Would you support a Federal Marriage Amendment....

[Dookus]

that conferred FULL equal rights for gay couples, with the only difference being the union is called "Civil Union" instead of "Marriage". Straight people keep the term "marriage".

No other compromise - not on adoption, not on social security, nothing - only the terminology.

My take? Yes, I'd support it. The rights are 1000 times more important than what it's called.

[drdigi420]

1. of course

and who is to stop a gay couple from calling it a marriage anyway?

the bigots just wont admit to why they really oppose gay's right to marry - religious bigotry

[cardlaw]

3. If it were really

about saving the institution of marriage, then they wouldn't have any complaint to civil unions ... because they aren't marriage. Being against civil unions exposes it for what it is -- hatred and/or intolerance.

[hedda_foil]

2. No.

Nothing about marriage belongs in the Constitution. This is and should remain a civil rights issue under the Constitution.

[Dookus]

6. so you'd give up all the rights

indefinitely and hold out for the term "marriage"?

[emanymton]

Equal Rights Means Just That

it is about equal rights for all. We already have amendments to the constitution clearly stating equal rights. Fight the fight on a winner's terms not on the loser's terms.

Equal Rights Mean Equal Rights.

[Dookus]

22. I agree

and in the hypothetical situation I proposed, all rights are equal, unless you want to argue that calling it "marriage" is a right, in which case that's the ONLY one limited.

I just can't see be willing to not have these rights for the foreseeable future just for the sake of using the term "marriage". I mean, couples would use the term, anyway. The popular usage would be to use the term "married" for gay couples. It would only be a difference in the wording on the legal documents. Everything else is exactly the same.

[kenny blankenship]

44. what part of

separate but equal is never equal don't you get?

Equality before the law is foundational and non-negotiable.

The MA Supreme Court said it very clearly: THIS IS NOT ABOUT MAKING SOME DIRTY DEAL. What is at issue here isn't marriage but equality of citizens. If a gov't practice sets up a distinction between people for the sole purpose of MAKING DISTINCTIONS among people, one group of people rejecting the idea of being classified with another, or forcing the other into separate institutions, separate accomodations, etc. then the practice is inherently discriminatory. Doesn't matter how "equal" you think it is.

Writing this distinction into law is nothing more than writing an antipathy for a group, a prejudice, a petty dislike, into law as a principle. Once there it will infect other laws, and will mark out the discriminated group as citizens with lesser rights.

Elevating such a law into the Constitution would foreclose on the rights of US citizens to petition their legislatures and their courts for the status of marriage. So now ontop of making an invidious distinction in the laws, you're also stripping equal access to the legal system for the discriminated group.

As a practical matter, once the Anti-Gay amendment was ratified into the Constitution, it would form a legal grounding for a host of NEW state laws, local ordinances, and private sector practices discriminating against those citizens forbidden by the Constitution to marry. The list is potentially much longer, but you would certainly see a discriminatory impact in hiring and firing, employee compensation and benefits, public accomodations, and rental properties. Anybody with an antigay discriminatory practice they want to shelter will be able to point at Article 28 (if it goes in) of the USC to explain that what they were doing was merely trying to support marriage as an institution and support their employees/customers/lessees who are married. You can't put something INTO the Constitution at random and not expect ripple effects. Some people seem to be a bit like the SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore -- pretending they can make a monumental decision, but without setting any precedents that they'll have to be responsible for.

Now, I want you to look at the bill of rights amendments 1-8 and the "2nd bill of rights" namely the 14th and the 15 amendments and find for me where the lawmakers who wrote these things made any distinctions among citizens based on what types or kinds of people are affected by these protections.

Does the 1st Amendment say that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion and that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists will pay an Atheists' Tax of one dollar yearly?

Or the 15th Amendment -- does it say African descent people are now allowed to vote but those of greater than 1/8 Indian descent and Spanish speaking Mexicans may only vote if a white man vouches for their character? Does it say Chinese people must meet minimal property requirements before being allowed to vote but everyone else votes for free? No, of course not, it says that the states cannot make any laws preventing ANYONE from voting based on their race or their previous status as a free man or a slave. The immediate reason for writing and adopting the 15th amendment was to enable blacks freed from slavery to vote. But you won't find the word "African" or "black" or "Negro" or indeed anything denominating an identifiable people in the Amendment because the lawmakers of the 19th century understood (what apparently so many DUers do not) that if a law isn't written in such a way as to apply to ALL people in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY it had no business in the Constitution.

