Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ted Olson & NY AG Eric Schneiderman Editorialize Against Civil Unions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 10:50 PM
Original message
Ted Olson & NY AG Eric Schneiderman Editorialize Against Civil Unions
Ted Olson & NY AG Eric Schneiderman Editorialize Against Civil Unions

Former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman today published an op-ed piece in the New York Daily News explaining why civil unions are an unacceptable compromise in the marriage equality battle. Olson, as you doubtlessly know, was the co-lead attorney in the battle to overturn Prop 8. An excerpt from today's essay:

A civil union is not a marriage, nor is it an adequate substitute for one. To suggest otherwise is a cruel fiction. Even if all of the inherent confusion and complexities could be resolved and civil unions could somehow provide couples with the same rights and responsibilities of a true marriage, the separation of the two institutions creates a badge of inferiority that forever stigmatizes the relationships of committed same-sex couples as different, separate, unequal and less worthy. Time and time again, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we enjoy as Americans under the Constitution. It's a right older than the Bill of Rights and older than our political parties. It is the foundation of society. The time to grant the right of marriage to all New Yorkers is now.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/05/16/2011-05-16_the_civil_union_baitandswitch_compromise_is_far_from_true_marriage_equality.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-11 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. If it is to be effectively fought...
Marriage as a religious element needs to be refuted. If it was truly religious in nature then it would have been a ceremony that was used in all male/female relationships from the very beginning. Instead, it wasn't supervised by the clergy until hundreds of years after the Catholic church began.

As an example, it wasn't until the 12th century that the English began getting married in church. This was especially true for the middle class. And it wasn't until the 18th century that they were required to by law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-11 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. Civil unions say, separate but equal is ok...and the SCOTUS decided over 50
years ago that it isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC