ALL unions should be "civil unions"

[Atman]

And leave "marriage" up to the church.

This is just obvious, it seems. A letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant raised the point this morning, and it seems like the only logical way out of this mess. The writer pointed out that he had to receive two certificates to get married, one from the government and one from his church. Without either, he was not considered "married," but only the government one afforded him all the special rights and priveleges that come with being a citizen of the United States. If the government's only motive for such licenses is to collect tax revenue, then say so, and issue them to all, because the question of men/women really doesn't enter into that equation. If it is a question of legislating morality, where is it the government's place to do so, beyond that which expressly protects the life and liberty of the citizens...you know, don't kill, rape, molest, the obvious stuff. Especially in the context of a republican "keep the government out of people's lives" administration. This is just the opposite. It is the ultimate intrusion into people's personal lives for absolutely no reason which can be stated without relying in someone's personal ideas about morality...which, as I said, really have no place in government regulation.

So, make EVERY union a "civil union." Because after all, that is all it really is. Then, depending upon your religion, or lack thereof, you go somewhere else to get "married." Why is this concept so difficult? It is basically what we have now, except, of course, for those citizens without the same rights as everyone else, merely because of whom they choose to pair up with.

[truthspeaker]

1. Churches did not invent marriage!

Marriage was a civil union before religions muscled their way in and tried to take it over. In most European countries you can't even sign a marriage license in a church - you have to do it with a government official.

[Taeger]

2. Tradition ...

Tradition is a powerful concept in law.

Respectfully, these notions of "civil union" only have about as much chances of becoming law as slavery reparations.

The best near term solution is the acceptance of "civil unions" for non-traditional households such as gay/lesbian and lifetime sibling cohabitators.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. What other groups should have separate legal status?

To what other situations should a tiered system of legal protection apply?

[Taeger]

12. No tiered system currently applies

The traditional institution of marriage is available to ANYBODY despite class, race, gender or sexual orientation.

The far left is trying to imply a distinction where non exists. Civil Union between same sex individuals is a fundamentally NEW institution in nature.

I have warned people around here that the DEMANDS for gay marriage will end up pushing the cause of both civil union AND gay marriage back 10-20 years. You have forced the hand of Massachusetts legislators. You are now forcing the hands of California legislators. And I dare say that even THEY would pass a constitutional amendment AGAINST gay marriage recognition if the actions in San Francisco force them to.

This is the WRONG strategy. You are energizing your opponents and giving them lots of face time on national TV. As a result, legislators who WERE sympathetic to civil union legislation are now going to distance themselves from it.

If you keep it up, even the Democratic NATIONAL party will have to distance themselves from the civil union issue. You are pushing a boulder up hill and it WILL eventually roll back over you.

[lcooksey]

13. Civil rights are never convenient

In every struggle, those who are denied their rights are told that "now is a bad time, don't be so pushy, this will all backfire on you." But rights are not given, they are fought for and WON. I think the mayor of San Francisco deserves a medal for having the guts to force the issue.

With regard to your statement that traditional marriage is open to anyone -- as a lesbian I'm free to marry anyone I like, so long as they're not someone I'm in love with. What kind of freedom is that? So much for "life, libery and the pursuit of happiness."

Civil marriage is what you get when your marriage license from the county courthouse is signed. If two athiests can get married in the courthouse, why can't I?

[PVnRT]

14. ??????????

"The traditional institution of marriage is available to ANYBODY despite class, race, gender or sexual orientation."

What?

Why is it, then, that we have states with languages IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONS that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why do we have gay couples in San Francisco lined up outside a city hall for the simple act of getting a marriage license if ANYBODY can get married?

[Taeger]

18. You're not listening

BTW, I love the "Fight Club" reference. That's the most irreverent, anti-establishment, anti-feminist movie I've EVER seen.

Anyway, you're not really listening to what I'm saying. Gay folk still have the right to marry someone of the other sex. In fact, two gay folk can marry each other. A lesbian and a gay man.