What you especially don't see are DEALS of the kind that go like this: a certain named group of people will henceforth be allowed to vote but in return for THIS AMAZING CHARITY WHICH WE THE DOMINANT MAJORITY HAVE BESTOWED UPON THEM they shall give up in perpetuity any right to bring a suit in Federal Court bitching about how their votes are split up among congressional districts, diluting their voting strength with the result that they are always in fact respresented in Congress by a member of the Majority race/religion/ who owes them nothing because their votes are always irrelevant to his selection. If they want to get the right to vote they'll have to give up their inalienable right to seek redress through the courts and the legislature.
(Inalienable rights are only for straight white males over 21 I guess. Other people can be made to give up one right to secure another)

You won't see deals in the Bill of Rights. The last deals were made at the beginning of our republic and THEY ARE THE DIRTIEST MOST SHAMEFUL LEGACY OF OUR BASIC LAW. And thank Goat they are now gone. I'm referring to the infamous 3/5 compromise and the "speak no evil of the slavetrade" part of the Amending clause. What you see in the Constitution's Bill of Rights is nice gender neutral non-race specific "persons" and "the people" :in other words, the amendments apply to a universal subject.

Well now it appears some people want to make a Constitutional amendment different from all the rest. They want to get particular and abandon universals. They want to write an amendment which would, in one clause create a category and a set of rights for one named group of people, and in the next clause, name another group of people who may not be put in the same category as the first and who will be assigned a set of rights specific only to them. In other words, some people want to create A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE FOR EXISTING IS TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN ONE CLASS OF PEOPLE AND ANOTHER CLASS, WHICH THE FIRST CLASS DOES NOT WISH ADMITTED TO THEIR SAME INSTITUTIONS. Hey don't forget to put in the part about your secret club handshake!

Just the fact that you think the purpose in so-called "civil unions" is to provide the "same" rights, benefits and obligations as marriage OUGHT TO BE proof enough for you that what we're talking about is ONE THING: marriage. If gay people are due these rights, benefits and obligations then they are ALSO DUE the estate of marriage. The only function of "civil unions" is to appease the hatred which some people feel for gays and their desire to deny equality to gays.
Well I'm sorry but you CAN'T PUT THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

It is clear from the attitude prevailing at DU which is that gays should go to the back of the bus and speak up only when spoken to, that the passage of time does not necessarily bring any progress to these controversies. Therefore I don't think very much of the argument that I and my brothers and sisters should WAIT AROUND INDEFINTELY for our rights to be accepted at some later time when straight people have finally decided to take other peoples' rights seriously. Didn't work for black people and it won't work for us either.

[xxqqqzme]

47. R U in law school?

U said everything I have been saying to a neighbor about this. equal is just that....equal.

[kenny blankenship]

48. no

i'm just a citizen with a big mouth and a grievance.

[Dookus]

49. as I've said

repeatedly, this is NOT what I'm proposing as the ideal solution. I'm trying simply to gauge the ability to compromise on a meaningless word in exchange for all the rights.

And what part of Separate but Equal do YOU not understand? The term refers to a separate education system set up for black students. Nobody is suggesting segregating homosexuals. Nobody is suggesting setting up a separate legal system for homosexuals.

Do you realize that the problem with "separate but equal" was that while separate, it was NOT equal, and the courts ruled (rightly) that it could never be MADE equal.

Using the term separate but equal in this regard betrays a certain ignorance about US history and about the relative importance of words vs. rights.

[kenny blankenship]

60. The MA Supreme Court said it

Will you be accusing them too of ignorance of US history and the importance of words? You must be quite the scholar!

In the absence of a rational NEED to separate people, which in this case has not been shown by you, nor by the state legislature of Massachusetts, the practice of separating them, merely to separate them, is invidious discrimination in its ESSENCE.

YOU CANNOT MAKE THAT "EQUAL" TREATMENT. EVER.

