Can Gay’s and Cultural Conservatives reach a consensus?
Nov 13th, 2008 by David Anderson
The Gay movement and the Christian right seem in perpetual conflict. I wonder if that is necessary.
I am a Conservative Christian. I believe the Bible is the Revealed Word of God and the rule for faith and life. I find that as debatable as the fact that the sun shines on cloudless days. God is real and I know Him in a personally. You may as well tell me my mother doesn’t exist and I will take it as seriously as you telling me God doesn’t. Liberals trying to debate those points and trying to say the Bible really doesn’t mean what it says is a useless exercise.
Gay activists believe that they are only playing the cards dealt them at birth. They are understandably offended that people would say they are freaks and should be shoved in a corner as some embarrassment. (Don’t go off saying that is my opinion–you all know people with that point of view.) After generations of legal harassment (and even the assassination of a leader), they have come into their own. They take a strident approach that those with the other point of view really just want to find another way to deprive them of their rights.
What I was always more interested in is discovering what do gays really need from the rest of us. Not being harassed by the law for whom they choose to love always seemed like a good start. I never saw the right of government to be involved when other people are not hurt. I always believed that people had a right to share bank accounts, home ownership, inheritance, that we should move to household based insurance, and people should be able to choose who represents them in critical decisions such as health care. If I marry someone, I can make that choice almost by default unless I have another choice. If I do not, it is a cumbersome process.
I can understand why Gays would feel second class, but they are far from the only people affected by our regulatory society. If that person is your sibling or best friend, you still have an issue. Many gays think marriage for them is the solution, but beside the fact that marriage is much more, doesn’t changing marriage still leave the larger problem? Is not the larger problem one of an intrusive government?
I wonder if conservatives and liberals, gays and Christians could collaborate to discover a real solution instead of fighting intractable fights. Unfortunately, the Gay activists in California are saying no. They are taking extremist positions even when given full civil unions, the right to remake curriculum, and constitutional protections. Maybe Delaware could discover the third way. One which would satisfy the 90%. We can respect everyone without remaking the culture.
The situation in California is, without a doubt, unfortunate. But I’m with you, I think a consensus can be reached.
Even though most of my opinions would probably considered liberal, I have no problem with churches of any and all denomination saying no to gay marriage. The church is a voluntary, private entity, and as such can project whatever moral authority its leaders choose. But when church leaders come out against civil unions – where the church is absolutely not involved – then, to me, it reveals a certain hypocrisy… essentially, hiding behind the Bible to cloak a true dislike for/prejudice against homosexuals.
I have no quarrel with any religious leader’s policies being guided by a belief that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman, and I do feel that homosexuals should respect the church’s stance in that respect. However, it is the government’s job to recognize that not everyone believes that, and that there should be some sort of alternative. Enter the civil union. Obviously, it’s not ideally what a homosexual couple would want, but until there is a mainstream church that officially recognizes gay marriage, I think that’s a compromise the coveted 90% could (or SHOULD be able to) live with.
The bottom line is that gays aren’t going anywhere. Now, is it better for them to seek to enter long term stable partnerships or not? Birth control and no fault divorce destroyed marriage far worse than Adam and Steve ever could.
How do conservatives come to terms with gays?
1-Mind your own business.
2-Trust the individual.
3-Support limited government interference into our personal lives.
4-Stop worrying about the sex lives of consenting adults.
5-Get a life.
I am not sure that I agree with you on birth control, but no fault divorce has to be rethought. It is a disaster. I sure am not going to trust the people (liberals who rejected the warnings of the Churches) who gave us no fault divorce to remake marriage by their latest fad. Marriage has been fundamentally the same through out history with various interesting variations. The burden is on those who wish to change it to show the benefit to humanity not the other way around.
What I would like to discuss is the broader issue of reforming government in a way that will help everyone including resolving historic difficulties that gays have had. Civil Unions don’t seem to solve the larger problem. You still leave out the sisters who share an house or the son taking in his aged mother.
As I said if they weren’t being used as a tool to undermine marriage, I could be content with them. In the current environment hardly anyone on my side of the divide can accept them. They would have to be a part of a comprehensive solution, they are not a solution.
“Gay’s” is not correct. It should be Gays, there is no possessive.
God is real and I know Him in a personally. You may as well tell me my mother doesn’t exist and I will take it as seriously as you telling me God doesn’t.
Who in the political arena is trying to tell you there is no God?
That is the same ugly strawman put out by Elizabeth Dole, and she got what she deserved for it. If you would like to follow her, be my guest.
Most liberals and most Democrats are believers. There are very few militant atheists.
Liberals trying to debate those points and trying to say the Bible really doesn’t mean what it says is a useless exercise.
Your interpretation of the Bible is not supreme. Furthermore, your belief in the supremacy of the Bible as a political document is not shared by every person, or even every believer.
Every faith and every person at some point has to adopt some level of interpretation, or suspension of disbelief, at a literal reading of the Bible. Why does it surprise you that different people reach different conclusions?
David, the biggest gap between the two sides is this business about “undermining” traditional marriage. Is there any chance you might want to reconsider you stance that somehow two consenting adults getting “married” ruins it for two other consenting adults who want to be married. For those of us who have no objection to gay marriage, it is hard to get why people think a gay marriage hurts a not gay marriage.
My conservative beliefs tell me:
1- Mind my own business when it comes to the personal lives of consenting adults.
2- Trust the individual.
3- Limit government interference in the lives of consenting people.
4- Don’t try to turn my religion into legislation.
I have always been surprised that “conservatives” favor government control over this realm.
And . .this is the kind of issue that has pretty much wrecked the conservative movement as people see use as hypocritical. On the one hand all for small govt personal liberty individual over big government, but when it come down to crunch time like which individuals can be married . . .all that talk about freedom goes out the window.
Why does gender matter?
You have two people who love each other, emotionally, spiritually, and live long term, committed relationships together as if they already were married… the difference is the introduction of a title, a couple of rings, and a legal recognition. Denying those things changes nothing for the uber religious. The relationships will remain regardless of their laws and wishes.
It is a world of difference for those who would get married, and absolutely no difference to those who are against it if it happens or not.
So why withhold those rights? Just to maintain a moral high ground and perpetuate your own bigotry?
I challenge anyone against same sex marriage to tell me one way it will personally change your life. Just one.
I am an R and a conservative, but I consider this the biggest NON-issue in our party platform.
To me, my position on this comes down to one question: if same-sex marriage is legal, then am I, as man, required by law to marry another dude?
If the answer is “NO”, then I don’t care.
