They're gonna do it, aren't they? Gay Marriage

[Strathos]

Will never happen if these people have their way and no matter how many people I try to recruit to fight for it, I can't really get anyone interested. No one really seems to care, not even my gay friends.

Why? Why can't the democrats help at least. Why can't we all band together and send in letters of support for this right, this priviliege?

I don't understand the complacency.

I don't understand how people can call themselves American, much less Christians and want to discriminate against another group of people.

[SteppingRazor]

1. I can't speak for anyone else, but...

I remain fairly complacent on this issue because it's a nonissue. Recall, it was not gays demanding marriage who first got this into the news. It was conservatives saying that gays are going to demand marriage. The entire issue is a rightwing media creation, and focusing on it instead of the war, education, healthcare and any number of other issues that favor our side and at the same time do not make the GOP base go crazy with fear and loathing, seem like better places to focus effort.

As for the amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage, no, they're not going to do it. They'll never have enough senators, much less enough states to ratify it.

[Strathos]

2. I hope you're right

But if you're wrong, it's an attack on gays and to some of these stupid, brainless lemmings it's the perfect reason to start bashing and killing us.

[SteppingRazor]

5. That's perhaps the worst part of this whole thing...

not that gays are being denied marriage, but that the very act of denying them marriage dehumanizes them to the neanderthal thugs who would harm them. That's got to be the most tragic part of this entire mess. The only thing I can say about that is: http://www.pinkpistols.org/

[Chipper Chat]

4. You speak for me. Was about to type the same thing.

"The gay agenda" is a creation of California fundies.
Can you say: "same-sex terra terra terra!"
Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Nuff said.

[Cronus Protagonist]

28. You're wrong about the gay agenda

http://cronus.com/agenda

Enjoy :)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

3. It's not a priority for most gays,

and it's nothing but an incendiary device the rightwingnuts like to drag out when all else fails.

There are far more pressing issues that our country needs to address, and people realize that. Don't get disheartened, but don't get sucked into thinking that it's any more discriminatory than other minorities have had to endure in our country's short history. Consider that interracial marriage was illegal until 1960, which isn't very long ago.

Timing is all, and now is not the time.

[theHandpuppet]

6. So in the meanwhile, please step to the back of the bus

Thank you for speaking for MOST gays (as you so put it) but you most certainly do NOT speak for me.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

7. Gee.

Thanks for tolerating an observation in response to your post.

And you demand tolerance from others?

Examine your process. And good luck.

[theHandpuppet]

8. A response to what post?

I only posted one, so please tell what you are talking about. Regarding your own comments, I found your post insulting even though you probably haven't a clue why. Yes, how dare I feel insulted or as gay person "demand" tolerance! Oh please forgive me for stepping out of my place.

[dsc]

14. With all due respect

I think you underestimate the problems gays and lesbians face in this regard. While it is true that interracial marriage was banned in some states until 1968, there were other states where it was legal and the feds respected those marriages. Thus an interracial couple in California was in a vastly better position in 1950 than a same sex couple is in in Massachusetts right now. The first couple could share SS benefits, enjoyed tax free inheritence, could insure each other at their jobs, and had a host of rights that the same sex couple doesn't have.

As gays and lesbians get older this will become a much more important issue. Most rights of marriage either impact children or are mostly applicable to older couples. Many gay and lesbian couples are finding themselves realizing that with age comes a greater need for rights such as hospital visitation, retirement benefits, and other such things.

[Misunderestimator]

15. It's not? Well, that's interesting, since it's a priority for all I know.

So because other minorities have had to endure lack of rights, lack of protection, second-class citizenship up until 1960, it's not so bad that in 2006 we don't have the same rights as everyone else? Hmm. Now that's interesting.

[RandomKoolzip]

18. You know, I respected you for your input in the Leopold threads.

That was great stuff.

But this post changes things. :grr:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. And now,

my world is shattered.

So a different opinion from yours is unacceptable?

Nice.

But you demand tolerance and acceptance from others?

I guess I'll have to struggle on somehow without your respect, which was so cheaply earned and so cheaply lost.

But, I'll make it. I know I will.

::::: sigh :::::

[RandomKoolzip]

46. Okay, cool! Good luck with the Ritalin.

Looks like you're making baby steps towards normalcy. :thumbsup:

[LeftHander]

21. Social justice does not require proper timing.

Why would one time be any better than another to bring marriage equality to all?

The fact is this issue of same sex marriage has been around for a long time. For EVER same sex couples have been discriminated against not only in marriage but all kinds of other areas that heterosexual couples take for granted. This issue is not new. It has been known by same sex couples in America since it's inception. Now that our society recognizes that gay people can and do form loving lifetime bonds it is time to afford these couples and the hope for millions of single gay people the same rights as heterosexual people have. And it is a priority not just for gay people but for all people in this nations who are really concerend about freedom, equality and liberty.

Some of the issues same sex couple face have already been addressed...such as corporate benefits for domestic partners and marriage equity in Mass. It was inevitable that the legal issues surrounding same sex marriage were going to be addressed sooner not later.

With the conservatives stacking the courts it simply is the right time to take on this issue. Now is always the best time to address social injustice.

The conservatives simply reacted in the only way they know how and that was to oppose using the political momentum that they have now. So as they push for a outright ban on both the federal and state levels the GLBT communities and civil rights organizations are rallying to oppose ad win the battle for equality.

Yes the right can and will use this issue as a wedge issue for the opposition and a rallying point for the base. But the principle behind the issue is far more important than the short term goals of the conservative leadership.

The fact is people are unfairly being treated in the the "land of the free and home of the brave" and nothing else in the history of this nation promotes freedom and equality like a battle for equality. Be it emancipation, womans suffrage, civil rights or gay marriage what is at stake here is the very foundation of what this nation was built upon, equality, freedom and liberty.

Those are not liberal or conservative buzz words those are true American values that we all share. When it is recognized that we all cannot share in those values we enter into a period of political social adjustment. The process can be long and slow and the battle bitter and emotional but history has shown that liberty, freedom and equality ultimately prevail. And those values are on the side of allowing same sex couples to wed and be free to share the benefits that heterosexual couple now enjoy.

The the battle is on. And I am one small voice in that battle among tens of thousands. I heard at a FAIR Wisconsin rally at PrideFest in Milwaukee this weekend the roar of thousands who are ready to take this battle to conclusion for as long as it takes. It has started and it is not going to stop until we have FREEDOM and EQUALITY to marry for all in this nation.

Through history Americans have stood on the side of the oppressed and have fought bitter battles for equality and justice. The right wing has awoke America and as the groundswell of support for marriage equity grows it is going to sweep this nation clean of the hate and injustice that are manifested by the likes of homophobic conservative Chrisitians and the politicians that pander to them. Do not underestimate the power that equality and freedom has on this nation, those that threaten it should be prepared because the this nation is going to rise up and smash those who oppose freedom and equality for all.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beware the Beast Man]

30. It isn't????

:eyes:

This is a civil rights issue, and while it's ridiculous that the RWers are focusing on this single issue as if it is the worst threat to our national security, it is still an important issue. Yes, the Right is treating this like a red herring and they know it. Yes, this is a wedge issue conveniently addressed at election time, but it is still important to many a person in this country. I'll be damned if I am going to let friends and loved ones who are gay be treated like second-class citizens; better yet- not be treated like citizens at all.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

36. Second class?

I don't know that marriage is a ticket to first-class treatment. I really don't.

What makes married people better than unmarried people, regardless of sexual orientation?

Right now, the priorities are different in this country, and if gay marriage can detract from other, more pressing issues, yeah, the Democrats are going to eat it yet again in November, because the diversion will have worked.

And gay marriage can kiss its own ass goodby for another decade or two.

[Misunderestimator]

37. "gay marriage can kiss its own ass goodby for another decade or two."

Wow... if anything makes me want to drop all the other issues that YOU care about, saying that would work pretty well. But I'm a liberal, and I care about all progressive issues, not just those that serve me.

You have to be told how not having the right to marriage is being second-class? Really? And you're a lawyer? And you don't know about all the laws and rights that apply to spouses? Survivorship, pension, medical, social security? Amazing.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

38. There is no "right to marry"

Didn't you know that?

[Misunderestimator]

39. Um, yes there is... for straight people. Not for me.

[TahitiNut]

40. It's (quite literally) an entitlement.

The terms 'rights' and 'entitlements' are very abused in our public discourse. :shrug:

While we have a 'right' to associate (intimately or not), the legal recognition of that association, along with the legal perquisites, is an entitlement.

[Misunderestimator]

41. To me, entitlements such as the ones I'm denied, are the same as rights.

To have my social security contributions go back into the government coffers instead of being used to support my surviving spouse... that's an entitlement that I have no right to, among so very many others.

[TahitiNut]

48. Social security itself is an entitlement.

Again, the perquisites and privileges that are the creation of law are entitlements, not rights.

Title to property exists purely by law, record-keeping, and police power. The authority to act/speak for another (e..g. power of attorney) is solely a creation of law.

It's not a question of 'rights' as much as it's a question of justice in my opinion. I'd personally be just as willing to abolish marital entitlements as I would to extend them to same-sex relationships ... or even non-sexual relationships. After all, I quite frankly don't think sex between consenting adults is anyone's business but the people themselves - and that includes its absence.

FWIW, 'discrimination' is not inherently illegal or even 'wrong' - since we discriminate all the time, especially in the law. We discriminate based on age. We discriminate based on place of birth. The question of right-wrong is one of justice. To me, that does not weaken the argument in favor of 'gay marriage'; it strengthens it. The current law is just plain unjust. That, imho, is the ultimate condemnation of any law.

[Misunderestimator]

56. Semantics then. Equality of entitlements then.

I agree that we should either abolish these entitlements or extend them to all, just as we "extended" the entitlements that come with marriage to interracial unions. I very much want the "entitlement" of choosing the person I want to make decisions for me if I'm unable, instead of it falling to my relatives. And I very much want the "entitlement" to visit my spouse as a relative, as her spouse, if she is in the hospital.

I don't see the purpose in arguing over the semantics of rights versus entitlements.

Yes, we discriminate based on age, but there are provisions in the law that account for that, that seek to protect people from that discrimination. There are no such federal provisions for gay citizens. Some discrimination is in fact, illegal.

[Beware the Beast Man]

57. It's using your words against you. That's what lawyers do.

:shrug:

[Misunderestimator]

58. True. I should know better.

ugh

[TahitiNut]

59. 'Justice' should never be regarded as mere semantics.

I completely agree that gays should receive the same entitlements, if any. The problem with calling it "mere semantics" is that the arguments are eroded. OldLeftyLawyer can say such things as "there's no right to marriage" and be technically correct - but the opening for that (otherwise irrelevant) statement is made by harping on 'rights' instead of 'justice.'

Again, there's nothing more seminal to discussions of law than the question of justice. Indeed, there's nothing more seminal to the ethical legitimacy of government itself than questions of justice. When governments become unjust, it is not only our right to abolish them, it is our moral duty. If the Declaration of Independence teaches nothing else, it should teach that.

[Misunderestimator]

62. If any? The same entitlements, if any? Are you insinuating that there

may NOT be entitlements we are denied? I don't give a flying fuck about justice versus rights versus entitlements. I want equality. And I want to marry my partner and protect her just as you are ALLOWED to protect yours if you so choose.

We each approach this our own way. Please don't dictate to me what language I should use. I am assuming that you must be on our side, aside from the insinuation that there might be no issue at all ("I completely agree that gays should receive the same entitlements, if any" wtf?) which to me seem disingenuous, when you seem intelligent enough to grasp that there IS indeed inequality and entitlements that are not afforded to gay people, but you arguing with me about how to verbalize my frustration accomplishes nothing.