Your constant refrain is let's do this politically. Let's make gay people live forever with what straight people are willing to give them right now in 2004. That's a highly irregular "principle" for making Constiutional law. It's not totally unprecedented, though. As I said primo examples of dirty deals like that are the 3/5 amendment and the ban on amendments threatening the slavetrade. Not really a sterling tradition, is it?

You won't find dirty deals in the Bill of Rights. And it's not time to start putting them in, either.

Yes, I certainly do understand the meaning of these words. It's pretty clear from your horsetrading approach that you just wave them --and equality itself-- away if you find them not expedient.

[Dookus]

64. Hell yeah

I'll find dirty deals in the Bill of Rights. EVERYTHING in the constitution is a compromise.

Also, you're misreading everything I've said. I'm not proposing this as a solution. I'm not saying I think this should be the approach.

I'm asking simply, if such a deal were offered TOMORROW, would we accept it?

I'm trying to determine to what degree the ephemeral value of the term "marriage" outweighs the actual rights the term incorporates.

[kenny blankenship]

73. As explained over and over and over

this controversy is and has always been about CITIZENSHIP and EQUALITY not marriage, ephemeral term to you though it might be.

You cannot as a practical matter confer the equal rights of marriage without CALLING IT MARRIAGE. Marriage exists in a web of laws and practices controlled by various levels of government and private interests. Give gay people something "Not-Marriage" with the supposedly the same prescribed rights and benefits and you cannot guarantee --even by asserting that it shall be the same as marriage-- that it will be treated 100% the same way in all contexts as legal marriage. For one thing we already know that there would be localities that would seek to carry on discrimination as before; having a distinction between marriage and "gay-civil-union" would be a constant invitation to laws and practices that respect the first to the detriment of the second. Courts would be clogged NEEDLESSLY with attempts to force local and state governments, employers, insurers, etc to treat gay couples the same as married straight couples. It can hardly be made equal by fiat, and if gay people have a right to the benefits and obligations of marriage then they also have a right to perfectly equal access to these benefits, without the burdens of trial periods, or bug fixing delays, or lengthy adjustment phases which would affect ONLY THEM. On top of that, only gay people would be permanently prohibited from suing for their rights of marriage. Straight people would not WANT to petition for "civil union" status, as any child would understand that it is a poor cousin to legal marriage. Your premise is just a pathetic non-starter. You suppose what cannot be. The reasons have been laboriously explained to you. Yet you persist.

(i've already asked this rhetorically, I guess now I'm going to expect an answer)

FIND for me where in the Bill Of Rights and the amendments 13-15, one NAMED group of people, separate by some accident of birth or nature, like sex, race, or religion, or sexual orientation, have to give up a right which other people have in order to get another right. Find for me an example where these amendments force adult citizens belonging to some nameable group distinguished by their nature from the majority population into separate legal institutions just because the majority won't allow them on account of their difference into the same institution created for them. In the language of the articles, please, not your language.

[Dookus]

74. well

since there has never been a 14th amendment challenge regarding gay marriage, I don't think I'm obligated to provide the language you request.

I'm not "persisting" in anything. I'm not proposing this as the solution to the gay marriage problem. I'm interested in gauging how important the word "marriage" is compared to the rights encompassed by that term.

Evidently a few vocal people here feel the word is all-important. The people who voted in the poll disagree with that 2 to 1.

There's no reason why we should fight over this - I'm simply asking a hypothetical question. I've made it clear that I would gladly give up the term marriage for the actual rights inferred by the word. We're free to disagree, but we don't have to be disagreeable.

The premise of my question presumes that there IS NOT an ongoing battle over local laws regarding marriage. I don't know how else to explain the term "equal rights". When I use the term in my hypothetical, I mean genuinely equal.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Bingo

We already have the 14th Amendment.

[Dookus]

9. So you would really

forgo all the rights indefinitely, just for the sake of getting the term "marriage"?

I have to say, I don't understand that thinking. To me it seems about the slightest compromise we could possibly make, and well worth it.

[einniv]

20. I don't think that is what they are saying.

I think that is your "expected" opposition response(what you expect), but not what they are saying.
I think they are saying the Constitution already covers it and therefore it will be the court that should and will decide it. Adding or trying to add an amendment , even a good one, legitimizes the idea of adding stuff about marriage to constitutions.