Cultures change, they evolve over time – always have and always will. No culture has remained totally unchanged throughout history. So why is the change to a more inclusive and accepting culture so scary for so many people?
You wrote: What I was always more interested in is discovering what do gays really need from the rest of us.
Full acceptance, being treated like everybody else, and not having to compromise on things were other couples don’t have to compromise. Full Fairness in taxes, inheritance, health care, children, etc.
How about the following compromise: We leave marriages to the churches, call all civil unions from now on just that, civil unions, and open them up to heterosexual couples and same-sex couples – and all couples entering into a civil union have the same rights on the federal and state level.
I know that some gays and lesbians would argue that allowing churches to decide to marry only heterosexual couples is state sanctioned discrimination – in that case, those churches should lose their tax-exempt status. I disagree with that. I am not forcing my own personal views on anybody or any religion – this would be different if we were in, for example, Germany – where a church tax is taking out of your paycheck. I am not even trying to force my “gayness” on anybody – I am just asking for equality!
When it comes to equal rights and protections for everyone, there should be no compromise. I’m sorry, but anyone who thinks that a minority group does not deserve what the rest of us enjoys is engaging in anti-American behavior. The Constitution defends rights, not cultural institutions, and all people deserve equal protection under it, from interracial couples to gay couples.
I noticed the phrase “two consenting adults” pops up quite often in these discussions. What worries many people is that this is but the beginning of ” if it feels good then do it”. Let us suppose that gay marriage becomes the norm, then why not allowing one husband to have three wives (why anyone would want three wives I’m not sure) or one women with six husbands or fifteen men all married to each other. Suddenly it seems that there is no moral need for marriage at all.
Think about the fraud this could lead to, two guys get together because one works for the government and the other has no health insurance and they get married just so the one can be covered . The same could happen to private companies, where is the burden of proof that these people are actually in a loving relationship and who does the checking?
But from my faith based point of view it is wrong. Just because people choose to do something does not make it acceptable, and to turn a blind eye for the sake of political expediency is dangerous. We too often don’t see the effect something has upon us as a whole , we are to often concerned only with how it affects us on a personal level.
As Christians we should pray for their souls not try and understand how better to facilitate their behavor so that they will vote as conservatives.
I agree with Frank. I would say that I have no interest in facilitating their behavior, but I do not have jurisdiction beyond persuasion to stop it. The Scripture tells me that I can not be a doer of the law and a judge of the law. If someone is not engaged in behavior which harms others, it becomes an issue of conscience. My job is to love people and be a light in society which draws people to a better way. I think everyone would benefit from a society in which government does not micromanage people’s affairs. Such a society would enable me to be a better Christian.
I am interested in the point that the biggest problems gays have is with the regulatory society not with the Christian right. I wonder if we look at the larger picture, do we really have a fight with each other?
Think about the fraud this could lead to, two guys get together because one works for the government and the other has no health insurance and they get married just so the one can be covered . The same could happen to private companies, where is the burden of proof that these people are actually in a loving relationship and who does the checking?
What’s to stop a man and a woman from doing this?
Who is to say, with the divorce rate through the roof at it is, that all marriages are loving relationships?
“Let us suppose that gay marriage becomes the norm, then why not allowing one husband to have three wives (why anyone would want three wives I’m not sure) or one women with six husbands or fifteen men all married to each other.”
Is there some “book of fallacious arguments” out there that every anti-gay marriage bigot pulls from? Because I keep hearing this ridiculous argument over and over again. Let’s keep this straight. Polygamy and gay marriage are not the same thing. Polygamy is a red herring used by people like yourself to go “Oooh, look, if we let them do this icky thing now then look what other icky stuff they’ll want to do next.” I’m honestly pleasantly surprised you didn’t spread the BS even deeper with a “next they’ll want to let people marry farm animals” comment. In summary: it’s a nonsensical argument, please stop using it.
“Think about the fraud this could lead to, two guys get together because one works for the government and the other has no health insurance and they get married just so the one can be covered . The same could happen to private companies, where is the burden of proof that these people are actually in a loving relationship and who does the checking?”
This is so preposterous as to almost be comical. But let’s dissect it anyway.
1. Where is the burden of proof? Are you kidding me? How about this: where is the burden of proof right NOW that STRAIGHT couples are “actually in a loving relationship” before they get married? How is it that marriage for the sake of benefit sharing or corporate alliances would in any way shape or form exclusively a gay problem? Are you really that crazy to assert that every single straight marriage is done purely out of love and not a one of them is for convenience or for financial reasons? If there’s no requirement to “prove you’re in love” for straight marriages, why in the hell should there be one for gay marriages? I just don’t get it.
2. Furthermore, with all of the hatred and discrimination that gays suffer, are you honestly going to tell me you think some guys or gals might get married just for the sake of something like health insurance? It’s not like people thinking you’re gay just makes your life one big happy walk in the park. I can just see it now “Come on man, you don’t understand, stop burning crosses on my lawn, dude, I’m just doing it for the insurance, I swear!”
Drat – Brian Shields made some of my points before I could – and in much more concise fashion, I might add!
Brian and Johnny X , I will concede that fraud is just as possible between a man and a woman. As for whether two men would put themselves through all the hatred that gay couples go through well I’m not talking about two guys living as a couple . They could just go to another state get married then go their seperate ways, but that could happen now also.
As for homosexual marriage and polygamy being two completely different things you are correct. No one is saying that if homosexuals are allowed to marry that they will suddenly morph into polygamist.What I am saying is that if you give this right to one group of people who choose to live a certian way then you have set a precedent and given polygamist an argument to be allowed to live as they choose. Where does this end. All of the rights that homosexuals say that they want , they can achieve through legal channels right now, so what is their goal in pushing this agenda?
Yeah, but you’re talking about denying rights to maybe 8% of the population in order to save from what might happen to .2% of the population.
I don’t think that health care is an issue of love. It is an economic product. That is why I favor household insurance. It works. Some companies already offer it. It matters that you share a household not whether or not you are siblings, lovers, or roommates. That is the silly regulatory society we have. That is my point. Why say siblings can’t be on one another’s insurance, but two people who have sex can? Once we decided to expand beyond married families, there is no reason to worry about limits. There is no benefit to keep people from paying for their friend, sibling, or lover.
The public interest is that people are insured. If people are willing to pay for someone else, that is in the public interest.
“All of the rights that homosexuals say that they want , they can achieve through legal channels right now, so what is their goal in pushing this agenda?”
Um, to receive the same treatment and respect that heterosexual couples are afforded when they decide to marry?
