YES WE CAN! (if you're straight)

[B. Serum]

It's certainly bittersweet to hear America disavow bigotry of one kind — electing a (half) African-American President — while affirming bigotry of another — the 4 for 4 voting against homosexuals as equal citizens of the nation.

Arizona: Ban on Gay Marriage
56% – 44% pass

California: Ban on Gay Marriage
52% – 48% pass

Florida: Ban on Gay Marriage
62% – 38% pass

Arkansas: Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children
57% – 43% pass

America, my frenemy.

[New Beginning]

Ok, but I was happy to hear Obama include homosexuals in last night's speech. It's clear that there is still a lot of intolerance in the USA, but when you elect people like Obama, you are setting the tone for a change. If the message of tolerance is held on to for long enough, even these people will have to change their minds. And if not, at least their children will.

Small steps.

[What Exit?]

I'm sorry. My BIL recently married in California and is a resident. This directly affects him. All I can say is be patient. As the older generations move on, this will change. 40 years ago Wallace won 5 states as a segregationist. So in only 40 years America has come very far indeed. You will in all probability need to wait another 20 years or move to the North East where I think things are changing quicker.

It is not just gays either. It is very tough to be a Muslim in the US currently. They are not restricted from marriage but the US still has a long way to go in being tolerant. Yesterday was a great day in affirming that the US is changing. However change is measured in generations and does not come all at once.

Jim

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

I'm sorry. My BIL recently married in California and is a resident. This directly affects him.
Jim

The impact on existing marriages is unclear, but some analysts are saying that the amendment is not retroactive. An older girl living across the street from us when I was growing up, along with her partner, turned out to be the first couple married in the Los Angeles area when the California Supreme Court lifted the ban, so I am concerned for them. I imagine questions will arise on a situation by situation basis, as institutions such as schools, hospitals, and adoption agencies now become uncertain as to whether they have to honor the same-sex marriages that were executed while it was legal to do so. So even if their marriage isn't invalidated by governmental edict, I can certainly understand what they mean when they say "a state of limbo".

I'm angry for them. I'm angry that only a 50.01% majority is needed to change a state constitution to take away a right from anyone. I'm angry that the success of the ban was achieved largely, IMO, by asserting that the right of the majority to be intolerant is more important than the right of a peaceful dissenting minority to go about its business. And the ads were misleading and vicious, not least the one featuring Gavin Newsom saying "whether you like it or not!" and waving both hands limp-wristedly (naturally!).

[Paul in Qatar]

I do not see how the impact on marriages can be unclear. What was done under the law is lawful.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by Paul in Saudi

I do not see how the impact on marriages can be unclear. What was done under the law is lawful.

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what you are saying. Could you please expand upon this?

Spectre of Pithecanthropus I won't pretend to know much about the issue. California is a long way from New Jersey and I was not following it. I will say that I was very surprised California passed their initiative.

[levdrakon]

It's really sad. My fellow Americans aren't just apathetic towards my human rights. I could understand Americans being lazy. But a majority of my fellow Americans are motived to get off their fat asses and actively vote against, and/or take away my rights. Fucking sad.

I don't want to hear "wait 20-40 years. Be patient." I think we should get militant. No more home decorating shows for you, you fucking bastards!

[malkavia]

As proud as I am of my country today, I'm equally ashamed that 102 went through. My only solace is that the anti-gay crowd spent A LOT of money in this state purchasing signs for every street corner, banners on every church, as well as television and radio ads.

Opponents of 102 were not able to raise the kind of money needed to meet that level of exposure, not by a country mile.

That said, the largest form of advertising against Prop 102 came from citizens so fed up with being marginalized (or watching others be marginalized) that they painted over the Yes on 102 for Marriage with "No on 102 for Equality".

I know some of you may respond with sneers of how vandalism never solves anything, but members of my community stood up in the face of well-funded hate, and spoke truth to power at the risk of arrest.

I am proud that, in light of the dollars spent and the saturation of advertising, that many rallied to do what they could with what they had available.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

It's really sad. My fellow Americans aren't just apathetic towards my human rights. I could understand Americans being lazy. But a majority of my fellow Americans are motived to get off their fat asses and actively vote against, and/or take away my rights. Fucking sad.

I don't want to hear "wait 20-40 years. Be patient." I think we should get militant. No more home decorating shows for you, you fucking bastards!