[Dookus]

21. thanks

but I really don't see per se what is wrong with mentioning marriage in the constitution.

The point of this discussion is to see whether there is ANY compromise, no matter how small, that would be worth gaining full marriage rights.

The people voting in the poll say yes 2 to 1, but the people posting feel differently. I'm not trying to talk them into anything - I'm trying to understand the mindset that says NO compromise whatsoever is possible. Everything in the constitution is a compromise. Almost every law is a compromise. In exchange for getting full and equal rights, we'd be asked to give up the term "marriage". That's it. Seems like a good deal to me.

[einniv]

26. I voted no by the way

because I don't agree with marriage ammendments in general and because of the "floodgate" effect of new ammendments discussed below. Marriage has legal meanings yes, but it also has religious meanings.

Does the government have the right to define a meaning in a Constitution?
Would the ammendment itself stand up to Constitutional challenges on the basis of freedom of religion? (that the right would undoubtedly launch... sneeky and slimy ... just their style)

[Dookus]

29. well...

first off, you can't challenge an amendment to the constitution as being unconstitutional. If it passed, it's constitutional by its very existence.

And this is a hypothetical case - say the amendment were being voted on tomorrow. Would you oppose it? I really don't want to discuss the "floodgate" effect because a) it's irrelevant to the point I'm making and b) I don't believe it even exists. There's no reason why one amendment should foster others.

[einniv]

33. If a new ammendment conflicts there has to be some resolution

by the courts.

I guess I fail to see the point of discussing some story-book land where it doesn't have very real consequences of encouraging modification of the constition, over an issue that it already deals with. Or where it doesn't come in a climate where it is going to divide the country sharply when there are other pressing issues to consider.
It will be the courts that do the trick eventually. It is an equal rights issue and is already covered. It is a special case of equal rights.
I think the proper "strategy" is to pursue the court system. Oppose any and all ammendments to the Constitution.

[Dookus]

35. I'm not

"proposing" this at all. It's a hypothetical case saying IF this were proposed, would we support or oppose it? I'm not suggesting it's the right way to go.

[Cat Atomic]

36. I agree with you, hedda_foil. n/t

.

[4morewars]

4. I don't like calling it someting else...

but if that's what it takes, then yes.

[foreigncorrespondent]

5. Nope!

It is still separate but equal.

[Dookus]

7. as I recall

you have certain immigration issues with your partner. If the amendment I proposed passed, you'd be free to come here.

You would give up that right, and hundreds of others, indefinitely, just for the term "marriage"?

BTW... separate but equal referred to segregation. Nobody is suggesting segregating gay people. The problem with Separate But Equal as it applied to schools is that it WASN'T equal - and the courts ruled there was no way to MAKE it equal.

In this case, the rights are, demonstrably, equal. Only the term is different.

[foreigncorrespondent]

10. My partner can come here...

...if that is the case. But I will not lower my views to live in a country that doesn't accept me equally.

[Dookus]

11. But they don't accept you at all now

is there really NO compromise, no matter how small, that would be worth being granted full, equal rights?

[foreigncorrespondent]

12. Dookus, I really think "I"...

...of all people realize they don't accept me at all, right now!

No there is NO compromise! Why the fuck should we take scraping to please the fundamentlists and the repuke bastards?

There should NOT be an amendment to the constitution period! No matter how it is worded it is still discriminating isn't it?

Sapphocrat can come here right now if she was able to. The only reason she hasn't is because her mother is of a decent age, and sick. Someone needs to be there for her mum.

[Dookus]

13. except I'm not talking about "scrapings"

I'm talking about full, equal rights enshrined in the constitution.

I look at it as maintaining what's known as a "polite fiction" that lets the other side feel they somehow get to keep "marriage" for themselves, but in fact, they've given up absolutely everything that MAKES marriage, except for the name.

The entire constitution and almost every law ever passed in this country is a compromise. This seems to me like the very smallest thing we could EVER compromise on.

I'm not an absolutist or an idealogue. I would gladly give up MERELY THE TERM "marriage" for all the rights it encompasses.


on edit: I'm not proposing this, and I'm not saying I think it should be passed. I'm saying IF it came down to this, I'd support it. The alternative would be to oppose it and get NO rights. I'd much prefer the whole kit and caboodle, including the name, but I wouldn't give up everything else for it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

14. If it isn't marriage...

...then it is scrapings!