Also – to Dave Anderson. I like the household insurance idea as well. As you said it makes sense for many reasons. If someday one of my parents or my wife’s parents were in failing health to the point that we had them move in with us, it would make so much sense to be able to put them on our insurance rather than have to worry about Medicare.
Brian, as for polygamy, of course it is not the same. Polygamy has a legitimate historic claim. Same Sex marriage doesn’t. Polygamy produces stable families. Same Sex marriage doesn’t.
Polygamy is unavoidable if you say the only thing that matters is that people love each other and are consenting adults. The only reason for not allowing it is the affect on culture. It hurts the society by not allowing a sufficient poll of women for young men. There is only one to one. If some people have 5 or 6 wives then 4 other guys have none. That creates instability and leads to higher crime and other social problems. Men are cultured by their relations to women. This argument goes to the core of the nature of marriage and also relates to same sex marriage.
With that said individuals can live in polygamist relationships if they choose. No one has a right to stop them. If it works for them, let them alone, but we have no obligation to encourage or support them. That is how I feel about your same sex “marriages”. There is no societal benefit from them so there should be no societal encouragement. Just let people alone to do what they want. We should support marriage because it benefits society.
“Polygamy produces stable families. Same Sex marriage doesn’t.”
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this statement?
“There is no societal benefit from them so there should be no societal encouragement.”
Right, because gays don’t count as members of society. So having them be happier, more highly respected people by allowing them to validate their relationships with marriage wouldn’t at all affect society because they don’t count. You have got to be kidding me.
Look at Polygamist cultures such as Saudi Arabia or early Mormonism. The family was pretty stable.
Gays won’t be happier or not happier because they change marriage. You are the one with no evidence to back your position. All recorded history backs mine.
That is why I think we need to move to what should be the real issues. We need to streamline the ways people interact with one another in a legal sense. If you want to cover point on the topic of marriage, here is a post I wrote. I don’t feel like covering them again at this time.
http://stoptaxing.wordpress.com/?s=same+sex+marriage&searchbutton=go%21
I’m not saying I doubt that polygamist relationships can be stable, I’m saying you have no evidence to support the idea that by definition same-sex relationships CAN’T.
“Gays won’t be happier or not happier because they change marriage.”
Then why in the hell are they wasting so much of their time fighting about it? Just to piss off blindly religious numbskulls like yourself?
So why can’t a father marry his daughter? Why does the government get all involved in this relationship thing any way?
Hey, why the hell can’t I marry my dog. I love my dog!
Let’s remove ALL damn definitions of marriage and move on why don’t we?
“Just to piss off blindly religious numbskulls like yourself?”
Judging by your wording, I think you may have hit on something there. Of course that isn’t the only reason, but it certainly does play a factor now. The homosexual movement isn’t just about their rights and recognition any more, an element of retribution has entered into the equasion.
When it was justabout right to work, medical concent/visitation, sharing of assets, etc. I think the homosexual movement actually had the more rational argument. They have moved beyond that though, especial were Prop 8 and the backlash is concerned. With Prop 8 the argument was fairly balanced in my opinion, of one set of beliefs vs another. Now the balance of rationality is being tipped in favor of the traditional marriage side, by the people that have overstepped in their backlash. If the rest of the homosexual movement can reign in the ones that are mailing envelopes with “suspicious” white powder to Latter-Day Saint Temples then they will have a better chance at presenting a serious argument in the future. They might also consider holding back on discriminating against people in the workplace. Unless their goal is for people who support traditional marriage to no longer have a right to work in theater.
http://cbs2.com/local/Mormon.Envelope.Powder.2.863901.html
Will it matter? Probably not, rationality isn’t that important in the days of Hope and Change, (change which is starting to look suspiciously like a repeat of the Clinton Administration in several ways).
“So why can’t a father marry his daughter? Why does the government get all involved in this relationship thing any way?
Hey, why the hell can’t I marry my dog. I love my dog!”
I really shouldn’t have to address these obvious red herrings but I will anyway.
Incest has been culturally taboo for a long time for good reason, there are well known and scientifically verifiable genetic consequences of breeding within families. So it makes sense not to allow marriage in this case, just as it makes sense not to allow marriage of people related any more closely than first cousins. Interestingly I know for a fact that first cousins can get married in Cecil County, MD because that’s where my wife and I got married and they asked us about that when we were filling out the paperwork.
Person / dog – um, they’re two different species. That pretty much says it all.
Man / another man or woman / another woman. Obviously they can’t breed, so no worries about genetic issues. They’re both the same species, check. Then come the arguments against. But, but, well being gay, it’s just icky, first of all! Plus it must be wrong because skydad said so in his magic book. And the priest / reverend / rabbi / etc. says it’s wrong and I believe whatever he tells me to believe, so by golly we better not let them gays get hitched!
The reasoning against incestual marriage and animal marriage makes sense to me, reasoning against gay marriage not so much.
Pat Fish, the Japanese are right with you. Currently there is a petition going around to grant marriage licences for the union of people and comic book characters. I understand it drew over 1,200 signatures in about a week. When and if it reaches one million they plan to submit it to the government.
Tricky thing is how do you spit the assets when one or the other dies. I mean if i married Minny Mouse, does Disney claim my assets at death in lieu of a will? Or if a woman married Super Man, that would really be a mess. How many times have they killed him off? And would DC comics have to split the comic book revenues with her every time he died? Or would she have to re-marry him every time he gets brought back? And how many women can be married to Superman at one time?
Sorry I got pretty ridiculous there.
Things were and should be pretty simple reguarding marriage. For all the people that want to complicate things please do so elsewhere. Leave marriage out of it.
“Polygamy produces stable families.”
What sort of twisted Jerry Springer logic are you using to come up with that line of reasoning?
It is my understanding that polygamy is maintained through a male dominated, outdated fringe family structure that is rife with spousal and child abuse. Polygamy is more often than not a vast power struggle verifying the man’s dominance over the family, relegating the woman’s role in the household down to “barefoot and pregnant”.
Polygamy is outlawed due to the vast amounts of potential abuse in the system. Sure, you can have loving polygamist families.. but to point to ancient muslim cultures, the same cultures that restrict women down to second class citizens… there are no words to describe my amazement to using polygamy as a defense for restricting same sex rights…
..unless of course you consider them to be second class citizens also?
If so, how can you reach out to potentially unite the fundamentalist and gay rights factions if you do not consider them to be equals? Just take a moment to try to look at things from their point of view. All they want are the same rights afforded to other loving relationships. That’s it.