[TahitiNut]

66. (sigh) Read my prior post.

I said that I'd be just as willing to abolish marital entitlements altogether as extend them. Either approach, imho, would be just. After all, who the fuck says that an invention of organized religion (for the purposes of power-sharing) deserves civil recognition? Why should anyone have some 'automatic' civil entitlement by virtue of a temporary affiliation?

It seems to me that the civil hurdles of 'marriage' and the flip-side called 'divorce' are encumbrances and infringements on our rights to associate freely. Alternatives could be easily created under law that are just and have nothing to do with any civil 'recognition' (entitlement) for marriage.

If folks want the "sacramental" relationship - let them form their own churches ... and then ignore them in the law.

[Misunderestimator]

67. I have read all your posts... and I don't understand why you are arguing

with me when you support equality. Nor do I understand you insinuating that there may not actually be any entitlements we are denied. It makes no sense to me.

I don't CARE about religious marriage, I care about EQUALITY. How on earth did we get there in this conversation? Sure alternatives to marriage could be created, but surely you don't think that those who oppose gay marriage are willing to give up their own marriages, do you? That would be an impossible battle. Instead, just give me what they have. That would be fine with me, and doesn't take a damn thing away from them.

Of course no one should automatically have entitlements by virtue of a marriage, but THEY DO. Therefore, it is unequal and unjust.

[ruggerson]

86. Actually, TN, she's completely wrong

The Supreme Court has decided that marriage is a basic civil right. Their exact words. See my post below.

Loving V Virginia 1967.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival" - Chief Justice Warren

[asthmaticeog]

43. No right to "drink at a given water fountain," either.

Dumb twisted bigoted cunt.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

53. Once upon a time, that was so in some places

You have a right to apply for a marriage license. But, there is no 'right to marry.'

Remember when blood tests were necessary to get a marriage license? I bet you don't.

[ruggerson]

83. Actually, you are both factually and legally incorrect

The Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia (heard of it?) when it threw out all miscegenation laws, declared that marriage was INDEED a basic right.

From Mr. Chief Justice Warren's majority opinion in Section II of the decision:


"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."


Got that? I don't know how much more explicit the old guy could have been or how much wronger you could be now.

But, of course you'll come up with some inane reason as to why you're not wrong, instead of just owning up to your error.

[theHandpuppet]

50. What's amazing is that we have to keep reminding some people...

... that the issue of gay marriage is a LEGAL one, not a religious one or a matter of having a church wedding. Hell, I wouldn't even WANT a church wedding! What I do expect are the same rights and protections afforded heterosexual couples. I'll bet there are plenty of folks even here who don't know the legal differences between a civil union and marriage either, despite the fact they've been posted scores of times.

Pretty sad when whether or not one should have basic rights and protections under the law should be a matter of political expediency or be put up for a vote.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[OldLeftieLawyer]

52. Dismissed?

So voicing my opinion somehow makes me guilty of "dismissing civil rights for .......... "?

You know, watching the various interpretations being put on a simple statement I made, I am amused at the depths to which people go to cast personal aspersions because they're not able to tolerate even a differing opinion regarding political climates and timing.

Nowhere did I state if I supported gay marriage or not, because that wasn't relevant to the OP. And you have decided that I don't.

This is funny.

Gotta make it personal, huh?

This is why gay marriage supporters need to get busy changing laws and hiring professionals to do it for them. Because if it's left in the hands of people who can't understand simple English, it'll never get done.

By the way, how come no one's going after the law Bill Clinton signed that effectively allows states not to honor other states' gay marriage laws? The Defense Of Marriage Act, a law I have always considered wildly unconstitutional.

How come no one's going after that?

Go change the laws and quite bellyaching.

[TahitiNut]

63. There's not much question that DOMA was an abomination, imho.

Blatantly unconstitutional and blatantly unjust, imho. If the right-wing hadn't attacked Clinton so venomously and inquisitionally, more decent liberals would have. He was no liberal (except when politically convenient), imho.

[arwalden]

68. Oh Brother...

<< Go change the laws and quite bellyaching.>>

But do it NEXT YEAR... It's too "inconvenient" this year.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

71. Why not do it now?

You have a full dance card? Start somewhere, and get something going.

Why would you put it off, if it means so much to you?

Go change the laws and quit bellyaching - that's always good advice.

[arwalden]

77. What Happened To: "Timing is all, and now is not the time" ??

I never did get a response from you regarding my earlier question. If now is not the time... then, in your best estimation... WHEN would be an appropriate time?

When do you think it might be that the concerns about equality for gay Americans will be able to compete with the "far more pressing issues that our country needs to address"?

How much longer should everyone wait?

[arwalden]

80. *** Crickets Chirping ***

:eyes:

[Sapphocrat]

51. And the right time would be when, exactly?

Let's see, I've been fighting for a place at the table for the last 30 years of my life (which doesn't take in my first 15 tender years in the closet)...

In three months, I'm going to be 45 years old. I figure, if I'm very, very lucky, we'll have same-sex marriage, or at least civil unions, in, what? Another generation? Is that a reasonable time frame?

That puts me at 65 -- provided, of course, I don't get hit by a bus, or develop some disease (and with no health insurance, I'm not likely to recover from anything more serious than a bad headcold).

Hmmm... Let me weigh all the pros and cons here... If I just learn to trust and depend upon my fellow Americans to decide what's right for me, I can wait 20 more years for something that might or might not happen, and keep flying back and forth to Australia to see my intended for six weeks out of each year, until one of us dies, or we're both simply too old to give a shit about marriage...

So, 30 years' work so far (all down the drain), plus another 20 or so to go... So I'm only going to have to wait a total of 50 years out of the 65 I'll have been alive (provided that runaway bus doesn't come along)...