I am no intentions on selling myself out to the repukes and the religious right. You might, but I won't.

[Dookus]

15. then

I apologize for not making my question clear enough for you.

[foreigncorrespondent]

17. Bravo, Dookus!

I hope you realize, that after months of coping shit from people (that I thought were actually on our side), about the whole damn FMA amendment. And us queers having to come to bat for each other so many times. YOU have finally broken me!

I thought it I was to ever get broken like I am right now, it would be from all the shit the right spins, but NO, it has come from someone in my very own community!

Well done!

I bid you farewell!

[Dookus]

18. sigh...

I think my question is a reasonable one. I've made clear that I agree with you on the DESIRE for gay marriage. I'm discussing whether a small compromise on the term, only, would be acceptable to gain all the other rights.

I meant no offense to you.

[buck4freedom]

66. Offense taken

Your question might not have been offensive. Your blatant disregard to the lucid argument against your position and your posturing are quite offensive.

[Dookus]

68. LOL

I haven't yet seen the lucid argument you refer to.

AND... I was speaking directly to Foreigncorrespondent, whom I've cyber-known for a long time and for whom I have great respect.

I wasn't apologizing for any offense to you, nor would I be likely to.

[buck4freedom]

65. I think

Dookus wants to get a warm fuzzy liberal feeling by "supporting" us but is afraid of the backlash should he come out for real equality.

Sort of like the women who drove their maids to work during the bus boycott in '55. Trying to be a little rebellious and liberal but not wanting hubby or the KKK to find out!

Call me Rosa, but my ass ain't going to the back of the bus so some little fella can feel like he's fighting the good fight for us.

Sometimes it's the folks who seem to be working with you who work most against you!

[Dookus]

67. I see you're

new here, so I'll just encourage you to ask a question before making presumptions.

I'm openly gay, and have been for 25 years. This ain't my first time at the dance.

The question I'm posing is one of practicality. You're out of line assuming that I'm some guilty liberal who just wants gay people to shut up and sit down. You couldn't be more wrong, and instead of the attitude, you could simply ask me about where I'm coming from.

Welcome to DU.

[depakid]

16. NO NO NO NO NO!

Hedda_foil's and Foreigncorrespondent's points (which I agree with) aside, it is foolhardy and reckless to even THINK ABOUT supporting ANY constitutional amendment in this day and age.

As it is, only Republicans have the money and ostensible support to jump through all of the hoops in Article V. Moreover, from my observations over the past 20 years, a majority of Americans neither understand nor appreciate the Bill of Rights- much less constitutional law, and all too often they're perfectly willing to dispense with them for expediency's sake, with little or no actual thought about the consequences, whenever an emotional case arises.

If even one Amendment gets out of Congress, we'll be spending the next 20 years on the defensive, refighting every imaginable battle from school prayer to flag burning to right to counsel. As it is, we have to fight the far right case by case, doctrine by doctrine, in court after court- losing more often than we win, hoping that just maybe we might someday have an honest Supreme Court again. Imagine if we had to fight against all that money, corruption, ignorance and intolerance state by state for the whole ball of wax....

[Dookus]

19. well

I'm decidedly NOT considering this in the context of what other amendments could come out.

Personally, I think NO amendment will come out of this congress any time soon, on ANY topic.

It's a hypothetical question about whether the term "marriage" is SO important that we should forgo all rights encompassed therein indefinitely in order to eventually get the term.

[depakid]

23. You have to consider procedure alongside substance

I understand what you're saying and as a matter of pragmatism, you make valid arguments. To a lot of people, marraige is something sacred- though their opinions of sacredness vary from my own, I think I understand their viewpoints. Still, this is a matter of Federalism (call me old fashioned, but I actually believe in those principles) and the US government has absolutely no business touching this issue, wjich is traditionally and properly one reserved to the states. Furthermore, I don't believe that the ANY state can deny full faith and credit to a marraige duly consumated under the laws of another state- acts of Congress or state legislatures notwithstanding. See Art. IV Sec. I http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section1

[Dookus]

24. well

you wait and see how cleverly the states find a way around the Full Faith and Credit clause.