It took me 35+ years to realize I was being stupid and bigoted and irrational about gay marriage. I was on the other side of this issue just 10 years ago and I am not even religious. I probably qualified as homophobic 20 years ago but not as bad as most of my friends. It takes time and educations and young people being more active in voting and older frighten folk that don't know better not voting anymore. There is no way around it.

[jali]

This is sad. I really don't understand. I just don't understand.

[BubbaDog]

What's not to understand? There is a small percentage of people that are gay and a large percentage of people that are straight.

There is also a small percentage of people that are anti-gay and like to write legislation.

I think that many of the people who voted against gay marriage aren't necessarily anti-gay. They just don't have any investment in gay issues.

They are straight people who voted with their "persuasion" and didn't really think about the consequences.

Too many people think that voting is an "opinion poll". It's not. They don't stop to think that they are repressing somebody else. They just know that they wouldn't marry somebody of their own sex so therefore they vote their opinion.

I honestly think that you could outlaw the cultivation of broccoli if you put it on a ballot because people who didn't have a taste for broccoli would treat the proposal as if it were an opinion poll.

[Junior Spaceman]

Bubba Dog, it's a very sad thing, but I think you're 100% right.

[Procrustus]

Originally Posted by BubbaDog

What's not to understand? There is a small percentage of people that are gay and a large percentage of people that are straight.

There is also a small percentage of people that are anti-gay and like to write legislation.

I think that many of the people who voted against gay marriage aren't necessarily anti-gay. They just don't have any investment in gay issues.

They are straight people who voted with their "persuasion" and didn't really think about the consequences.

Too many people think that voting is an "opinion poll". It's not. They don't stop to think that they are repressing somebody else. They just know that they wouldn't marry somebody of their own sex so therefore they vote their opinion.

I honestly think that you could outlaw the cultivation of broccoli if you put it on a ballot because people who didn't have a taste for broccoli would treat the proposal as if it were an opinion poll.

Well, a large percentage of straight people voted to continue to allow California gay people to marry. Sadly, very sadly, not enough of us. I don't think we can excuse those who want to ban gay marriage as simply people who are not "invested" in the issue. As pointed out, they were invested enough to take this right away from their fellow citizens. For this they should be condemned. I might not like broccoli, but I would never vote to take the right to eat broccoli away from someone else.

[stolichnaya]

It makes me very sad that all of those measures passed. I can only hope that we will see those percentages dwindle as time passes and our society matures. In the meantime I can contribute my money and my efforts to fight those who would hurt their fellow Americans under a mistaken impression that their right to be a busybody supercedes the happiness of others.

I think Obama could have done more, especially in the last week or so, when it was apparent that he would win. But I can understand the calculation that led him to demurr, and the calculation that leads to his official anti "gay marriage" policy.

I'm a straight, OK? But I don't give a crap what you do in your bedroom. Apathy has always been my default position on gay marriage. But watching this debate unfold has turned me into a passionate supporter of equal marriage rights. I intend to continue to work and donate to the cause. So there are little victories like me, as well.

I am happy, I am sad.

[levdrakon]

What kills me is this is the United Fucking Goddamned States of America. I don't have to wait a fucking 30 goddamned minutes for a pizza, but I'm supposed to wait fucking goddamned 20-40 years for equal rights? South Africa has fucking goddamned gay marriage.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

What kills me is this is the United Fucking Goddamned States of America. I don't have to wait a fucking 30 goddamned minutes for a pizza, but I'm supposed to wait fucking goddamned 20-40 years for equal rights? South Africa has fucking goddamned gay marriage.

Hey hopefully I'm wrong, but I doubt it. This country is still to puritanical to give way on this issue easily.

[shantih]

I'm so sorry about this. I can only hope that the aftermath gets some people thinking so that the next time these propositions are on the ballot, the end is different.

[Vinyl Turnip]

I've got nothing against broccoli. I just think it should be used vaginally, as God intended.

[KGS]

Originally Posted by New Beginning

Ok, but I was happy to hear Obama include homosexuals in last night's speech. It's clear that there is still a lot of intolerance in the USA, but when you elect people like Obama, you are setting the tone for a change. If the message of tolerance is held on to for long enough, even these people will have to change their minds.

Let the niggers celebrate, they earned it last night. Yes, I chose my words carefully. That's how pissed off I am today.

Guess I'd better explain...even though I'm Not Exactly Gay (Kinsey 1.5) there is someone I know, a friend of the family who likes me, and I might actually have a successful relationship with him. The only problem is, I've had extremely poor luck with relationships in the past, regardless of gender (and with women, it's actually worse than men) -- it's a Major Issue, and I'm still not 100% if I'm ready, including the fact that I'd be "Declaring a Party," so to speak.

Last night's passage of Prop 8 really took the wind out of my sails.

[malkavia]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

What kills me is this is the United Fucking Goddamned States of America. I don't have to wait a fucking 30 goddamned minutes for a pizza, but I'm supposed to wait fucking goddamned 20-40 years for equal rights? South Africa has fucking goddamned gay marriage.

This mirrors the feeling in our household last night and today, as well.

My roommate/best friend of 14 years is gay and she doesn't deserve to feel hated, judged, marginalized and disdained for her orientation. It's ridiculous. This shit wouldn't fly for interracial marriage and it shouldn't fly for gay marriage either.

All I could do was remind her that we're making progress, an inch at a time.

"An inch. It is small and it is fragile and it is the only thing in the world worth having. We must never lose it or give it away. We must NEVER let them take it from us."

SCOTUS has a responsibility to this nation to declare that civil rights supercede all of the hate-filled bullshit and if you don't like it, DONT GET MARRIED TO SOMEONE OF YOUR GENDER! Simple as that. It shouldn't even be on a state ballot. Fucking ridiculous.

FUCKING. RIDICULOUS.

I seethe with anger, obviously.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by stolichnaya

I think Obama could have done more, especially in the last week or so, when it was apparent that he would win. But I can understand the calculation that led him to demurr, and the calculation that leads to his official anti "gay marriage" policy.

Mr. Obama did express his opposition to Calfornia's proposition 8, according to several sources I have seen, including this article in the Sacramento bee. Also according to this page (ontheissues.org) he has voted NO on a (federal) constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

With that being said, I wish that our new president-elect would come out firmly on the side of Gay Marriage. But, like you, I understand the calculation that prevents him from doing so. Yesterday's results in California are a good example.

[Silver Tyger]

I'm probably not going to be able to say this as well as I wish, but...

We're making progress, y'know? Ten years ago - five years ago - nobody would've thought that same-sex marriage would even be considered, at all. That it would ever be legal, even briefly. And the fact that people feel a need to now make laws about it, is actually progress *against* bigotry. Before it wouldn't be considered at all, it wasn't even conceivable. Yes, they're repressing people, and they *know* they're doing it. Which is progress from repressing people and not realizing it.

I truly believe that gay marriage will be legal within our lifetimes. People are saying fifty years - I'm going to say twenty and maybe ten. And many of the people who voted for these bans are going to be ashamed of themselves.

[garygnu]

I was struck today by the realization the conservatives like an individualist approach to economic matters, but a community approach to social matters, and are willing to legislate the latter.

Liberals have a individual approach to social matters, and a community approach to economic matters, and are willing to legislate the latter.

Sorry, carry on. (BTW, boo on removing rights and creating second class citizens.)

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

It is not just gays either. It is very tough to be a Muslim in the US currently. They are not restricted from marriage but the US still has a long way to go in being tolerant.
Jim

They are, because they can only marry one woman at a time.

Which makes me wonder if a proposition in California making polygamy legal is all that it takes to make it well, legal.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by Paul in Saudi

I do not see how the impact on marriages can be unclear. What was done under the law is lawful.

More specfically:

Ex post facto laws

Article One, Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the states from passing ex post facto laws (laws that retroactively make something illegal), which IMHO (IANA Constituional scholar) is why laws typically say "illegal after January 1st of the new year" and the like. Conveniently for this discussion, the same Section forbids the states from passing any law "impairing the Obligation of Contracts," the so-called "inviolability of contracts" clause.

I'd think that any attempt to declare null-and-void a legally contracted gay marriage after the fact would constitute an act of war against the United States. A flagrant breaking of the Constitution and an attack on Americans' trights and Federal prerogatives, right?

And the President has sworn to uphold the Constitution, right? And he is sympathetic to gay rights? And he is the most heavily armed man in the world?

But the other side thinks God requires them to press ahead, right?

Man, pull up a chair, I'm making popcorn.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

Article One, Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the states from passing ex post facto laws (laws that retroactively make something illegal), which IMHO (IANA Constituional scholar) is why laws typically say "illegal after January 1st of the new year" and the like. Conveniently for this discussion, the same Section forbids the states from passing any law "impairing the Obligation of Contracts," the so-called "inviolability of contracts" clause.

I'd think that any attempt to declare null-and-void a legally contracted gay marriage after the fact would constitute an act of war against the United States. A flagrant breaking of the Constitution and an attack on Americans' trights and Federal prerogatives, right?

Ahem.

Ex post facto prohibition applies only to crimes- you can't be penalized for paying last year's tax rate last year, but you can certainly be penalized for adhering to last year's building code this year (unless you're grandfathered in).

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Ahem.

Ex post facto prohibition applies only to crimes- you can't be penalized for paying last year's tax rate last year, but you can certainly be penalized for adhering to last year's building code this year (unless you're grandfathered in).

Really? The states can pass a law that invalidates a contract after it was legally contracted? How does anything get done?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

Really? The states can pass a law that invalidates a contract after it was legally contracted? How does anything get done?

A law, by itself, cannot void a contract- but a judge can. I'm not sure about this - nobody is- but I suspect nothing will change for these people one of them applies for a state income tax provision for married couples or something like that.

[ladybug]

Originally Posted by BubbaDog

Too many people think that voting is an "opinion poll". It's not. They don't stop to think that they are repressing somebody else. They just know that they wouldn't marry somebody of their own sex so therefore they vote their opinion.

This could very well be the case for some people. Unfortunately, there are voters who are genuinely terrified at the idea of gay marriage.

I remember a few years ago when my mother burst into tears during a discussion about gay marriage. I asked her why she was so opposed to it, and she said "because they want to turn my marriage into a joke!" No matter how many times I explained that she and my dad were the only ones with control over her marriage, she insisted that "the gays" were trying to make a fool of her. It never occurred to my mother that two men or two women might genuinely love one another and want to spend their lives together.

I'm afraid that this is the mindset we're facing.

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by ladybug

This could very well be the case for some people. Unfortunately, there are voters who are genuinely terrified at the idea of gay marriage.

I remember a few years ago when my mother burst into tears during a discussion about gay marriage. I asked her why she was so opposed to it, and she said "because they want to turn my marriage into a joke!" No matter how many times I explained that she and my dad were the only ones with control over her marriage, she insisted that "the gays" were trying to make a fool of her. It never occurred to my mother that two men or two women might genuinely love one another and want to spend their lives together.

I'm afraid that this is the mindset we're facing.

You know what else gets me? They ask your mother how she feels. Oooh, how do you feel? Oh, guess we can't do that!

Did they ask your mother how she felt about what we're spending on Iraq or the economic bailout? Didn't think so. You, your mother, and the rest of us are idiots and the government lets us decide issues that are meaningless to the guys who are playing with trillions of dollars to make themselves richer. "Let them bicker over marriage. Meanwhile, let's wage an oil war without the stupid people's permission."

[KGS]

Originally Posted by ladybug

No matter how many times I explained that she and my dad were the only ones with control over her marriage, she insisted that "the gays" were trying to make a fool of her. It never occurred to my mother that two men or two women might genuinely love one another and want to spend their lives together.

You know, all this marriage bullshit could be avoided if the lawmakers were willing to define a separate category called "Civil Union" or something like that, defined as a "union" between same-sex couples which carries all the rights, privileges, and tax benefits of marriage! Has anyone even proposed this compromise?? I know some conservative fundie Xtians who claim such a "Union" already exists, but they're liars.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried

Mr. Obama did express his opposition to Calfornia's proposition 8, according to several sources I have seen, including this article in the Sacramento bee. Also according to this page (ontheissues.org) he has voted NO on a (federal) constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

With that being said, I wish that our new president-elect would come out firmly on the side of Gay Marriage. But, like you, I understand the calculation that prevents him from doing so. Yesterday's results in California are a good example.

As long as you understand that if Obama did openly support Gay Marriage during the campaign, he would not now be President Elect. It would have been incalculably stupid for him to do so and the states that put gay marriage on the ballots in 2004 did a lot to sabotage Kerry's campaign. Sometimes this was done by well-meaning liberals and sometimes it was done as a ploy by the Republicans to ensure that Theo-cratic voters would come out in force against the Democratic candidates. I had the chance to see the Fundy emails that were sailing around at that point. They were scary but effective.

It sucks and it is stupid but the reality of bigotry says that the steps are small. Hey we still can't even get pot legalized yet and there isn't even a religious or racist reason to keep pot smokers repressed and on the wrong side of the law.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by KGS

You know, all this marriage bullshit could be avoided if the lawmakers were willing to define a separate category called "Civil Union" or something like that, defined as a "union" between same-sex couples which carries all the rights, privileges, and tax benefits of marriage! Has anyone even proposed this compromise??

