Gay Marriage/Civil Unions Are REALLY Badly Framed By Democrats

[ruggerson]

This should be framed as an economic issue. An issue of equal economic rights. Gay people pay the same taxes straight people do, but gay couples currently have NOWHERE NEAR THE SAME ECONOMIC RIGHTS AND BENEFITS, OR RESPONSIBILITIES, from the government that straight couples do.

This is, plain and simple, taxation without representation. Equality under the law for gay couples is an ECONOMIC ISSUE of civil rights.

People who oppose civil unions are basically asking gay people to pay into a system they do not get to participate in. This is wholly un-American.

Remember Reagan with his famous: "I paid for this microphone, Mr. Green."? Americans respond to people who PAY UP FAIR AND SQUARE, play by the rules, but then get screwed around by the system unfairly.

We have let the other side frame it as a moral issue, as if we were debating church marriage. We are not. We are debating ONLY CIVIL MARRIAGES under United States law. We let them bring God into the discussion, when God has nothing to do with the issue of civil marriage. Churches right now can marry whom they wish to, always have and always will. When gay marriage becomes CIVILLY recognized, fundamentalist churches will STILL UNDER LAW BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO PERFORM THEM.

Most of the country does not even begin to grasp the basics of this issue: that is solely about CIVIL marriage performed by City Hall, not the kind performed by churches. Most of country does not even understand that the issue is solely about civil law. Because no politician has made the effort to explain it. Talking heads confuse church marriage with civil marriage all the time when yakking about this on television. We lose on this issue, because we HAVE LET THE FUNDAMENTALISTS FRAME THIS as a moral issue and no one stands up and disputes it.

It is an economic issue, not a moral one. The churches can deal with issues of the "soul", the state should deal with issues of justice, equality and rights under the law. Period.

[JI7]

1. i'm not sure that would help

what i always hear from them is that the reason marriages between men and women are given these benefits is because marriages between a man and a woman benefit society and that gay relationships don't.

and some of them bring up some shit about how gays can get married if they do to someone of the opposite sex so there really isn't discrimination.

what we need to do is bring up the problems in marriages with the high divorce rates including prominent Republican divorces.

and as you say emphasize that churches would not be forced to perform marriage ceremonies if they don't want to. of course those who want to can as currently happens.

there is just a lot of bigotry out there and often it's not the fred phelps type but the type of person that says i don't really have anything against them but i just don't think we should give special rights.

[readmoreoften]

2. If it's all about heterosexual productivity

then infertile couples should not be allowed to wed. Nor should couples over 45. How does society benefit from two old poor people wedding? It's an immoral scam to sucker money out of the system. The middle aged should not be able to marry! It's a tax evasion scam! Those middle aged sickos should get sex off their brains anyway. I don't wanto see them holding hands in public. It's like the just want to rub their infertility in your face!

:sarcasm:

[ruggerson]

5. Yep, but you never hear "TAXPAYERS"

being repeated over and over.

The issue of civil unions or marriage should never be discussed without using the phrase "gay taxpayers" or "gay taxpaying citizens"

It should be hammered over and over.

[Inland]

3. I don't agree. At least, not without some tweaking.

Fact is, nobody thinks marriage in economic terms until the divorce. Saying, we want marriage for the economic benefits is a huge turnoff, making me wonder if you should get married.

A different way would be to say....look, in reality these people are married. Look at a gay monogamous couple living together ten years and adopting kids and tell me they aren't actually married in the important sense, regardless of what anyone says. Letting the law recognize reality is good for them, and letting the law recognize that they too contribute some of the stability that we rely on het couples to provide, and giving them the same economic help, is fair considering the reality.

[ruggerson]

6. But you're asking people to accept

that gay relationships are just as important and valid as straight ones. And that's the crux of why this isn't framed well. The average moderate to right of center white guy isn't overwhelmingly homophobic, he doesn't even think about it that much. But he RESENTS being told that the gay guys relationship down the street is on equal footing with his MARRIAGE. He doesn't quite know why, but he knows it isn't. And he resents the comparison.

He is far more likely to understand people getting ripped off. If it is framed as an issue of taxpaying citizens NOT GETTING what they have paid into the system, that makes sense to him. He understands the frustration of getting ripped off economically by the government. It is a far more tangible, understandable and sympathetic way to frame it.

[Inland]

11. The comparison has got to be made, or it's no go.

When married poeple get benefits and unmarried don't, the question is why. Why do they get something that unmarried couples and single people don't.

The answer has got to be that marriage provides a societal benefit or that society wants to help married couples out of charity.

Now to assert a gay couple is getting ripped off means that for some reason, a gay couple shouldn't be getting the same disadvantages as an unmarried couple or singles. The latter aren't getting what the married are getting either, we all know it, and we're good with it, so somebody's got to explain how gay couples are more like married couples than unmarried couples or singles.

To get equivalent benefits, it has to be shown that they are equivalent, at least in important ways.

That may be a long row to hoe, but until it's done nobody is going to see how gay couples are being "ripped off" more than single people or unmarried hets. Until then, they aren't sympathetic compared to these other unfavored groups.

[kweerwolf]

4. Or on the flip side ...

... maybe it's time to give cut the taxes of gays and lesbians since they can fully participate in the range of rights enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts.

[DanCa]

7. It's not about economics its about equality.

I am a regular church goer and I believe that my god's version of love thy neighbor pertains to everyone, regardless of color, orientation, or political party. Its that basic you have to treat people the way you want to be treated. And I also believe my god loves gays just as much as he loves anyone else, more so than the frauds out there like Jerry Fawell and George W who use his name in vain and for thier own political gain.
How dare we go abroad and say we liberate people of other nations and deny our fellow American's thier most god given constitutional rights? My mind wobbles on how homophobic the right is on this issue.The way I see it that gays are human beings and americans and as such they deserve the same respect as straights do. Anyhow thats my rant for the day hopefully its my last one. Ah zoloft I feel so much better now.

[ruggerson]

9. I understand that

but I'm talking specifically about FRAMING the debate politically to sway voters. I agree with you wholly. But often the right thing doesn't resonate for the right reasons. You have to make people understand things on a level that makes sense to them viscerally.

[DanCa]

10. ohhh I see your point now

but I'm talking specifically about FRAMING the debate politically to sway voters. I agree with you wholly. But often the right thing doesn't resonate for the right reasons. You have to make people understand things on a level that makes sense to them viscerally

My appologies I misunderstood the post. I know the feeling though I need stem cell for a possible cure for parkinson's and people just dont want to get involved unless it effects them personally. And that unfortunately tends to resonate with the pocket book than anything else.

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. Not just on THIS issue; on a lot of issues.

There is an appalling lack of leadership. Democratic politicians are forever staking out positions just to the left of something or just to the right of something. And then they lay low.

Meanwhile, no one bothers to TEACH the average ( badly informed and badly educated)voter WHY, for instance, the war on Iraq is not only a crime against international law but also an offense against American principles. The important thing, for many elected democrats is managing to "vote for something before voting against it". In other words, to be innocuous where controversial issues are concerned.

Ditto marriage, civil unions, separation of church/state, etc. I'm sorry, folks: Yes, I want you reelected but I expect you to actually DO or SAY something to deserve it... at least from time to time.