My case is purely hypothetical. Say it was up for a vote tomorrow - would you urge your congresscritters to support it or not? We could have the rights now, or we could forego them indefinitely and see how it plays out over the next 20 years state-by-state.

[depakid]

25. For the reasons I discussed above

I'd strongly urge my Congressman & Senators to vote against it. It's a dangerously slippery slope and right now, we need a bright line- the Constitution must maintain its integrity at all costs. Once these folks figure out that they can get an amendment out, there'll be no end to the mischief and demogoguery.

[einniv]

27. Bingo I agree whole-heartedly.

I used to bark loudly about changes to the electoral rules but then thought the wiser of it for much the same reasons.
Not right now, times are dangerous enough.

[Dookus]

75. I think you may be confusing

the normal constitutional amendment process with a constitutional convention.

They are two very different things, and nothing in my original post assumes a constitutional convention. A constitutional convention would, in fact, provide many undesirable changes. My question has nothing to do with a CC.

[SuffragetteSal]

50. I am trying to grasp all the info in this discussion

and learn from it and I appreciate the fact many of us do not fully understand the Bill of Rights, much less constitutional law. Point taken. My husband and I disagree on the issue he thinking that the civil union is a good compromise, me thinking that no compromise is acceptable accept full equality as according to the 14th amendment, which I may not, I admit perhaps not fully understanding.

You are leaving me with much to think about and that is a good thing....

[countmyvote4real]

28. Dookus, this is a great thread. Very thought provoking.

After the SOTU challenge, I would have been for such a compromise that guaranteed equal rights without the term “marriage.” However, after watching the MASS debates on their state constitutional amendment, I think that civil unions are a short term solution for what will still be unequal in the long term.

No amendment is required. The language is already there. Equal is equal is equal. It’s time for our laws and tax code to honor that language in our constitution.

The framers of our constitution were very clear about the separation of Church and State. The State can acknowledge a marriage, but it doesn’t force a religion or faith to do so. That’s still up to the various faiths and congregations to decide for themselves as far as the ceremony. States can do as they choose, but they must agree to acknowledge the choices of other member states.

So, equal is still equal and should really mean equal.

Anything that makes gays less is to sanction gays as secondary citizens. I thought we already learned that lesson with the slavery corrections.

All of us are citizens of the United States of America and should be protected and granted equal rights.

I hope that I’m not cutting off my nose to spite my face, but that’s how I see it.

X0X

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Kenneth ken]

31. I will vote NO

I've read all the posts before mine. What Dookus seems to be missing or not understanding, or overlooking is that all the reasonable courts in the US are already looking at the US Constitution and saying that it guarantees the rights of GLBTs to marry as is, no amending needed.

ANY amendment regarding marriage would be a limitation in some way, shape or form of that right. That is what I think foreigncorrespondent means by "scrapings."

The reason repugnant people are proposing an FMA at all is because they feel threatened by the US Constitution as it is.

I would remind Dookus that the Constitution ought to be the basic frame work of LAWS in this country; it ought not be turned into a dictionary, nor a thesaurus.

[Dookus]

32. A few points...

First, I think I didn't make myself very clear when posing the question. I am NOT proposing this as a good solution. I am NOT suggesting this ought to be the case. I am simply saying, IF such an amendment were up for a vote, would we support it?

Second, you're more optimistic than I am about the the states and the courts on this issue. To date, NO state provides gay marriages, and 37 states specifically outlaw them.

This will be fought for the next 20 years.

[einniv]

37. Well first we have an election to win.

If we appoint the next justices it will not take 20 years.
Once a case reaches SOTU the decision will have invalidate the laws in the other states.
If we don't... well, then what you are talking about is just a dream anyway. So for the immediate future vote no. And if we win wait for the courts to take care of it.

[Dookus]

39. well

that's just the gamble proposed in the original post.

Would we (should we?) turn down all the rights of marriage if they were offered TOMORROW vs. waiting for the courts/legislatures to address the issue to our satisfaction.

I would not.

[countmyvote4real]

38. You're right: No. Yes. Yes.

We suck. And the * administration is advising Iraq on their new constituion.

How perverted is that?