No, a lot of modern polygamists have professional women in the family. Some stay home and others go out. It is their choice. A lot of societies oppressed women. I do agree that our marriage system best advances both men and women. That is why I don’t want to monkey with it.
I agree that polygamy is not a great system. That is why I oppose recognizing polygamist marriages or encouraging their formation. I am just saying that it has a sounder claim currently and historically than same sex marrigaes. It does work for some people. I don’t think it works well for society. We make policy based upon society not the individual which goes back to your original subject. Same sex marriage is negative for society because it distracts from true marriage and directs resources away from the continuation of society through stable families.
Polygamy works where there is a great disparity of wealth, i.e., for the survival of your children it is better to have a share of a rich man, than to have a whole poor man to yourself. Where wealth begins to equalize, and most men can be providers all by themselves, there you can have the luxury of marrying for love.
“Things were and should be pretty simple reguarding marriage. For all the people that want to complicate things please do so elsewhere. Leave marriage out of it.”
Yup, plain and simple. Get married, go away to war, come back to a wife who doesn’t look so hot now that she’s been in a car crash, have an affair, get divorced, get remarried, run for president a couple times…
Get married, send sexually explicit text messages to teenage boys…
Get married, play footsies with a cop in an airport bathroom…
Get married, have sex with other men while doing crystal meth…
You “cultural conservatives” sure have cornered the market on “true marriage,” haven’t you? Nothing like furthering the”continuation of marriage through stable families” through rampant affairs (both gay and straight), with the occasional pedophilia sprinkled in for good measure.
I don’t have a horse in this race, being happily straight and married as I am – but I think this is what baffles me the most. I don’t see any way gay couples could come dream of fucking up your beloved “traditional marriage” any worse than straight couples already have. If anything, I’d expect an improvement given that with most gay couples children wouldn’t be a part of the equation.
“Yup, plain and simple. Get married, go away to war, come back to a wife who doesn’t look so hot now that she’s been in a car crash, have an affair, get divorced, get remarried, run for president a couple times…”
I don’t think that is simple and I have never approved of it, and I never really approved of McCain. I’d rather see the affairs and no-fault divorces left out of the equasion. The affair issue is a personal choice, but the no-fault divorce one can be revoked, and I hope that it is at some point.
“Get married, send sexually explicit text messages to teenage boys…”
That isn’t simple either and is not what traditional marriage is about. But, really sending abusive messages to teenage boys has no relationship with marriage anyways. Any reprobate; male female, gay, straight, single, or married can do that, so what is the point?
“Get married, play footsies with a cop in an airport bathroom…”
Once again that has nothing to do with marriage. Also I am no fan of Larry Craig. If your point is that married people can do bad things then I agree with you. That isn’t because they are married, it is because they are people.
“Get married, have sex with other men while doing crystal meth…”
Obviously I an not a fan of this either. It doesn’t just complicate a simple union between a man and a woman, it violates it completely.
“You “cultural conservatives” sure have cornered the market on “true marriage,” haven’t you? Nothing like furthering the”continuation of marriage through stable families” through rampant affairs (both gay and straight), with the occasional pedophilia sprinkled in for good measure.”
If you concider any of the above behaviors that you listed to be culturaly conservative you really don’t know what a cultural conservative is, neither did many of the people who perpetrated those acts, because they probably, and hypocritically, thought that they were cultrualy conservative. Their actions belie the truth to that. I really appreciate your efforts to insult religion and conservatism. Maybe it will give the conservative movement as a whole a wake up call, that the battle to preserve marriage and families is being waged on multiple fronts, and we have been ignoring too many of them.
“I don’t have a horse in this race, being happily straight and married as I am – but I think this is what baffles me the most. I don’t see any way gay couples could come dream of fucking up your beloved “traditional marriage” any worse than straight couples already have. If anything, I’d expect an improvement given that with most gay couples children wouldn’t be a part of the equation.”
Okay if you want to insist that you don’t have a horse in this race, whatever. However, you might want to re-evaluate that. You may not own the horse, but to me it sure looks like you placed your bet on one of them, and it isn’t named traditionalmarriage.
Society has been pushing against traditional values for a while now. People who support them should have started doing so sooner. I can’t do anything about that, but since I became an adult I have started to do what I can going forward.
The fact that all too often children are left out of the equation of marriage, by anyone’s definition, bothers me more than you probably realize.
Tim, are you being purposefully dense? Of course those instances have nothing to do with marriage. What Johnny is SAYING is that those CONSERVATIVE douchebags who wish to legislate how people live their lives are the biggest hypocrites of all and have no business telling others how to lead their lives.
Forget marriage…with a 40% divorce rate it doesn’t even work well for heterosexuals. Civil Partnership, legally binding, would provide the security couples are seeking…whether gay or in what used be known as common-law marriage… and this is NOT security for self but knowing that when each partner provides for the other, the survivor will benefit, not have to pay inheritance tax on something for which half was theirs anyway…and nobody, family or govt., can then step in and say “Too bad…you don’t have any rights…” As has been proven, a marriage certificate has not…for a very long time and for all too many people…been a testament to commitment. That comes from the heart.
Thanks, Matthews, at least somebody around here freaking gets it.
“Okay if you want to insist that you don’t have a horse in this race, whatever. However, you might want to re-evaluate that. You may not own the horse, but to me it sure looks like you placed your bet on one of them, and it isn’t named traditional marriage.”
Not sure what exactly you’re getting at. If you mean to say that it appears I am a hardcore supporter of making gay marriage just as legal and accessible as heterosexual already is, then you’re certainly correct. What I meant by the “horse in the race” comment is that whether gay marriage becomes legal or doesn’t doesn’t really affect me personally in either way. But it does affect thousands (millions?) of other people, some of whom are my friends and family and all of whom I think deserve the same human dignity and rights that straight people are afforded.
Other than a word, what legal rights in California did Proposition 8 deny homosexuals?
I think that with Proposition 8 and the rest of the current laws in that state, California has reached as equitable a situation as it ever will. If either side pushes much beyond this point it won’t be about rights or equality.
There is nothing in Proposition 8 that legislates how people live their lives. The only thing it realy effects is the terminology that will be recognized by the state. I suppose I am being purposefully dense, because I haven’t got a clue as to what part of the prop 8 debate legislates how people live their lives. As far as I know Conservatives stoped fighting the legal battle to control how homosexuals live their personal lives a years ago. Well aside from maybe Texas, though I don’t think even Texas spends a whole lot of time actively enforcing those laws.
Oh and JohnnyX, as I so poorly said about the horse in the race, you don’t own it, but you have bet on it. I understand that you won’t personaly gain or loose a marriage reguardless of what legislation passes or doesn’t. Unless, of course, the idea goes into law that some people have floated of getting rid of state marriage licences altogether and replacing them with civil unions only. Depending how that legislation was written up you could technically loose your legal marriage, for a legal civil union. If it was performed in a church the religious marriage would of course be still intact.
You have your own marriage, which I assume is essentially a traditional one, but you have moved beyond that and are betting on something else as well as all of the ramifications of it whatever they may be.
I see what you mean a bit now. Personally I wouldn’t really care about having a state civil union versus a state marriage, I guess there are others who might be bothered by that. In my own case it wasn’t performed in a church but rather at the venue where we had our reception – by a person who was ordained in the “Church Of Spiritual Humanism.” Incidentally, I too am ordained in said church – and you can be too if you so desire by filling out the online form at spiritualhumanism.org
(in case you couldn’t tell neither my wife nor myself is big into the whole religion bit).
“All of the rights that homosexuals say that they want , they can achieve through legal channels right now, so what is their goal in pushing this agenda?”
Are you really this friggin stupid and uneducated? We absolutly CANNOT get all that we need through legal channels right now – and if we can, then it often costs a lot of money and time.
CHILDREN – for my partner to adopt my child we have to go through the hassle of a HOME STUDY so that she can adopt my son. This study costs a lot of money. We have to go through adoption procedures and if you know anybody who has ever adopted – they can tell you it’s a pain in the ass. Straight people don’t have to go through this.
INHERITANCE – I can have a will and leave my stuff to my partner – however, if I stay home and raise the children and my partner dies, I can not get her social security nor can my children get survivor benefits (unless the adoption process was finished – but that’s not always a given). From one day to the next I can stand there with no income and no financial resources for my children.
If I am the biological mother of our children and I die during child-birth, my partner does not automatically become the mother to our children, even if we both decided to have them and went through the whole fertilization process and pregnancy together.
If I have an accident at work and need someone to care for me, my partner can not get off work under the Family leave act.
If I am old and need to go into an assisted living facility, I have to sell my house to pay for it. My partner, who may still need the house, has to buy me out. In cases of married couples, the spouse staying in the house does not have to buy out the other person.
These are only a few examples – I can give you plenty more
“….those CONSERVATIVE douchebags who wish to legislate how people live their lives are the biggest hypocrites of all and have no business telling others how to lead their lives”
Mike, I couldn’t agree more. Let’s see –
Ronald Reagan divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the wedding (so much for no sex until marriage).
Bob Barr of Georgia had been married 3 times before he had the audacity as representative to author and push the “Defense of Marriage Act.” The joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill was, “Bob, which marriage are you defending?”
Bob Dole divorced his child’s mother, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.
Newt Gingrich divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Rush Limbaugh and his current wife Marta have 6 marriages and 4 divorces between them.
and divorced are also:
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Phil Gramm of Texas,
John Engler of Michigan, Former Governor of California Pete Wilson, George Will, John Warner of Virginia (was married to Liz Taylor), Former Governor of Virginia George Allen, Henry Kissinger, John McCain, etc. etc.
[...] Delaware Politics » Blog Archive » Can Gay’s and Cultural Conservatives reach a consensus?. [...]
Suzanne – nice work in post #40. You said it much better than I could have since you are much more informed on the issue than I am.
Homo-haters, I think you just got pwned.
Thank you for pointing out all these bad examples. Lets learn from history and get it right in our own lives, rather than trying to follow these bad examples or one up them. I don’t honestly know how important marriage is to those people, but it is important and valuable to me.
If you think the bad examples of others will pursuade me to turn away from a defence of traditional marriage I hope I can dissuade you from that false assumption. However, you have me more convinced than ever that traditional divorce and cheating are bad. So your message did accomplish at least one worthy goal.
“All of the rights that homosexuals say that they want , they can achieve through legal channels right now, so what is their goal in pushing this agenda?”
Suzanne, for the state of California that statement is absoultely true. For the rest of the country it is technically true of most rights, but very missleading. As you correctly observe, it is a legal and paperwork nightmare in many states to obtain all of those rights through any means other than marriage (or civil union in states where the laws are similar to California’s).
That is why I consider California’s current laws to be the most equitable it is likely to have. If conservatives push much further it imposes on legitimate rights of people living homosexual lifestyles. If the homosexual movement pushes much further it begins to infringe on the legitimate rights of freedom of religion. Though freedom of religion may be unimportant (or out dated or wrong) to some in America today, the First Amendment is still in force to protect that freedom.
It will be great though if people still take up David’s challenge and proove me wrong by finding a more equitable solution.
I still don’t see how two people of the same sex detract from society.
If they are married or not, they will still do whatever they like. Taking marriage away isn’t going to change anything. they aren’t going to wake up one morning and decide that resistance is futile, and go bang someone of the opposite sex to get it out of their system.
I don’t know what you moral conservatives hope to accomplish in your mission to keep denying same sex couples equal rights as heterosexual couples. Nothing will change one way or another in your eyes. They will still go on being gay.
All that could possibly change from this situation is that same sex couples gain legal rights to live their lives with their loved ones the way they choose.
Every other action is with an end goal of maintaining the status quo.
“…for the state of California that statement is absolutely true. For the rest of the country it is technically true of most rights, but very misleading. ”
If I am a stay home parent and my partner dies I CANNOT get survivor benefits nor am I exempt from any federal inheritance tax – in California and every other state. I also do not get the same tax benefits – i am not only talking on a state level – I am talking federal and state. As long as federal laws make a difference between married and unmarried couples, those who cannot legally get married will never have the same rights AND responsibilities as those who are married.
Married same-sex couples currently do not have any of the rights, benefits, or protections that federal law gives to married heterosexual couples, such as the ability to file joint federal income taxes or receive federal spousal benefits through social security or other federal programs. Also, imagine you got married in Delaware and them you move to Maryland because of work – and while you were married in Delaware you are not married in Maryland and all of a sudden lose any rights and protections that you had.
So again, my compromise is to leave MARRIAGE to the churches and let them decide what they want to do – and call all other unions CIVIL UNIONS – NATIONWIDE – and extend the same rights and recognitions and benefits and responsibilities to ALL couples that enter into a CIVIL UNION, no matter if they are gay or straight.
This has been a fascinating discussion with many very good points made!
I think Suzanne’s last paragraph summarizes an excellent and viable solution. I hope all can agree with it.