Nope, doesn't work for me, this "timing" thing.

And before anybody calls me selfish and tells me I should be thinking of future generations, I'll just say this: Future generations aren't going to benefit any more than I have if my generation aquiesces to directives to just lie back and take it.

As others have said: It's all very easy for you to say, OLL. You have your rights.

I wonder what you would say today if you had applied to college pre-affirmative action, and you were rejected on account of race or ethnicity. I wonder what you would say now if well-meaning whites tried to "console" you with such empty cliches as "It's not your time yet -- just wait your turn."

You know, I'm pro-affirmative action. And I'm white.

I'm pro-choice. And I'm a lesbian who is solidly, morally opposed to abortion.

I'm (generally) pro-immigrant. And I am an American by birth.

I'm pro- a lot of things which have no effect whatsoever on my life, and never will.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother standing up for others who refuse to stand up for me.

OLL, you can't possibly begin to understand the world of pain to which you contribute by dismissing our lives -- and our ticking biological clocks -- as just another wedge issue.

And that is what you just did.

[gollygee]

69. Are you a spokesperson for most gays?

GLBT people I know feel pretty strongly about this.

I hate "now is not the time" arguments. Should gay people just sit down and watch the constitution be worked to forever keep them in second-class citizen status?

[arwalden]

82. When Exactly Would A "Good" Time Be?

<< Timing is all, and now is not the time. >>

Please... can you elaborate and be a bit more specific as to how long an appropriate amount of time would be before we pursue such trivial matters like equality?

<< There are far more pressing issues that our country needs to address >>

So will you be the one to tell us when the "far more pressing" issues have been addressed and when it's okay to pursue equality again?

[ruggerson]

84. Please show us some polling data to support this assertion

Since you are supposedly an attorney, sure you can come up with some credible evidence to back up your reassertion (I say reassertion, because you show up in many marriage threads with this bogus claim) that marriage is not important to gay people.

Statistics, please.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. Personally, I don't think

the government has any 'right' to regulate the 'institution' of Marriage.

When the cry is about the "sanctity" of Marriage, do people really know what they are 'crying for'? Sanctity means 'holy-' it is about religous purity, and devotion. Where the hell does the American Government get off regulating anything based of the acts of a religious doctrine?

From The American Heritage dictionary

ho·li·ness (hō'lē-nĭs) pronunciation
n.

1. The state or quality of being holy; sanctity.
2. Holiness Roman Catholic Church. Used with His or Your as a title and form of address for a pope.

Marriage in the US has been defined as a legally recognized contract between two consenting adults-
When inter-racial marriage was prohibited by law, it was overturned. Because it violated a citizens inherent rights-

The 14th ammendment addresses this quite clearly- To say that it doesn't 'apply' to 'Gay' unions, because 'tradition' has always held that marriage was between a man and a woman- would also then apply to support the notion of banning inter-racial marriages, because 'traditionally' marriage has been between people of the same race. And if 'tradition' is what we are 'bound' to, then women would not be allowed to own property, vote, slavery would be 'legal' and beating spouses and children would be the 'accepted norm'.

The only reason I can see for people having a problem with 'Gay Marriage'- is that it is 'politically unpopular'- and unfortunately, the people who are vehemently against 'gay marriage' to a large degree, are people obsessed with controling others- The notion of 'independent' thought or actions, is a 'threat' to their strictly defined 'everything must be 'just-so' way of living.

I'm not threatened by people who march to different drummers- even though I'm not gay- I delight in the variety of differences and unique abilities that make up the human family-

This nation is so constipated- and convoluted. and conned.

[Nederland]

10. Let me get this straight

You are complaining about the fact that you want people to care about something and they don't?

Welcome to life.

[Bluerthanblue]

11. "Welcome to life"???----

I'm hoping your post was intended as sarcasm, (which I despise).

Wanting people to care about something, and being frustrated when they don't is the only reason we have to entertain hope- Acceptance of something we feel powerless to remedy is death.

There is a quote by some wise soul which says that the worst evils, are not perpetrated by those who do them, but by those who stand by, and quietly witness them happening.

Outrage, and a call to conscience, are essential. Apathy kills.

[Nederland]

12. No sarcasm

I was serious. Welcome to life. It's a (mostly) free country. That means that people are free to spend their time and energy on what they want to, not what you want them to. If in this case people aren't acting in a way that you approve of, well, bitching about it on a political forum probably isn't going to do much, except make you feel better.

[Bluerthanblue]

13. so we just belly up? we don't

attempt to stir others into action? Educate others, or more importantly ourselves, as to WHY things are happening, and what if anything we can do about it?

This isn't a 'free' country- And, I don't know a heck of a lot of people who are lucky enough to be spending their 'time and energy' on what they 'WANT' to- do you? In all honesty???
It isn't a question of people NOT "'acting' in a way that you approve of"- it is a question of people acting in ways that are destructive, and harmful to the person standing next to you, and you saying "hey, that's not my problem".
Living in community, living as a member of a society, requires us to strive to ensure that no ones right to live as an equal member of society be taken from them, especially while people stand by and watch without giving a damn-

"First they came for the..... and I wasn't ...... and then they came for me...."

What is society? What is community? Is there nothing you are passionate about?

Thank GOD people cared enough to march and stand and put themselves on the line with MLKjr. and Ralph Abernathy, and others whose conciences were pricked to do something for a larger cause than 'self'. May that willingness never be lost- It's hard to find these days- but the hope that it still survives, gives me reason not to simply check out now.

[Nederland]

16. Oh no

Don't give up. Fight for what you believe in and work hard to get people to share your opinions on what's important. However, posting on a political forum where most people already agree with you doesn't really count as "working hard" IMHO.