[Kenneth ken]

40. ok

but my optimistic point was that courts are starting to overturn laws, and saying that the right for GLBT couples to marry does exist - that's what the MA court said.

I could be wrong. This really isn't my issue, I'm straight, non-religious, and not likely to ever marry. But fc did a poll a while bac, and brought me into her camp, so that's where I stand and stay.

37 states outlaw gay marriage, but courts are saying the US Constitution allows it, so all those states are in violation of the US Constitution.
Therefore, the only way to bring those laws into compliance with Federal law is by enacting a FMA.

An FMA has to get through both houses of Congress before it can go to the states. It seems to me, the best place to fight right now is A in the courts, and B in the US Senate.

Te worst place to fight is from the position of being willing to yield any point or position to the opposition - anything yielded will have to be won back later. If you're planning a fight that may go another twenty years, don't start by abandoning the ground you spent the last 30 or so years winning. (whenever the Stonewall riots were.)

[Dookus]

41. as far as I know

not a single court has ever ruled that the US constitution allows it.

These cases are all being decided on the state level, and in fact, when it appears that gay marriage will be enacted, the legislatures amend their constitutions. Hawaii was supposed to be the first "gay marriage" state and they blocked it.

Massachusetts may well block it.

No, no court has decided a 14th Amendment right to gay marriage, and I think they're unlikely to do so anytime soon.

[Kenneth ken]

45. told you it wasn't my issue

" No, no court has decided a 14th Amendment right to gay marriage, and I think they're unlikely to do so anytime soon. "

Well they should!

I will still stand by my argument of not yielding any ground already hard-won.

[Dookus]

46. except

we've won NO ground.

No state in the union currently allows gay marriage. Massachusetts MAY, but they may also change their constitution.

I don't really think there's any hard-won ground.

[blackcat77]

34. Absolutely!

The government has no business being involved in marriage at all -- it's strictly a matter for churches and they must be allowed to choose for themselves whether or not to do gay and lesbian marriages without any legal restrictions. I think, on the legal side, that there must be a civil union law which applies to all couples, gay and straight. A marriage would grant no legal rights and would be completely out of the control of the government. And civil unions must be available to all couples, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.

That way, the fundamilitants can have their precious marriages safe in their own churches while other churches are not interfered with, and *all* couples will have full legal recognition of their relationships.

It's the best of both worlds, but of course the homophobe fringe still won't accept it because "gays are yucchy" or some such nonsense.

[buck4freedom]

54. Chuches and Civil Unions

Would my church be allowed to marry a gay couple under a Civil Union law?

Hmmm... since it is a "Civil Union" I can't see that it would. Therefore, again... we have a second class of citizen who may not be allowed to be married by their consenting clergy.

In essence, unlike a straight couple we would have to be "joined" twice... once in a civil ceremony then once more in a strictly religious ceremony that carries no weight.

[Dookus]

58. Huh?

Every straight couple today still needs a civil license to have their marriage recognized.

[buck4freedom]

61. License yes

Ceremony no... ministers are allowed to do the ceremony and sign the license.

In the cases of Civil ceremonies ministers are not used but rather notaries public, judges, or other public officials.

[Dookus]

63. nothing you said contradicts my point

there is a civil license involved, regardless of who performs the ceremony.

The government will not recognize any marriage without such a license.

[cprise]

42. As a gay person ,NO

Putting seperate-but-equal, esp. in the Constitution, would be a disaster.

For starters, all the government has to do is enact tax changes, rights, etc. for "married" people first... then wait for the wrong time to let "civvies" catch-up... to create a very unequal system.

If they enact a marriage-promotion law, then the government has to actively convince gays to turn straight. Ex-gays would get federal funding to brain-wash people....

NO.

[Dookus]

43. in the hypothetical case I'm talking about...

they would be forbidden to create separate rights for married people.

There is NO separate but equal argument here. The rights ARE equal. As I noted above, the problem with Separate But Equal regarding education and race is that it WASN'T EQUAL!!! And the courts ruled that it COULDN'T be made equal.

This isn't about setting up a public system segregating gay people. It's about granting EVERY right, as well as every FUTURE right, to gay people in exchange for giving up the name "marriage".