One last point that social conservatives often overlook, is that civil unions would not necessarily involve only homosexuals. There are many other situations that arise which require a family/household arrangement that has legal ramifications, for economic and/or relationship reasons. For example, consider two brothers, or two sisters, or two anybody who unite in order to raise children who have become victims of tragedy, or who unite in the pursuit of happiness/stability, whatever that means to the individuals involved.
I also would like to refer everyone back to Nancy Cleveland’s post #35 which makes the point about the commitment of one person to another.
Civil unions and marriages come down to a matter of choice involving commitment, in which the government has at most a minor role involving some potential legal issues and oversight responsibility regarding children.
Coming late to the party here … but this is the best discussion I’ve seen on the “internets” on this topic.
A point about no-fault divorce: in most states, it came about because of a clogged, expensive court system. Here in NY, we still have “faulted” divorce. Our divorce rate is the same as other parts of the country; however, divorce here is time-consuming (a minimum of a year after one party leaves the marital home, and that’s only if both parties have gone to arbitration during the 12 months and are ready to file settlement) and very expensive.
If civil marriage is really a contract and subject to contract law, it seems that civil unions for any couple (and church marriages for those who wish) offers the best equal justice. Although I’ve been married for more than 30 years, I’ve often thought that the marriage contract should require “renewal” legally by both parties at certain points..perhaps every 10 years, or after 20 years if children are involved … because it is only in most recent times that the average spouses lived for more than 20 years of marriage. Perhaps if we all knew we were up for renewal, our behavior in the marriage would change.
As for the household insurance plan: a wonderful thing. It actually existed for a few years through some large employers. Given the costs of coverage now, I think we’ll see some form of mandatory, universal coverage through some public-private mechanism rather than ever see employer-sponsored household insurance again. The cost risks to an individual employer, who would likely attract employees who needed household insurance, are just too great.
Again, thanks for the great discussion.
“I’ve often thought that the marriage contract should require “renewal” legally by both parties at certain points..perhaps every 10 years, or after 20 years if children are involved … because it is only in most recent times that the average spouses lived for more than 20 years of marriage. Perhaps if we all knew we were up for renewal, our behavior in the marriage would change.”
Eileen, I actually like that thought. I have always thought it was strange that just about every licence the government issues has to be renewed and can be revoked by the government based on the behavior of the recipient. The big exception is a marriage license. Fishing licences, hunting licenses, business licenses, drivers licenses, and more all have to be renewed, and if you violate the laws related to those licenses they can be suspended or revoked.
With marriage licenses only the two parties being married seem to have the privelege of revoking them. The government is stuck with the liability that they have licenced the couple to engage in whatever behavior they engage in under that license. That could be adultery or child abuse or any number of other bad things. The government still can’t take back the licence. The best they can do is step in and protect the children, but it is kind creepy that the couple is still licensed to be married and in the future, after being released from jail, they can have more children to abuse or neglect under that license.
As for California’s laws, I still think they are about as good as it will get for that state. My understandiing is that no mater what California does as a state, homosexual couples will still face the same challenges on a federal level, and when moving between states. California can’t legislate what the federal or other state governments do, so it is at its limits of direct control.
Tim said:
“My understandiing is that no matter what California does as a state, homosexual couples will still face the same challenges on a federal level, and when moving between states. California can’t legislate what the federal or other state governments do, so it is at its limits of direct control.”
NY has muddied the waters much farther. There is no same sex marriage in NY. But, if gay partners are married in another state and one works for the NY government, the marriage holds as legal for state and local government employment benefits. I think it’s only a matter of a lawsuit or two before that benefit is extended to NY government contract work performed by third-party contractors … and at that point, we will find out whether organizations like Catholic Charities and Jewish Family Services will have to fight-or-flee their NY state contracts.
It’s going to be a mess.
It would be simpler, easier, cheaper and more equitable to simply have marriage (or, call it civil union!) contracts written between any two, and two only, consenting non-blood relative adults.
As for the government having an authority to watch over the marriage contract or revoke it: since marriage contracts in England and then here were really just property contracts to keep all the property in the family, I think the marriage contract was regarded more as a “man’s-home-is-his-castle law” than, say, business licenses and contracts, which by definition have an impact beyond the business (you could, for instance, give me food poisoning, cheat me, or take my money without providing service). Along the line, we evolved away from the notion of marriage-for-property-rights and changed the thought into one of “what goes on in the castle stays in the castle”, thus enabling all those spouse and child beaters, etc.
Police are sometimes still reluctant to get involved in domestic disputes. “Hey, just keep it quiet and inside your own home, okay?”
Having lived in and near West Hollywood, CA, at one point in my life, I can tell you that Police are not at all reluctant to get involved in an identical dispute with a gay couple. It’s regarded as just another assault and handled accordingly.
And, to go full circle …I wonder if a civil union/marriage would change that perception?
This is what I’ve asked previously: Why are anti-Prop. 8 protestors so hung up on the term “marriage?” It’s almost like the silly “movement” by [some] similar activists to redefine gender. Gender, unfortunately for them, is a biological fact; in a similar fashion, “marriage,” for millenia, has been between people of opposite genders.
If these activists concentrated on getting civil unions, the battle, such that it is, would be much more easily won. Concentrate on the 14th Amendment aspect regarding health benefits and inheritance rights etc. The majority of Americans favor gay civil unions.
Hube – it’s about having it be the SAME for everybody. Don’t just callit civil unions for gays and lesbians – – rename it for all or for none..
I agree with Suzanne. What you call something matters and, if we had both civil unions (for same sex) and marriage (for opposite sex) we would immediately see a rash of employment policies, laws and court decisions using the separate identifiers as a reason to create separate circumstances, benefits, rules, etc. This is especially likely since current law does not prohibit discrimination by sexual preference.
There are two connected issues here: one, the legal issue of marital benefits like insurance, health authorizations, child custody, etc; and two, the “separate can never be equal” issue. Both can be resolved only by having the same mechanism with the same name for all parties.
Saying that “this is what marriage has always been” is an argument that doesn’t work well in the United States. Slavery, child-brides, and a literal eye-for-an-eye punishment have been around for millenia and still exist in some parts of the globe. That doesn’t make it just.
Wrong. There are arbitrary lines drawn in society ALL the time. Age is probably the most common. For instance, why is it fair that a 13 year old genius can’t vote for president but a 40 year old moron can? Why can’t a 30 year old run for president? Because the Constitution says so? And how would you change that? Oh, that’s right — via our representatives through Constitutional Amendment. Sort of like …. what the people in CA did when they voted for Prop. 8.