The parallels to black civil rights simply do NOT apply. The only REMOTE parallel I've seen is the issue of inter-racial marriage. But at the same time, I could make use the gay marriage argument to support polygamy.

Society has defined what marriage is. They will CONTINUE to define what marriage is. It is NOT a civil rights issue.

Right or wrong, if the whole of society decides to amend their constitutions AGAINST homosexual marriage, it couldn't possibly be considered a civil right. Perhaps it could be considered a NATURAL right, but not a civil right.

The actions that gay and lesbian communities are engaging in right now will give ammo to fundamentalists in the view of moderates. I shit you not. They are turning otherwise sympathetic people AGAINST the gay and lesbian community.

The Republicans may have built the wedge ... but gay activists are pounding it home.

No amount of arguing will change middle America's mind on this. No logical construct is even relevant. A vast majority of Americans don't want to recognize gay relationships as marriage ... PERIOD. All your arguments and logical constructs to the contrary about this being a "civil right" will only serve to make you appear loony. Basically, Americans DON'T CARE if you think it's right or wrong. They simply don't want it.


I get very frustrated because I attempt to explain this position and people seem to take me as some kind of homopobe. It is this unwillingness to accept a compromise that provides progress "civil unions" that leads to the label of extremist. I'm not trying to hurt gays and lesbians, I'm trying to HELP them.

I'm trying to help them see WHY their arguments fall on completely deaf ears. It's not due to homophobia. It's due to a fundamental belief that same sex couples DO NOT make a marriage as people have known it their entire lives. Many would accept the notion of a NEW institution that would define such a relationships and give it similar rights as marriage. But they simply DON'T WANT to call such relationships marriage.

These folks are the VAST MAJORITY. If you force a domino effect of court rulings (as what is currently happening) that FORCE that institution, you WILL see a NATIONAL constitutional amendment that SPECIFICALLY denies gay marriage. It WILL pass easily in such a climate. Democrats WILL NOT help you in that event.

This will place the realization of gay marriage FARTHER away. In the absence of such amendments, you MAY have been able to sneak out a state specific marriage that is recognized as a civil union in less liberal states. If a constitutional amendment is passed, that WILL NOT be an option.

BTW, a Democratic president CANNOT by statute HELP in preventing such an amendment. He simply has NO role in the amendment process that requires approval of two thirds of both houses of congress and two thirds of states. Given the current makeup of Washington, such an amendment could easily be passed.

Even if Washington balks, 2/3 of the states could force the process on Congress and FORCE democratic legislators to choose between their seat and that amendment.

Here is the key issue. Do progressives COMPROMISE ALL of their agenda because gays and lesbian activists are unwilling to accept the civil union compromise. I tell you that I personally am not. It's the same pig-headed refusal to listen to other people's perspectives that characterizes the far right. It's the same pig-headed refusal to accept progress short of total victory that plunged Palestine back into chaos after the promise of peace.

You can only demand EVERYTHING when you are in a position of power and strength. Right now, Democrats control ZERO bodies at the national level. Their lot at the state level is EVEN LESS. WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY RISK FURTHER MARGINALIZATION BECAUSE GAYS REFUSE TO ACCEPT A COMPROMISE THAT HELPS THEM?????????

So if these groups want that stupid amendment, just keeping raiding court houses and DEMANDING marriage licenses. Keep suing and getting rulings that favor gay marriage. The result will be swift and sure and will END ANY near term hope of gay marriage AND also stall efforts for civil unions in most states.



Finally, a list of more than 33 states that would constitutionally ban gay marriage in a heartbeat if forced:
1) Florida
2) South Carolina
3) North Carolina
4) Alabama
5) Georgia
6) Tennessee
7) Kentucky
8) Indiana
9) Ohio
10) Pennsylvania
11) Mississippi
12) Texas
13) Arizona
14) Colorado
15) North Dakota
16) South Dakota
17) Wyoming
18) Missouri
19) Utah
20) Michigan
21) Vermont
22) Connecticut
23) New Hampshire
24) Arkansas
25) Oklahoma
26) Alaska
27) Kansas
28) Louisiana
29) Idaho
30) West Virginia
31) Maine
32) Hawaii
33) Nebraska
34) Nevada
35) Iowa


Probables:
1) New Jersey
2) New Mexico
3) Delaware
4) Illinois

For research:
http://www.gay-civil-unions.com/HTML/State_By_State/State_by_State.htm


Say what you will. I believe that gays are seriously harming their cause ESPECIALLY in such a high profile election year. They should not be surprised when other progressives eventually abandon them on these issues in the face of HOWLS from their constituents.

[DuctapeFatwa]

22. If you don't stand up Miss Rosa, we won't let you ride the bus at all!

Sometimes the threats were worse. We'll burn your house, we'll burn your mama.

[Taeger]

25. You're saying ...

You're saying that homosexuals are being forced to give up their bus seats for straight people??? :shrug:

Are there laws preventing homosexuals from attending state college? :shrug:

Are there laws allowing public restaurants from restricting homosexuals from eating there? :shrug:

Are homosexual teens herded into dilapidated "gay" schools? :shrug:

Are homosexuals specifically prohibited from even APPLYING for most high paying jobs? :shrug:

Are homosexuals paid less union scale wages than straight workers? :shrug:

Are homosexuals expressly forbidden by law from living in certain areas? :shrug:

Can you even TELL who is homosexual and who isn't if they don't advertise that fact in some way? :shrug: If so, why do homosexuals feel the need to self-segregate? :shrug:

Are homosexuals routinely pulled over by police at vastly disproportionate rates? :shrug:

Are homosexuals routinely captured, charged and convicted from crimes that they DID NOT commit? :shrug:

Are homosexuals victims of a legacy of society imposed poverty? :shrug:

Were blacks EVER denied the right to marry under Jim Crowe? :shrug:



I'm sorry, it isn't REMOTELY the same thing as the fight for black rights.

[DuctapeFatwa]

26. People are people, and rights are rights. All people, all rights

Or some people, some rights.

You have the right to your beliefs.

Have the courage to refrain from telling me that the yellow liquid on the carpet by my shoes is caused by metereological precipitation.

[Taeger]

28. Don't blame me ...

I'm a moderate. I believe in Civil Unions. I also think that EVENTUALLY society would get used to this and allow homosexual marriage.

I'm not pissing on you. It's the right wingers who are pissing on you. I have to defend you folk from them CONSTANTLY.

You know what. It gets annoying for moderates to DEFEND homosexuals in front of right winger AND THEN have to defend THEMSELVES in the presence of homosexuals.

One might think a THANK YOU would be in order for towing your water with conservatives.

Honestly, I'm sick of all this moderate bashing by gays. Maybe we should all just give up and let the fundamentalists have at you.

[DuctapeFatwa]

33. I'm not blaming you. I think you raise a legitimate point

There are people who, because of their beliefs, religious or otherwise, are opposed to equal rights, equal protection under the law.

While that concept is a basic principle of US law, it has not been the practice, and at various times throughout the nation's history, it has been necessary to seek legal redress and strengthen it.

In recent decades, we have seen that process used in conjunction with ending racial apartheid, which was for many years, the law, although it was unconstitutional.

The fact that it was practiced did not make it constitutional, nor does the fact that same sex couples have been denied the right to marry make THAT constitutional.

In many ways, same sex marriages will impact less on those who oppose them than was the case with the end to apartheid.