What would be the point ? This is all about stomping on same sex couples; the bigots would never tolerate separate but equal. If such a thing is even doable, which I find highly unlikely; history shows what separate but equal is really like. Civil Unions are about creating an inferior pseudo version of marriage that can be used to lock people in as second class citizens.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by KGS

You know, all this marriage bullshit could be avoided if the lawmakers were willing to define a separate category called "Civil Union" or something like that, defined as a "union" between same-sex couples which carries all the rights, privileges, and tax benefits of marriage! Has anyone even proposed this compromise?? I know some conservative fundie Xtians who claim such a "Union" already exists, but they're liars.

Great idea. And while we're at it let's get the lawmakers so set up some special schools just for niggers! Hell, give'em their own bathrooms too.


I want to on the bus I'm going to sit the fucking back.

[Sampiro]

Originally Posted by B. Serum

Arizona: Ban on Gay Marriage
56% – 44% pass

California: Ban on Gay Marriage
52% – 48% pass

Florida: Ban on Gay Marriage
62% – 38% pass

Arkansas: Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children
57% – 43% pass

The weirdest thing to me is that in Arkansas, long the butt of jokes and regarded as a socially barbarically conservative backwater (like Alabama), only 5% more voters voted against gay marriage than in California, considered one of the most tolerant (and, by some, "enlightened") states.

[IGJoe]

I've heard several times today that Prop 8 not only bans marriage, but all marriage-like institutions... ie civil unions and domestic partnerships. I haven't been able to find anything like that in the text of the proposition though... is there anyone that knows for sure one way or the other?

[Antinor01]

Originally Posted by KGS

You know, all this marriage bullshit could be avoided if the lawmakers were willing to define a separate category called "Civil Union" or something like that, defined as a "union" between same-sex couples which carries all the rights, privileges, and tax benefits of marriage! Has anyone even proposed this compromise?? I know some conservative fundie Xtians who claim such a "Union" already exists, but they're liars.

At this point I would take this 'separate but equal' compromise. It's better then the neither separate nor equal we basically have now. (Yes, I know that domestic partnerships in CA are basically marriage but that doesn't mean shit at the federal level or out of the state)

The major problem is that the far right and many prop 8 supporters don't want us to have separate drinking fountains or sit in the back of the bus. They just don't want to give us a drinking fountain at all and want us off the bus entirely.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by IGJoe

I've heard several times today that Prop 8 not only bans marriage, but all marriage-like institutions... ie civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Proposition 8 does not ban domestic partnerships.

[jellyblue]

We aren't "domestic partners". We are *married*. Just like you and your opposite-sex spouse are not "domestic partners". If it's so equal, let's switch, 'kay? You really shouldn't have a problem with it.

How about this? For everybody, gay and straight, "marriages" happen in churches. They can be dissolved only by the death of one party. No divorce. Ever. Civil unions, for everybody, gay and straight, are secular matters. Sound good? Why or why not?

ETA: I almost forgot: if you are Married, you must produce offspring. If you cannot or will not, your "marriage" becomes a civil union.

[wevets]

Originally Posted by malkavia

My only solace is that the anti-gay crowd spent A LOT of money in this state purchasing signs for every street corner, banners on every church, as well as television and radio ads.

I'm with you in the sadness, but I'm not getting any solace out of the spending.

Seriously, they call themselves churches and instead of spending millions feeding the hungry or caring for the sick, they choose to spend it to make sure other people who love each other can't get married?

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

[TWDuke]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

The weirdest thing to me is that in Arkansas, long the butt of jokes and regarded as a socially barbarically conservative backwater (like Alabama), only 5% more voters voted against gay marriage than in California, considered one of the most tolerant (and, by some, "enlightened") states.

Arkansas banned gay couples from adopting, which is legal in California.

jellyblue, I agree with almost everything you wrote in principal (although I suspect you know it would never fly; separation of church and state is the last thing these people want), except that the church should set its own rules regarding divorce, offspring, etc.

[KGS]

Originally Posted by wevets

...but I'm not getting any solace out of the spending.

Seriously, they call themselves churches and instead of spending millions feeding the hungry or caring for the sick, they choose to spend it to make sure other people who love each other can't get married?

Well, that's the history of organized religion, ain't it? That money you donate to your church every week is more likely to end up as an Uzi in the hands of an Afghani terrorist child, or the pockets of a major political party, or the blood spilled by some abortion doctor getting shot or a person who died of cancer because stem cell research has been halted. Organized Religion is inherently evil, and all who plead fealty to it's auspices (esp. Catholicism and Mormonism) shall have to answer for their transgression in this current life very soon, and this isn't God's Vengeance but the Vengeance of SCIENCE and LOGIC and REASON, fundamental natural forces which have been bottled up for far too long and cannot be held back any longer. (And those Yes On 8 posters sure disappeared quick, didn't they? Wish I'd paid more attention to which houses hosted them...)

In other words, I sure ain't ordering a Pepsi at Taco Bell again, ever!

[elfkin477]

I don't think I understand the Arkansas thing. I've read that it's a ban on "unmarried couples" adopting. Is that just codeword for gay couples, or would folks like Brad and Angelina be out of luck, too? Either way, it's going to keep a lot of kids out of good homes

You know, this whole rash of bans on gay marriage/civil unions makes me feel even more depressed about this election. I'm fairly conservative except that I fully support civil unions and adoptions by gay couples. So until I read the headlines yesterday, I thought that maybe there could be one thing I support being forwarded by electing a slew of democrats. Apparently not.

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by KGS

(And those Yes On 8 posters sure disappeared quick, didn't they? Wish I'd paid more attention to which houses hosted them...)

In other words, I sure ain't ordering a Pepsi at Taco Bell again, ever!

First, why? What would you do to the people who had those signs?

Second, what about Taco Bell???

[Lucky 13]

The Prop. 8 people are claiming it protects marriages and families. I saw a photo in the paper of a married gay couple at a rally with their adopted son. What about their marriage? What about their family? Don't they deserve protection as well?

[XJETGIRLX]

Originally Posted by IGJoe

I've heard several times today that Prop 8 not only bans marriage, but all marriage-like institutions... ie civil unions and domestic partnerships. I haven't been able to find anything like that in the text of the proposition though... is there anyone that knows for sure one way or the other?

Amendment 2 in Florida does, though. The text of the amendment read:

"This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

[Gyrate]

Remember: every time God opens one door He slams another one in your face.

[wmfellows]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

What would be the point ? This is all about stomping on same sex couples; the bigots would never tolerate separate but equal. If such a thing is even doable, which I find highly unlikely; history shows what separate but equal is really like. Civil Unions are about creating an inferior pseudo version of marriage that can be used to lock people in as second class citizens.

That seems like rather the over-reaction.

If a legal category, perfectly open to both same sex and opposite sex couples were created, with the same rights and responsibilities as traditional marriage, but rebranded as it were, there is nothing inferior. Leaving marriage as a term to those with religious sensibilities seems a reasonable compromise.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by wmfellows

That seems like rather the over-reaction.

If a legal category, perfectly open to both same sex and opposite sex couples were created, with the same rights and responsibilities as traditional marriage, but rebranded as it were, there is nothing inferior. Leaving marriage as a term to those with religious sensibilities seems a reasonable compromise.

I'm not religious at all. Screw these compromise ideas. I wish to retain the word marriage. I got married, I did not get 'unioned'. Keep fighting for full rights and take the compromise as only a brief step not a final step. I use to agree with KGS, but I don't and it is for much the reasons that Der Trihs wrote.

These props were passed out of fear and in many cases hate. It is that simple.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by wmfellows

That seems like rather the over-reaction.

If a legal category, perfectly open to both same sex and opposite sex couples were created, with the same rights and responsibilities as traditional marriage, but rebranded as it were, there is nothing inferior.

That would never, ever be allowed to happen. We've done this before. Separate but equal is never equal; the one, the only point of trying to demand that homosexuals be relegated to "civil unions" is so they can be given a bad imitation of marriage. A ghetto marriage, one with fewer rights, benefits and respect.

We are speaking of people who don't even want to allow homosexuals the WORD marriage, something they allow serial killers. But not those evil, evil gays. Why should I or anyone for one moment think they would be interested in anything even slightly resembling fairness ?

Originally Posted by wmfellows

Leaving marriage as a term to those with religious sensibilities seems a reasonable compromise.

Garbage. If we were talking about refusing to let non-whites get married, and instead they have to settle for a supposedly-equal separate institution would that be a reasonable compromise with people who have racial sensitivities ? And would you expect the separate institution to really be even remotely equal ?

This is bigotry, and deserves no compromise or respect or anything better than utter contempt, whatsoever.