And as much as the gay lobby may hate it, using your line of reasoning why is it then unfair for polygamists to marry? Adults of the same family? You say the term “marriage” matters, yet your reasons don’t make the case. It’s like I said before — you can’t change, as much as you’d like, someone’s gender; likewise, “marriage” is between people of DIFFERENT genders. You don’t call a man a woman; hence you don’t call a union of two men “marriage.” This has nothing to do with 14th Amendment questions, period.
Nothing wrong with being a religious bible toting cultural conservative who fears homos. We just don’t want that kind of extreme Christian supremacist being the voice of the GOP anymore. Part of rebuilding the Party has to be deleting the old base, and forming a brand new base centered on practical solutions not religious superstitions. Let the evangelicals who want to be in politics form their own party. Frank Knotts and David Anderson are perfect examples of good hearted people who should be involved in church work, not in GOP politics.
Hube –
I agree that every law is arbitrary. Every line is arbitrary. And, when a society decides that the line gets moved, it gets moved. Including the line that says only different sex folks can marry. Again, saying “we’ve always done it this way” isn’t a winning argument in this country.
People in California voted for Prop 8 and the majority got what they wanted. That doesn’t mean the minority will step aside, sigh deeply and say, “gosh, I bet those folks are right.”
If the issues around the marriage of same sex individuals do not go away, we will have to find a way to move that arbitrary line again. And I’d like to take it in the direction of less government, less intrusion in personal life and fewer legislative complications. I’m concerned that the compromise of civil unions takes a bold step in the wrong direction.
It will be interesting to see if the issue of same sex marriage has “legs” enough to be an ongoing issue across the country. The term “marriage” matters because we have given married people protections, benefits and rights that other couples (yes, including my single brother and my mother, whom he cares for) do not have. And we’ve done in on the arbitrary basis of gender and our assumption that the couple engages in sex with a government-provided license. If government had not bestowed those extra benefits, we wouldn’t need to worry about amendments and laws.
Me, personally? If folks “of the age of reason” (again, arbitrary, but most 5 year olds I know don’t use much reason, even the genius ones) want to engage in a marriage as multiples, have at it. I’ve got enough trouble with one husband and wouldn’t want two. Marry your cousin, if you want. Love proves every day that it is irrational and our laws haven’t made it more rational.
However, I might be able to go for that constitutional amendment that requires an intellect in our elected leaders…..where do I sign up?
Well if it is a choice of redefining marriage or eliminating the term from legal matters, I would choose to eliminate it from government usage. However, my first choice would be to just keep the traditional concept of marriage.
Well Tim you need not worry. The insane radicals who would eliminate marriage obviously don’t even command a majority among the unmarried. We have won this battle in every state where there was a vote. We have won in every legislature where a vote was allowed and not desk drawered (Mass.). It is clear that your/our view is the dominate one.
Now that we all know this, it is time for the gay activists to move beyond this issue and dialog with us. Let’s talk about the real concerns and drop the emotion. Even here very few have been willing to do it.
Come on Liberals, do you want an issue or do you want solutions?
“it is time for the gay activists to move beyond this issue and dialog with us”
I am an activist that happens to be gay, not only a gay activist. I will also actively fight for people living with HIV/AIDs, women and children that are victims of domestic violence (you know, those women in heterosexual marriages with idiot husbands/partners), the disabled, the elderly – and everywhere else that I see injustice being done. I can’t be there and talk for everybody, but I damn sure will try to get my message out as much as I can to as many people as I can. Also, your statement disvalues all our straight allies – and there are a lot of them. My thanks go out to each and every one of them.
“It’s like I said before — you can’t change, as much as you’d like, someone’s gender; likewise, “marriage” is between people of DIFFERENT genders.”
Oh, so you believe I can change my sexual orientation? let me tell you, many gays and lesbians have tried to live “regular” lives, the way society wants them to be – it doesn’t work We can’t hide our true feelings and to pursue happiness means to follow our hearts – mine lead me to another woman, big deal. Who are you to say we can change? Are you a doctor? An expert on genetics? Or do you get your information from the right-wing media and those supposed organizations that want to “save families” when all they do is try to break fully functional healthy families apart?
“Come on Liberals, do you want an issue or do you want solutions?”
A solution that is fair and inclusive. Unfortunately, throughout history there has always been a drive towards compromise and “being happy with what you can get” rather then asking for full equality. Either we treat all loving couples the same or we don’t. But if you refuse to do it – then you need to ask yourself why you want to withhold something from some people and not others. If your answer is “freedom of religion” well then please give me the freedom to nor force your religion on me and my life. Not all Americans are Christians. If your answer is that “this is how it has always been” — consider that societies do evolve. It’s the nature of the beast.
For much of history women couldn’t’ vote, couldn’t’ own homes, couldn’t have checking accounts without their husbands consent, couldn’t make major decision. For much of American history women couldn’t be lawyers. The Supreme Court even upheld that by saying that a woman’s role was to be wife and mother, that that’s how the Creator wanted it to be. People believed that this is how it has to be, because this is how it has always been. Tradition and Definition required that all lawyers are men. However, once women were allowed to become lawyers the world didn’t crumble to pieces. No new word had to get invented to describe female lawyers, nor did society spin totally out of control. As Evan Wolfson wrote in his book “Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay people’s Right to Marry” — “The definition of what it means to be a lawyer didn’t change; we only needed to end an unfair exclusion. In the same way, marriage is not “defined” by who is excluded, and ending same-sex couples’s exclusion will not redefine a word; it will share a precious good”
p.s. Why all this “US” versus” THEM” attitude anyway? What are you scared of that gays and lesbians (and should I even mention Transgender individuals) could take away from your life if they could get married? Just for your information – you and your children will not turn automatically gay just because gays can marry.
Oh, so you believe I can change my sexual orientation? let me tell you, many gays and lesbians have tried to live “regular” lives, the way society wants them to be – it doesn’t work We can’t hide our true feelings and to pursue happiness means to follow our hearts – mine lead me to another woman, big deal. Who are you to say we can change? Are you a doctor? An expert on genetics? Or do you get your information from the right-wing media and those supposed organizations that want to “save families” when all they do is try to break fully functional healthy families apart?
Since I wrote the quote this was addressed to, I’ll answer. This response is just so pathetically typical. Where did I state that gays should “try to live other lives” (i.e. “go back into the closet”)? Answer: I didn’t. Where did I say that homosexuals should “hide their true feelings?” Answer: I didn’t. What I said about not being to change genders is JUST what I noted — there are radicals out there who believe gender is just some “sociological construct” and not a biological difference.
You don’t say a male is “female” and you don’t say a female is “male.” Likewise, a union between two straight people is called “marriage,” while a union between two gay people is “whatever else you want to call it.” A “civil union,” if you will.