When apartheid ended, that meant that even if you (the general you, not you personally :), for reasons religous or otherwise, were opposed to sharing a waiting room, a drinking fountain, lunch counter or polling place, with people whose ancestors came from a different place than yours did, you were out of luck. The best you could do was start or enroll your kid in a segregation academy. And you had freedom of association. You don't have to associate with the man next to you in the line at the dry cleaners, or the cop on the beat. You don't have to invite him to your home. At work, you don't have to share water cooler gossip with the guy in the next cubicle if your beliefs preclude it, and if your kids are in the public schools, they don't have to play with kids of other races at recess. Many people employ that freedom of association, and for the majority of those who appreciate it, it seems to be a workable compromise for them.

In the case of same sex marriages, it's a lot simpler. Kind of like abortion. If you believe it is wrong, don't have one.

The US is a democracy. If enough people sincerely wish to have a theocracy as opposed to a secular state, if there is strong majority support for expunging the principle of equal protection under the law, let the "fundies" bring the amendment to the congress.

Oh I already wrote all this, it's archived, and it's on my blog.

Basically, it says bring it on.

Sometimes the best thing for everyone concerned is to bring things to a head, clear the air, and let everyone know where they stand.

[mondo joe]

24. Just like prohibiting interracial marriage

"The traditional institution of marriage is available to ANYBODY despite class, race, gender or sexual orientation."

Just as in the case of banning interracial marriage.

It was argued that anyone could marry, and anyone could marry anyone of their own race, hence the rights were equivalent.

But the SCOTUS didn't see it that way in Loving v Virginia

[Taeger]

32. I agree

I agree that among the traditional civil rights issues, THIS one IS relevant to the homosexual marriage debate.

However, one can find ample precedence for inter-racial marriage amongst many cultures in history. Marrying across clan and ethnic lines has ALWAYS been considered a way of forging peaceful bonds between peoples.

So yes, historically an interracial marriage IS a marriage. The fundies would be wrong to object to this because the Bible contains MANY, MANY instances of this practice defined as marriage. Also civil precedent in English common law has PLENTY of inter-racial marriage (Scots, Irish, Normans, Welsch, Saxons, English etc....).

Finally, if you open up marriage to "anyone you choose", if you reject the states ability to define and restrict the institution of marriage, then you open marriage up to "just anything". It could be a polygamistic relationship. The person chooses who their spouse(s) are, it's their RIGHT!!!!

You also open up the possibility that states COULD NOT restrict marriage to ADULTS! Yes, it DOES sound silly. But your saying it's a persons right to choose. Child-brides are not without precedence in human history AND even within the United States (Misssissippi). A pro gay marriage ruling could prohibit a states ability to regulate against marriage for pubescent but not yet adult children ((11?)12-16).

So be careful of which can of worms you open. I can ASSURE you that the fundies WILL use this argument. It doesn't MATTER if it's sound or not. It will sway the public AGAINST the gay community. It will fuel efforts to pass anti-gay marriage amendments.

Under those circumstances, the best you could hope for is amendments that puts all institutional marriage up to the discretion of a legislature. In such a case, you would still be back where you started from today. EXCEPT, rank and file Democrats will be pissed off that an ill-conceived gay rights strategy pushed them EVEN FURTHER out of power.

This strategy WILL alienate allies of gays and lesbians. This civil disobedience campaign will only end up hurting you.

[thinkingwoman]

30. tradition?

At first I agreed with this, but then I asked myself...

who issued Adam and Eve's marriage license? In fact, in every bible version I have read, the word marriage isn't used with those two.

In fact, god tells them to make babies doesn't he? Without a legal marriage first even! Oh my!

[Taeger]

35. GOD!!!!!

Duhhh!!!!!

[thinkingwoman]

36. did you forget

your </sarcasm> tag?


edited for pre-caffeine typing.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

3. i agree

in many ways Ive always thought that Marriage was a violation of the separation of Church and State. Essentially this issue is just about this separation. What business has the government in who we decide to spend our lives with. If this issue weren't about gays, Republicans would be raising their "Don't Tread on Me" flags in defense of the individual against the state.