[Bluerthanblue]

22. maybe posting

here, is part of the OP's 'working hard'??-
Sometimes we get tired of banging our heads against the wall, or get so discouraged that it seems like the battle IS hopeless- When the only response you get while championing your cause is negativity or apathy, it can be hard to keep going. At times like this, I think it is not only good, but essential to seek encouragement, and renewed resolve, or perhaps a more focused perspective by posting on a place like DU- Maybe, just a single voice saying 'hang in' can tip the balance.-

I've felt this way myself quite often- and for the most part, DU has been a source of renewal, and 'centering'- Listening to the main stream media, looking at the incredible cloud of denial and apathy that hovers over this nation, can really screw with your mind- And deplete your energy, and pocketful of hope.

If I can offer my encouragement to someone tiring of the 'good-fight'- then my day, hasn't been a total loss- yet another excercise in futility.

I'm glad you clarified your stand. Sometimes I don't 'get it' very quickly. I don't agree that posting here is futile, or preaching to the choir, but I understand what you are saying now.
Thanks for helping me understand.

peace,
blu

[Misunderestimator]

25. Ironically, not everyone on this forum DOES agree... including...

people in this very thread.

[theHandpuppet]

26. Thanks for pointing that out.

You beat me to the keyboard. ;-)

[Bluerthanblue]

27. I don't really find that

ironic, I do find it honest- AND (most of the time) enlightening, and refreshing. If people have a legitimate reason for holding a belief contrary to mine, I want to hear it- spoken clearly, and hopefully I will come away from the dis-agreement either more resolved than ever about where I stand, or with some pondering to do- some new perspective(s) to consider.
I don't want to be in a place where dissent is not only not allowed, but is discouraged- I gotta say, if I wanted that, I'd still be in a fundementalist religious community, thinking that the only 'right' way was 'our' way- and that I had 'arrived' at a spiritual, and moral level that others had yet to achieve-
When in reality, I was following the leader in a desperate search for direction in the midst of a great chaos, and going deeper into destructive mindsets and lifestyles.- Now I know that I don't know 'it all' and likely never will- and that the only thing I can be sure of is that-
Better to die attempting to become the 'me' that I am, than kill others because they refuse to 'fit' into the mold I can't tolerate myself.

woah... tangents...

I like the fact that dems don't walk in lock step- I just want us not to forget to walk- not walk OVER others, but learn to navigate moving peacefully in a relatively forward direction.


peace,
blu

[Misunderestimator]

29. I do find it ironic that someone would claim that the OP is ...

preaching to the choir, more or less, with the statement "posting on a political forum where most people already agree with you" when in this very thread, there is someone above who does NOT agree with the OP, who thinks that gay marriage is NOT an important issue to fight for and that we should accept the existing discrimination.

Perhaps you didn't realize that I was responding to Nederland's post:

"Oh no

Don't give up. Fight for what you believe in and work hard to get people to share your opinions on what's important. However, posting on a political forum where most people already agree with you doesn't really count as "working hard" IMHO."

I agree that dems shouldn't walk in lockstep, but I do think it should be a fundamental aspect of progressiveness to consider equal rights an important issue worthy of fighting for.

[Bluerthanblue]

31. what I was hearing

in the reply you refrenced, was that Nederland's beef was one that equated posting to this board, wasn't part and parcel of 'working hard'- hence my reply to him.- Working hard requires knowing when you need to stop, take a breath, have some water, bandage your blisters, and if you are feeling like "it just ain't worth it" then turning to the fella next to you and voicing that- If the person you've voiced that to comes back with- "hey, don't come whining to me"- which is what I hear Nederland to be saying- then I'd realize there wasn't any shade under his tree- or water in his well that would refresh me- but that wouldn't stop me from saying I needed encouragement- and looking to find others who could help me remember 'why' I was working, and that yes indeed it was a cause worth fighting for-

Personally, I completely agree with you- equal rights for all should be something we can all get behind- What I heard in Nederland, was don't whine to me- perhaps encouraging isn't something he does well- I'm not sure he was saying he thought un-equal rights were acceptable. But I could be wrong??

(and often am):crazy:

[Misunderestimator]

35. No, HE wasn't saying that, but he was saying that everyone here...

already accepts that non-equal rights are not acceptable. I was saying that some people here apparently DO think that non-equal rights are acceptable at this stage of the game. We shouldn't assume that posting this here is a waste of time, since it's clear that some here still are not entirely behind gay rights.

[Bluerthanblue]

47. I agree with you

that posting here is NOT a 'waste of time'.
I also agree with you that there is really no argument to be made for withholding the right to marry from any person based on their sexual orentation.- At least none that I could stand behind or ever imagine supporting.
I'm afraid that getting 100% of folks here to agree with us on this, isn't likely to happen- but that shouldn't stop ANYONE from continuing to seek that-
I don't think we are in disagreement on any substantial issue in this discussion.

I've gotten a bit lost in the details and the he says,I say, you say- I think the OP was entirely justified in posting their frustration. I hope they have recieved some encouragement from those of us who don't find EQUAL RIGHTS to be something that is 'not important' or already decided. That might be the most coherent statement I can muster right now-

peace,
blu

and sorry if I've confused this issue any further-

[sutz12]

17. I LTTE'd my local paper about the senate move

I wondered how this issue prevented terrorist attacks. That's what we have to do, point out the absurdity of debating issues like this when we have so many more important things to be done.

[dysfunctional press]

19. why doesn't a Dem senator tack on a provision BANNING divorce...?

i mean- if the idea is to PROTECT mariage- isn't divorce a MUCH bigger threat to traditional marriage than gay marriage?

[Strathos]

44. Exactly

Is there any way one could do that?

[Norquist Nemesis]

20. They're going to speak Gay "Marriage" as long as the $$$ and

votes keep coming. Even though the majority of people have it as a low priority on their list and support is gaining, as long as it can divide the voters and energize their base they'll use it.

My take on it...I've been listening to the way they parse and nuance the so-called "Gay Marriage" debate. One of these days, you're going to hear Rush Limbaugh say, "I never said anything about Civil Unions."

That's how the Cons are going to morph it. "Civil Unions are perfectly acceptable and a right for gay American couples in order to have the same legal protections as married couples." But you really have LISTEN to hear it. "Marriage is defined as...

It won't be any different that Bush etal and the 9/11 / Saddam connection. Remember? "I never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11." You'll be hearing the Cons say, "I never said civil unions are the same thing as marriage."

Oddly enough, many Democrats have already stated this as their position...they they support "civil unions" but don't support "gay marriage".

Again...that's just the way I'm interpreting my crystal ball.

[Strathos]

34. I think it's only LOW ON THE LIST of

people that don't see the repercusions.

It's VERY HIGH ON THE LIST of so called Christians and while we sit back and say "don't worry, it'll never pass", they're doing everything they can to make sure it passes.

[northzax]

72. see, they have a problem

if they actually want to do anything, they need to do it now, because every year more and more young people can vote, and the younger you are, the more likely you are, statistically speaking, to not think human sexual orientation is a big deal.

I realize that is an awkward sentence, so I should explain. I would think that I, myself, don't think it's a big deal (by which I mean that I care about my friends, and my family, but don't really give a damn about who the rest of the world is falling in love with/sleeping with/spooning/buying luxurious condos in SoHo with/etc) I simply don't care. I support marriage because I can't come up with, nor have I ever heard, a good reason not to. I also have personal reasons. And every year that passes, there are more people like that, who can't come up with a good reason to oppose marriage, and are turned off by the hate coming from the opponents. in five years, their window will have passed, and the tide towards accepting gays and lesbians as fellow human beings will be inoxerable. so they have to demonize NOW.

[Strathos]

33. THE DEMOCRATS PROBLEM

I've read all the response here to my post and what I find with some who "don't support gay marriage but do support gay unions" is that's exactly what is wrong with the democratic party.

The republicans stick together no matter what.

Democrats want to express everything they feel, but never come together to fight for what is right.

Someone said we "expect them to fall in line" with our cause and yes, I do expect it. I fall in line with many causes that I don't completely agree with but I thought the deal was that democrats believed in the same issues. What I find are democrats who only support demcratic issues if they benefit them. Much like republicans.

Maybe it's true, there is no difference in either party and they both need to be dismantled.

I support what I feel is right and I support democratic liberal issues, whether they benefit me or not.

Sounds like the majority of you can't do that at all.

You're just as bad as republicans.

However, you're not as united.


Anyone that dismisses this gay marriage issue as justa ploy or a republican tactic is not aware of the consequences and doesn't seem to really give a shit.

Dismiss gay marriage and you dismiss what being a democrat is about.

[Hamlette]

45. I remember a time, not long ago, when the gay community was split

over this very issue. The factions are now referred to as "liberal" and "radical" although I don't remember those terms at the time. My gay friends were in the radical camp and said "we do not want to buy into marriage as it is a flawed concept and institution. We should find another way, define it and fight for it."

The so called radicals actually fought the so called liberals and prevented the issue from gaining traction in this country.

Gay marriage will be legal. I hope in my lifetime. For reasons I do not understand (religion?) America is currently slower to adopt progressive attitudes than other countries (odd since our revolution "let the world" in establishing liberal democracies. What happened after that?).

There is an excellent new book on Gay Marriage. It traces the history of the fight for gay marriage here and in other countries. The first "request" for gay marriage in Denmark was in 1950 (if memory serves) and it was passed there in 1989. Of course, in Denmark and the other Scandanavian countries the local religious leaders were pushing for allowing it. Wouldn't that be nice and civilized?

The debate is now shifting to analyzing the data from countries where it is and has been legal. The right says in those countries it has destroyed marriage. Read the book. Educate yourself. Be ready to answer those charges. The charges are false but we've got to be careful to insure they don't get away with those lies. That, IMO, is critical because the fight against gay marriage has kept shifting the reasons over time. We've got to be ready to respond quickly to the new "arguments" against it.

[Strathos]

49. Thanks n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

55. Overturn the Defense of Marriage Act

That would be a huge first step in getting gay marriage up front and on a live burner. Make it a states' rights issue, which would really shake things up.

Clinton screwed the gay community when he signed that law. I still can't believe he got away with it.

[dsc]

61. it passed with veto proof majorities

Clinton could have vetoed but it would have done not one whit of good. Clinton deserves a small share of blame for that law but not much.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

64. I didn't know that

So his veto would have been overturned?

So, why not mount a court challenge to it? Why let it sit there, unmolested? Go after it - takes years to do, but it's at least a starting point.

[dsc]

78. No one had standing until 2004 when MA legalized marriage

until a state had done that there was no suit to be filed. In the meantime I have no idea if someone has sued.

[Bluerthanblue]

60. PLEASE don't take

offense at this- and it's unfair of me to post it when I have to log off for awhile, but I read something into your statement that doesn't 'sit' ok with me- Are you a Democrat 'first'- and a "human being'/"individual" second? I am a Democrat, NOT because I have any inborn alliegience with the 'party'- but because it is the political platform which most closely matches my beliefs and concepts of how to live.
I couldn't support a 'cause' that was championed as a "Democratic" cause, SIMPLY because those in this party felt strongly about it, unless I could share that perspective. Nor would I call anyone a traitor, or my enemy because they didn't see an issue the same way I do-
Take capital punishment for one- I personally don't believe there is EVER justification for premeditatedly and calculatedly murdering a human being, as punishment for them having murdered someone.- Many within the Dem party don't share this view- I will continue to voice my belief, and listen to reasons why I should rethink my position, but I won't abandon my 'conviction' simply because it might be the 'party' line-

I'm a human being FIRST- and what ever political affiliation I fit into comes behind that- My alliegiance isn't to any 'group' per se- We are all citizens of earth- and the more we remember that- and live as if 'we'- were 'them'- the less we would tolerate any suffering, abuse, discrimination or misuse of power ANYWHERE on this planet, and to ANYONE regardless of their age, sex, nationality, status, or any zillion of ways we use to seperate and elevate ourselves above one another.

Your cause is just- rather than this nation banning 'gay marriage' I think we should get out of the 'marriage' issue altogether- All unions should be recognized legally- and marriage should be a personal decision, and a personal contract between consenting adults- period.

The whole concept of 'legal' marriage, and divorce, is really none of the governments business- it is just another way to make money- or deny people rights, (and the pursuit of happiness IS a right)- not some kind of 'entitlement'-.

peace-
and I support your desire to have EQUAL rights-
And stand with you in this fight. If marriage is a 'governmentally recognized institution' then Gay marriage should be equally recognized.-
I doubt getting the govt out of 'marriage' entirely would ever fly-

blu


(as for party affiliations, I think that only having 2 'viable' options is why this country is so screwed up- Notice how the Government doesn't have 2 branches, but 3? that way there isn't the 'us' versus 'them' issue- at least there shouldn't be, unless the country clearly stood strongly united in a common belief- and NOT due to voter fraud, manipulation, lobbying by the 'wealthier' or more devious 'side'- or because people who aren't willing to think for themselves, and instead simply vote the 'party line' regardless of what is actually written between those lines-
When our first president was elected, the loser was supposed to be the VP- isn't that something unfathomable?)

[sandnsea]

65. Protection Not Perfection

We almost had civil unions and gay rights in Oregon and Democrats and gay rights groups were fighting their butts off for it. I don't know why that fight is trashed as not good enough for you. Oregon had a gay marriage amendment that the people voted for, every county in the state except one. Your all or nothing thinking is the same reason we don't have health care for all. Gay marriage or nothing. Single payer or nothing. Well guess what, it'll be nothing for a long damned time until people on the left quit insisting on having their way or no way. You don't live on the planet alone and that's just the way it is. Protection Not Perfection. That's the way to go.

[Misunderestimator]

70. Wow. This thread is disheartening, to say the least.

Civil unions don't do it... and those advances made in many places are being eroded... amendments at the state level are ensuring that no more advances can be made.

Go away little gay people... your rights aren't important. Be happy with civil unions, even though it will mean that you cannot move to another state and maintain that union, and that you will get no federal protections. And that you will have to pay taxes on the imputed income of the domestic partner benefits you receive. It's ok, because some time, many generations after you die, maybe, just maybe gay people will finally have equality. Think of the big picture, don't be selfish, now go away. Easy to say when none of it affects you.

[sandnsea]

85. Tell it to Basic Rights Oregon

I was reporting THEIR position, not mine.

[Misunderestimator]

88. Oh really? Basic Rights Oregon said this?

"Your all or nothing thinking is the same reason we don't have health care for all. Gay marriage or nothing. Single payer or nothing. Well guess what, it'll be nothing for a long damned time until people on the left quit insisting on having their way or no way. You don't live on the planet alone and that's just the way it is. Protection Not Perfection. That's the way to go."

Seems to me that that is YOUR position. If it's theirs then they should be fucking closed down. Not a very progressive or supportive position to take. I just looked at their site, and I don't think they would agree that your words are reporting their position. Care to show me where they say anything close to what you did?

[sandnsea]

89. YES "Protection Not Perfection"

That is EXACTLY what they campaigned with when they were fighting for the civil union/gay rights protection bill. I added the correlation to single payer, but it's the same principle. The perfect over progress, we've simply got to stop that.

http://basicrights.blogspot.com/2005/04/picking-protection-not-perfection.html

[ComerPerro]

54. Anit-gay feelings motivate more than pro-gay

Its easier to use hatred and scapegoating to rally more people.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Misunderestimator]

75. Yes, indeed, wanting equality is probably an aberration.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Sapphocrat]

81. ...

:yourock:

[HornBuckler]

74. I'm with you.

I don't understand how a lot of the opposition to your post tend to put it "down on the list" "Not a big priority" etc.

What list? What priorities are we talking about? The so called Dem agenda? Shit - If we want to weigh the war and education and health care and gay marriage and give this one a little more emphasis and that one a little less - it's stupidity.

Either fight for the rights of gays or leave the party. Any time you see an opportunity to voice your opinion about the issue - use it. That goes for all of us at DU!

:)

[ChickMagic]

79. The reasons sound exactly like the interracial ban

Mods, I cut a LOT out of this, but I think it's important information.
These are two separate articles.

JUST three decades ago, Thurgood Marshall was only months away from appointment to the Supreme Court when he suffered an indignity that today seems not just outrageous but almost incomprehensible. He and his wife had found their dream house in a Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., but could not lawfully live together in that state: he was black and she was East Asian. Fortunately for the Marshalls, in January 1967 the Supreme Court struck down the anti-interracial-marriage laws in Virginia and 18 other states. And in 1967 these laws were not mere leftover scraps from an extinct era. Two years before, at the crest of the civil-rights revolution, a Gallup poll found that 72 per cent of Southern whites and 42 per cent of Northern whites still wanted to ban interracial marriage.

http://www.isteve.com/IsLoveColorblind.htm

65
TOLERATION, APPROVAL, AND THE RIGHT
TO MARRY: ON CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS AND PREFERENTIAL
TREATMENT
Mark Strasser*
I. INTRODUCTION
Some commentators who disapprove of same-sex marriages or
civil unions1 claim that the state should not legally recognize such
relationships because the state’s doing so would endorse rather than
merely tolerate them. These theorists explain the difference between
endorsement and toleration by pointing to the endorsement test in Establishment
Clause jurisprudence, or by discussing the difference between
constitutionally protected activity on the one hand and activity
subject to statutory regulation on the other. Yet, the existing Establishment
Clause jurisprudence in particular and the Court’s constitutional
jurisprudence more generally suggest that the state is precluded
from expressing approval of some citizens to make other
citizens feel like outsiders. Further, the difference between legislative
permission and constitutional protection does not support the
state’s refusal to recognize same-sex unions but, instead, helps illustrate
why such unions must not only be recognized but also afforded
constitutional protection.

<snip>

II. ON TOLERANCE AND ENDORSEMENT
Some commentators suggest that same-sex relationships should
not be legally recognized by the state because doing so would imply
some sort of approval of those unions. Yet, that thesis is incorrect
both because legal recognition does not imply approval and because,
even if it did, that would not be a reason to refuse to recognize such
relationships. Indeed, the thesis that states should or even may refuse
to recognize same-sex unions simply because they disapprove of
them ignores and, in fact, contradicts the developing right-to-marry
jurisprudence.

<snip>

Often, the issue arose in the state courts in the form of a challenge
to a state’s anti-miscegenation statute. For example, Kinney v.
Commonwealth9 involved an interracial couple, domiciled in Virginia,
who had married in the District of Columbia in accord with local
law. The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals had to determine
the validity of the marriage because Kinney had been charged with
and convicted of lewd association and cohabitation,10 a conviction
which could only stand if in fact he was not legally married to Mahala
Miller, the woman with whom he was cohabiting in Virginia
It was quite clear in Zablocki and Loving that the states did not
approve of the marriages at issue and, nonetheless, the individuals’
rights to marry were recognized. The Zablocki Court made clear that
“the right to marry is of fundamental importance,”23 and that a classification
significantly interfering with the exercise of that right would
trigger a “‘critical examination’ of the state interests advanced in
support of the classification.”24 The Court found that the state’s asserted
interests were not sufficiently important to justify its “directly
and substantially with the right to marry.”25
The Zablocki Court explained that the Loving analysis of the
right to marry was not limited to interracial marriage prohibitions.

70 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW “Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior
and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to
marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”26 Indeed,
the fact that Virginia and Wisconsin were constitutionally required to
recognize the marriages at issue, despite disapproval of those unions,
indicates that mere disapproval of a union will not suffice as a justification
for refusing to allow individuals to marry, and that the analysis
offered by these commentators is fundamentally mistaken.
B. On Endorsing Marriages
Suppose that the United States Constitution precluded states
from being forced to “endorse” marriages of which they did not approve.
Even were that so, a separate issue requiring analysis would
involve determining when states had put their seal of approval on
particular unions—merely because a state had recognized a marriage
would not entail that the state had endorsed that marriage. For example,
when the United States Supreme Court made clear that states
had to recognize interracial marriages, those states that had prohibited
such marriages did not suddenly change their views and endorse
them, even though that the states were now required to allow such
unions to be celebrated. Indeed, South Carolina27 and Alabama28
seemed to have kept their anti-miscegenation laws on the books for
26. Id. at 384 (emphasis added).
27. In 1998, the South Carolina electorate voted to remove the state’s ban
on interracial marriage from the state constitution. See Controversial Amendments,
HERALD (Rock Hill, SC), Nov. 5, 1998, at 11A (“South Carolina voters
agreed Tuesday to end the state’s century-old ban on interracial marriage . . .
.”).
28. See Phillip Rawls, Siegelman Urges Passage of Amendment Two,
ASSOCIATED PRESS NEWSWIRES, Oct. 31, 2000, LEXIS, Nexis Library, News
Group File (“Passage of Amendment Two on Nov. 7 would wipe out a section
of Alabama’s constitution that says: ‘The Legislature shall never pass any law
to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a Negro,
or descendant of Negro.’”).

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v35-issue1/strasser.pdf

[rasputin1952]

87. This issue has become very convoluted over the years, and the

reality of it is really quite simple:

"Marriage" is essentially a state recognized union of a religious act.

"Civil Unions" were established so the state could recognize people living together w/the benefits of 'marriage' w/o the religious ties.

Many religions have tenets against homosexuality, so rather than go the religious route, the civil route would be far easier to attain. The word 'marriage' is the sticking point, and what the Religious Right is in an uproar over. They would be hard pressed to go against a legal civil union, as there are none of the religious aspects involved.

Sure, they would still squeal, but giving individuals rights that they are being denied now, is what we all hope for. So we find ourselves fighting over semantics rather than substance. Would a CU that gave express rights to couples be a 'bad thing', of course not. The rights would include adoption, and legal custody of children; ensure that decisions concerning legal and health matters would be attended to; a tax benefit of being able to file as "married under CU or Common Law, just as heterosexual couples enjoy...in fact, except for the term "marriage" vs "Civil Union", there would be no discernible difference under the law.

As a straight male, I have known gay/lesbian couples that would accept this immediately, the benefits could even be made retroactive. IMHO, it is the use of the word "marriage" that incites people on the religious level. On the legal level, where these things really count, is where the pressure to change should be made.

As for the question that has arisen about "timing", any time is fine w/me, but the political realities suggest that it might be a good idea to push for a Dem Congress before tackling this issue w/a neo-con controlled Congress.

[Misunderestimator]

90. If civil unions came with the same rights, protections and privileges...

fine... but they don't. I don't care what you call it. Just give me equality.

But then again, so much pushback from people about the word "marriage" makes me wonder why? Why on earth should I NOT be married religiously if I care to (which I personally don't)? Why is religion reserved only for straight people? My partner is a Christian. Why shouldn't we be allowed to marry religiously as well as civilly? Why should THAT be reserved only for straight people? Why should I have to sacrifice ANYTHING?

Civil Unions as they stand today, do NOT equal marriage, and they afford ZERO federal entitlements to those entering into them. It is not enough. Of course we would accept your definition immediately... it's what this fight is all about. It's the right wing that is pretending that it's about religion. And of course it's not.

[pinto]

91. Locking.

Incindiary.