Just a minor point Hube – “there are radicals out there who believe gender is just some “sociological construct” and not a biological difference.”
The distinction that’s usually made, at least from what I’ve seen is between “sex” and gender. So yeah, if you have two X chromosomes, your sex is female, period. If you’ve got an X and a Y, your sex is male, period. However the idea of gender encompasses all the social norms etc. that go along with being either male or female. For example the “pregnant man” who was on the Barbara Walters special the other night – that person’s sex is obviously female, because (s)he has all the reproductive organs still and was able to get pregnant. But from a social point of view (s)he identifies as a male, and plays the male role in the relationship with his spouse. From a legal standpoint (s)he is also considered a male – they showed passport and other documents attesting to that fact, even the hospital bracelet given when (s)he went to give birth designated him as male.
No I’m not making any claim whatsoever to understanding all the nuances of gender identity issues. But I don’t think it’s wildly controversial to call biological designation “sex” and consider gender to be a social construct with biological underpinnings.
I have to agree with Johnny X this time. Very insightful.
There is no evidence of a gay gene. The homosexual researcher who claimed to discover such was shown in error. Like most things there is a genetic component and an environmental component to sexual preference, but I don’t know where that line is. Neither does anyone else. It appears to be a continuum with some people at one end and others along the line. For sake of public policy, I work from the genetic assumption, but that is not the reality–reality is more complicated.
Hube, you see the problem. There is no attempt by the other side to address their concerns and reach a solution. My experience has shown 90% of the extremism is on the left. They promote their extremists to leadership. I think that gays are being used by the left to remake society. When gays’ legitimate concerns about an intrusive government are addressed, they will fall into a normal distribution of preference. Gay’s are not the enemy of conservatives. The few percent of radicals are. I think we can address the 95%.
“My experience has shown 90% of the extremism is on the left.”
I think one big step in furthering the discussion would be for both sides to stop throwing out random personal experience statistics with no solid evidentiary basis. 90% of extremism – first, define extremism? There’s a fine line between passion and extremism, wouldn’t you say?
The easy argument would be for me to come back and point out extremism on the right – but that’s not the point. You call for civilized discussion of issues and then you make broad sweeping generalizations like “90% of the extremism is on the left” – basically implying that a large amount of liberal discourse should just be discarded as extreme. Hardly a great starting point for good rational discussion.
It happens to be true. Extremism is not a pejorative. I look at the difference in comments on a liberal blog and a conservative one. I say a Liberal is taking an extreme point of view when they name call other commenters, excuse violent actions against political opponents, and disparage entire groups of people and I am the one questioned. I have been spit on with others at a national day of Prayer event merely because a leftist group happen to walking by. I see very little of that on the right. The Westboro God hates gays Baptist church that goes around the country for instance.
Our side condemns those type of people. The left doesn’t condemn the people who are right now desecrating churches and beating up old people. The left gives a forum to Ayres while we reject Duke. What am I to think?
Beating up old people? What the hell are you talking about?
I think a good way to summarize it is this: you see what you want to see.
By the way, nice job trying to sugarcoat the Westboro church – why not use the language that they do – “God hates fags.” Could it be that on some level you agree with them?
You haven’t been watching the news. Radical leftist protesters in CA have beat up seniors who supported the marriage amendment even cracking the skull of one by shoving her to the ground. They are trying to bully businesses to get rid of employees who contributed to the effort. This is outrageous and yet the entire left is silent. Our Republican form of government is under siege my friend. I refuse to sit on the sidelines. It happened in Canada, it won’t happen here.
You are right, I did sugarcoat the Westboro hate creed. I just have an aversion to the “fag” word. No, I totally reject their statements, methods, and philosophy. God loves us all and we would be better off if we followed his example hence the point of this post. Let’s stop fighting and do right by each other’s concerns.
Catching up on more recent comments I’d just like to add a couple of things. Gay, passive “activist” (there’s a new one..lol)…don’t march, don’t rally, don’t ‘do’ Pride…just live my life, shared with a partner. I blog, I respond to forums and other blogs…that’s as ‘activist’ as I can get. Oh..and I’m British by birth so I’ve kept a close watch on the UK’s response to same-sex marriage. I like what they’ve done…as have other Euro countries. I’d be very happy for it to be our model…with one addition. I would not exclude what used to be known as common-law marriage from a legal Civil Partnership. Why should we? Couple who have lived together for many years, borne children or not, face the same legal pitfalls we do if in a State which does not recognise the relationship (such as this one). If we are striving for equality why would we be willing to exclude another side of this deprived coin?
Not a civil union…we already have those and, to be honest, they are worth nothing. I can’t tell you how many people have enjoined civil unions, commitment ceremonies and a year, two years later made a mockery out of the whole thing. What worries me is that in a same-sex “marriage” we will be no different than too many heterosexual couples…making a mockery of it also. We’ve already seen it happen in States which allow SS marriage. One instance the divorce happened within three months, for crying out loud! For another thing, I…and I’m sure many others like me…am perfectly happy leaving marriage as it has always been, was intended. Why not? What exactly do we think we will get from marriage that we could not from a legal civil partnership? It may not be a perfect solution but marriage isn’t either. I don’t want legalities between my partner and I so that in a year or two I can rob her blind…or vice versa. I want legalities that cannot prevent me from being with her in a time of need or crisis; I want legalities which will allow either of us to leave the other everything we have built together, with OUR money and forethought, without inheretance tax or taken from each other simply because someone can enter the picture to claim “blood kin”. Friends, family, acquaintances and colleagues know we are ‘together’…a couple. We don’t need a marriage to impress them or ourselves. They can pass a law for same-sex marriage…we would not do it. My partner did ask me, years ago, if I would like to have a civil union or commitment ceremony. I refused…because I already WAS committed to her and her welfare. But I would go for a legal, federal law permitting civil partnership…as would she. And as someone has already said (sorry, forgotten whom) I do see that as being much easier to have passed.
A well spoken personal statement, Nancy, which should give more insight to many who are willing to read/listen.
Moreover, I like the moderate and understanding tone of the statements by JohnnyX. David, I think your problem is the use of anecdotal events to describe the behavior of what you label “the left”. No progress is made with that attitude. I suggest you reread the following statement made by JohnnyX:
“I think one big step in furthering the discussion would be for both sides to stop throwing out random personal experience statistics with no solid evidentiary basis. 90% of extremism – first, define extremism? There’s a fine line between passion and extremism, wouldn’t you say? The easy argument would be for me to come back and point out extremism on the right – but that’s not the point.”