[buck4freedom]

52. You're way wrong...

this is exactly a Separate but Equal question. Are heterosexuals being joined under the "Civil Union" law? No. They are being joined under a Separate law for marriage.

Thus, by its very nature it creates a new status which is separate from marriage and therefore, by its nature not equal.

[Dookus]

56. except for the fact

that it WOULD be legally the same.

I honestly have to say that the "separate but equal" argument applied to civil unions is nonsensical. It's not about segregating gay people. It's not about setting up public institutions specifically for gay people. It's not about spending tax dollars differently, or anything else. The "separate" part is purely linguistic, dealing with one word.

I think pulling out the "separate but equal" canard is a knee-jerk reaction.

[buck4freedom]

59. Sweetheart...

You need to go have a cup of coffee and think about this. You haven't thought this through logically at all. You're trying to force a compromise on something that you really haven't even considered.

You keep hollering, "but it's the same."

If it is called something else it is not the same in law. It's that simple. Once you have two names for something all it takes is one penstroke to declare one better than the other.

Get over it. Those of us who actually have something at stake here aren't agreeing to be seated in the back of the bus so you can feel all warm and fuzzy and liberal.

[Dookus]

62. first..

don't call me sweetheart. It's rude and condescending.

Second, it's not as simple as you say. Why ISN'T it the same if the law says it is? What does the name have to do with it?

Third, I have as much at stake in this as anybody else. I've been a proud, out gay man for 25 years and I'm in a committed relationship.

Fourth, it's an internet discussion board, and clearly I brought up a topic people thought worthy of discussion. Get over it yourself.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dookus]

70. heheh...

well you can PM me any time and we can meet and you can then determine what kind of little wuss I am.

Welcome to DU. I'm sure you'll be getting an introduction to the rules shortly.

[buck4freedom]

51. Once upon a time...

I would have said "yes" to that. However, I have found that the "terminology" issue is actually an attempt at Seperate but Equal.

It won't work. Laws will have to be rewritten to inlcude the term "Civil Union" to make it work and you can bet... someone will start monkeying with the language to make sure Seperate is anything but Equal... just like they did before.

So, no, I wouldn't support a Seperate but Equal phrasing because, as Brown Vs. Board of Education of Topeka clearly showed: Separate is anything but equal.

[Dookus]

53. but as I keep pointing out....

there's no public institutions being set up separately for gay people in this scenario. None whatsoever.

The difference is on the legal papers. That's it. EVERY right is guaranteed to be equal.

I think people are WAY too free to toss around the term "separate but equal" without understanding exactly what it meant in the past.

In the hypothetical I'm giving, it *IS* equal. The only "separateness" is one of terminology. That was NOT the case before Brown v BoE

[buck4freedom]

55. And everyone keeps pointing out that you're wrong.

EOM!

[Dookus]

57. No...

they're pointing out that they disagree with me.

However, the voters in the poll agree with me 2 to 1.

EOM yourself

[Kenneth ken]

71. may I interrupt this little flame fest?

I have another question. There are apparently already 1049 Federal laws and/or statutes that apply to marriage. What would happen to all of those if the amendment you are hypothesizing passed? That's a lot of laws to rewrite. Or, maybe it becomes a really wordy amendment.

Looking at law, my general assessment is, the more words there are in any given law, the more loopholes are created in that law.

It just seems a bad idea to be willing to compromise with people (religious fanatics) who don't understand compromise.

[Dookus]

72. You're not interrupting

Only one person seems to want to make this a flamefest, and it certainly isn't me.

I don't believe it would be necessary to rewrite every law. The amendment in my hypothetical case could simply say all rights granted to marriage would apply to civil unions.

But since this is a hypothetical situation, it doesn't much matter. The simple point I'm trying to discuss is how much more valuable is the word "marriage" than the rights it encompasses.

[dusty64]

76. I suppose if ALL the

rights and benefits were the same, but as I'm reading it this is NOT the case. I may be confused, but my take is that civil unions are ONLY valid in the states performed and do NOT receive any of the hundreds of Federal benefits.

[Dookus]

77. I think

it's obvious that an amendment to the US constitution would apply to federal law.

[dusty64]

78. It would but

the righwing created amendment will specifically deny rights not give any.

[Az]

79. White only fountains and Black only fountains

It is not equal. It is discriminatory.