[Brotherjohn]

7. Someone on a local call in show recently said: "marriage is sacred".

"Sacred".

Which begged the question (and thankfully, our local broadcaster asked it): "If you say it's 'sacred', doesn't that then mean it should be the realm of religion and not government?"

[blm]

4. I agree with you 100%.

I said a couple months ago that the problem is with the religious aspect of the word 'marriage' and its place as a Sacrament in religious teachings.

I think that first ANY couple should require a civil union and then, IF THEY WISH, a religious marriage ceremony.

That is the ONLY way we can have true separation of church and state.

[ewagner]

10. Absolutely correct

Government has an interest in sanctioning unions in the sense that it needs to provide an orderly set of protections of people, property, public health, and children.

Once those condiitions are met, then whatever the church(es) do is between them and the couples.

[FDRrocks]

5. Agreed.n/t

[welshTerrier2]

8. totally agree

if the term "marriage" when applied to gay marriage is offensive to a portion of the population, let's find a new term, e.g. civil unions, to recognize the legal relationship between any two consenting adults ... the term "marriage" should be removed from our "civil" laws ...

if people still want to refer to themselves as "married", no problem ... if they want to have a religion sanction their "marriage", no problem ...

but the term "marriage" seems to have both religious and cultural traditions that have nothing to do with providing fundamental "civil" rights to all people ...

[GinaMaria]

9. so by your estimation

What my husband and I have is not a marriage? We had a secular ceremony outside the country. We went through marriage preparation before we tied the knot, but other people want to define our relationship as a civil union and not a marriage. I don't agree that you or anyone else can define our relationship. We committed ourselves to marriage. We have a marriage. No religeon is needed to make it a marriage.

[Betty]

11. wouldn't your argument hold true

for a gay couple, then? I think you said it best when you said that no one else can define your relationship.

[GinaMaria]

19. absolutely

This issue is a slippery slope and involves heterosexuals as well as GLBT people. There are many married people who some would like to reclassify. I fully support gay marriage rights.

[PVnRT]

15. Mostly agree

For the government, yes, all unions should be civil unions and that's that. Marriage is simply whatever ceremony, religious or otherwise, that is chosen to celebrate it.

[enki23]

16. that's been my position all along

.

[mobuto]

17. Stay out of the Teamsters!

Who says unions have to be civil?

;-)

[mac2]

20. Right!

[tishaLA]

21. OK.. I think I'll start calling married people

"lovers" or "partners" insted of husband and wife. Let's see how they feel about having no disctinction.

[absyntheNsugar]

23. I agree, but while we have marriage

Let gays marry freely!

[WHAT]

27. That's what I think...

I don't know what the big-deal is about?!

On Edit:
If society wants to insure it's survival via social engineering then that also seems valid to me and it can do so by giving tax breaks to unions of male and female with children. Anyway, the two things seem seperate to me...the soverignity of a consensual union and the needs of a group to survive.

I believe in soverignty...that's why I believe in nationalism...the individual, respect for the individual leading to respect for the aggregate (or state). It would be really boring if everyone did everything the same way...consensual unions as a political response to human need ought to be allowed to play_out.

As a SF fan, I can only say that the coherence of the response to the stimuli (lack of resources/dangerous situations/non-linear structuring/prioratized values...and all the other things great science fiction deals with) can make or break the "plot".

I don't see anything wrong with polygamy, either. It's not a moral calculus, but a complex interaction...and mother nature knows best.

maybe more than 2 cents worth...

[Uzybone]

29. I agree 100%

thats exactly my position. Leave the government out of religious practices. All unions should be regarded as domestic unions or civil unions or whatever name that the government wants to give them. They should be limited to two consenting non related adults.

[ChiefJoseph]

31. Indeed.

I have been arguing this point for years!

[supernova]

34. Got no problem with this

It works for me if CU/marriage, whatever you're going to call it will afford the same legal rights/responsibilities to all.

:thumbsup: