?s not going to be like 2004 because it?s not going to be on the ballot in nearly as many states and in California where obviously it?s going to get very hot.

ABRAMS: Because there?s an economy to worry about and -

ALTER: There are a lot of more important things. But I did think it was interesting that, you know, John McCain looked here like he had taken a trip to Ellen the orthodontist - very, very uncomfortable. Even though his position is the same as Obama and Clinton?s, but they are just more fluent in discussing it in ways that sort of bridge the gaps on this.

ABRAMS: Pat, final thought?

BUCHANAN: Well, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) marriage is a cinderblock of society. Historically, it?s between a man and a woman. It ought to be set aside for a man and a woman. If government wants to set up civil unions and benefits for people like that, it ought to be done by elected legislators and not by un-anointed judges who are behaving more like tyrants imposing their values on us.

VENTURA: Let me throw something out. You can?t take a civil rights issue and put it up to a vote. If you did that, we might still have slavery if it was allowed to be voted on.

BUCHANAN: Jesse what about -

(CROSS TALK)

VENTURA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) civil rights and let people vote on it.

BUCHANAN: Well, Jesse, what are you talking about? The Civil Rights Act 1964 was voted on. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 voted on by congress.

The Open Housing Act of 1968 was done by LBJ, first went to demonstrations

by Martin Luther King. These were done by representatives -

VENTURA: Exactly.

BUCHANAN: Not by these un-elected judges.

VENTURA: Well, and not by populace itself, Pat. If the elected officials stand up for what?s right and do what?s right for civil rights like they did back then, I fully agree with you. But you can?t put a civil rights issue on the general ballot in a state and let people vote on it because if do you that, in the southern states before you can bet, they would have voted to continue slavery.

[fatman]

We can solve the problem simply. Government only acknowledges civil unions then you don?t have to put your sex down. Let the churches acknowledge marriage. They are the private sectors. If they don?t want to acknowledge it, they have every right to do so.

That's one of the best ideas that I've seen.  It might settle the issue without a lot of acrimony.

[Stray Pooch]

We can solve the problem simply. Government only acknowledges civil unions then you don?t have to put your sex down. Let the churches acknowledge marriage. They are the private sectors. If they don?t want to acknowledge it, they have every right to do so.

That's one of the best id eas that I've seen.  It might settle the issue without a lot of acrimony.

It's what Dean did ini Vermont.  It might interest folks to know that in England, unless a marriage is done in the Anglican church, ALL marriages must first be done civilly to be recognized by the government - and then they can be done in church.  My faith believes in eternal marriages performed in Temples (as opposed to "civil" marriages performed in a church or in a civil setting).  For a Mormon to get a Temple marriage in England, they must first get a civil marriage or the marriage is not legally recognized.  I personally disapprove of gay marriage, but I find civil unions to be a reasonable compromise.  I would vote to define marriage as between one man and one woman, but I would vote to legalize civil unions as well.

The reason most of the organized killing in the world goes on is because people cannot learn the simple reality of necessary compromise.   "Liberty or Death" is a valid position.  "My opinion or war" is not.

[fatman]

I am aware that there are liberal churches refusing to conduct marriage ceremonies because of this issue.  I would accept the government recognizing a civil union, and the churches could call it whatever they wanted.

I don't understand your voting for the marriage definition though.  If a government recognized both gay and straight marriages as a civil union, then shouldn't the definition of marriage be left out of the government's hands (and thereby the voters), and stay in the hands of the church?

[Brassmask]

That's one of the best ideas that I've seen.  It might settle the issue without a lot of acrimony.

Long has this wisdom been expressed by our own BT.  I concur with this agreement as well.

Obviously, there are going to be people in America, like Stray, who would rather not have two men having a ceremony and then referring to themselves as "married".  That's fine.  The place we run into trouble is when they influence the government enough to where the laws say that two men or two women cannot be referred to as "married" nor must anyone be they a corporation or an insurance company or the IRS regard that couple as married.

In my opinion, this is the same fight that people in multi-racial marriages had to fight.  This is the same fight as separate but equal.  This is the same as having two different water fountains.  "Good grief, we gave them their own water fountains!  They're clearly marked 'colored'".

They way to keep everyone legal under the law is either to call everyone civil unions or everyone married.  What churches refer to those couple as is their own business.  Obviously, there are lots of clerics out there willing to perform ceremonies and I'm sure the government is still willing to make more money by endorsing "civil unions" and all the rights those afford like less taxes.

Jesse V has it right.

[Plane]

VENTURA: Well, and not by populace itself, Pat. If the elected officials stand up for what?s right and do what?s right for civil rights like they did back then, I fully agree with you. But you can?t put a civil rights issue on the general ballot in a state and let people vote on it because if do you that, in the southern states before you can bet, they would have voted to continue slavery. 


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


So the Civil war was a good idea?


Don't get things out of order , first persuede the majority that the change is right , then slam the change down the throats of the minority , much less blood when the victor is odbvious from the first.

[Stray Pooch]

I am aware that there are liberal churches refusing to conduct marriage ceremonies because of this issue.  I would accept the government recognizing a civil union, and the churches could call it whatever they wanted.

I don't understand your voting for the marriage definition though.  If a government recognized both gay and straight marriages as a civil union, then shouldn't the definition of marriage be left out of the government's hands (and thereby the voters), and stay in the hands of the church?

The decisions in Massacusetts and California are the reason I would vote to amend the constitution.  The courts can override the will of the people, even though that is NOT an appropriate role for the judiciary.  But they cannot overrule the supreme law of the land itself.   I believe the government DOES have some role in recognizing and encouraging the cultural and social institutions that make America what it is.  While I lean towards keeping the government out of my business, I do not subscribe to the libertarian ideal of a completely "hands off" government.

This is the point of my use of the term "compromise."  I disapprove of gay marriages.  But I believe that gay marriage is, already, legal throughout this nation because of the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution (seeing as it is legal in Massachusetts and now California).  I believe that, in both states, the people were overruled by the government, which is direct contradiction to the intent of the Constitution.  I do realize the importance of protecting minority rights and the role the judiciary has traditionally played in that.  But I still believe the people have the right to choose the kind of government, the types of institutions and the moral values that they wish to have.  This, again, is why I do not endorse strict libertarianism.  I believe that society, as well as individuals, have rights.  The rights of the people should not be subordinate to the opinions of the judiciary. But, as I do recognize that there are two sides to every issue and those who support gay marriage have just as much right to their opinions as those of us that do not, I am willing to support the idea of civil unions (which solves all of the legal and free-association issues) and I am also willing to codify the traditional definition of marriage (which resolves the societal issue).  Compromise.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It should be up to the couple that wants to get married. I suppose that it gets up some traditional people's noses that a same sex couple wants to presume to be as married as they are, but this is irrational. Ventura is right here and Buchanan is simply wrong. It does not affect a heterosexual couple's marriage in the least if a gay couple gets married.

I don't see why this should be a matter subject to public opinion, since the public is unaffected by a gay marriage.

If anyone thinks it does, it would be interesting to hear why they think this is true.

[Stray Pooch]

If anyone thinks it does, it would be interesting to hear why they think this is true.

It's been beaten to death, XO.  I once did a four part post in response to the same question from Leslie.  This is just a case of a subject on which there will be no agreement because we differ in perspective, in definition of terms and of understanding of the issue.  Where people of good will are willing to compromise, the interests and beliefs of both sides can be accomodated - if not entirely satisfied.