Otto, I think we’ll eventually get there. It’s just a question of tactics, and what America’s ready for.
The middle step of civil unions will let Americans see that the sky won’t fall.
Spectrum has admitted that gay marriage will spread over the next generation. I agree that this is probably true. It’s small comfort, though, to people who desperately need benefits in the here and now.
Later on, full marriage can be made available to romantic couples and civil unions left to the sisters, spinsters and friends.
Sisters have legal rights if they’re the closest family available.
Spinster and friends can – get this – GET MARRIED. Or if they’re the same gender, GET UNIONED or whatever, once gay marriage under whatever name is legal. There’s nothing to stop them. We won’t be doing a “sex test” to check up on people’s private lives. And such sham marriages fill that niche already in our current world for pairings of opposite genders. And they don’t demean the marriages of other straights, because they are merely a minor exploit in what amounts to a loophole.
If the system is established like in Vermont, where heterosexual romantic couples and gay romantic couples both have access to marital institutions that elevate their relationship over the common friendships of the hoi polloi, what stops two friends who live together and want benefits from going to the court and getting “married” or “unioned”?
And if nothing stops them, why do we need to specifically debase the only outlet for romantic gay couples by lumping in mixed and single gendered friendships?
Can you not imagine why this is so insulting to gay couples? Why it hurts so much to have it proposed?
Or, like a good conservative, do you just not give a fuck?
You’re right, I did sorta just take a left turn with that exchange. Sorry.
But I still don’t see that it’s important that they can reproduce (more easily). Since reproduction is only tangentially connected to marriage, it’s not really a Privilege of marriage. And in any case, I was discussing government-issued privileges. Or I suppose more generally societally-recognized privileges.
What are you talking about? Gays couldn’t enter into “sham” marriages with the person they loved in the past.
And you still don’t answer my questions.
**Can you not imagine why this is so insulting to gay couples? Why it hurts so much to have it proposed?
And if there are marital outlets for both mixed and single gendered couples, what’s to stop the people in your poor, put-upon friendships from marrying through one of those systems?
Why debase gay unions by making civil unions a catch all for everyone who is undeserving of a heterosexual marriage?**
Sooner or later, we’ll get this straight. I didn’t say anything about reproduction except by tangential implication, but it wasn’t my point. My point was (and what I stated was) that they can both contribute their own genes to one single progeny. That is impossible for two men to do. It is therefore their privilege.
But you’re right, we are drifting here. My point in all this is simply that what the man did is what people who hold strong political views in this country are supposed to do — he got involved in the system, ran for political office, and worked to put his views into action. He was doing the same thing you are supposed to do. It’s an adversarial system, but your opponents are not enemies in the sense that an Al-Qaeda terrorist is your enemy. You have to use PR to get people to your side because the most votes wins the day. And dancing on the graves of your political opponents is about the worst PR exercise you could do.
Spectrum, gays weren’t entering sham marriages with people they loved. They were entering sham marriages with people they didn’t love, to obtain important benefits.
I don’t think that’s a system that leads to an overall respect toward marriage.
I can understand why you feel insulted. Really, I can. Please note, though, that my proposals aren’t motivated by any feelings of bigotry, much as you might wish to find such in my motivations.
They are motivated by political realism, and the desire to extend needed benefits to people as quickly as possible, without provoking a backlash that would set back the gay rights cause a generation or so.
On military spending issues, my opponent is not my enemy.
On issues regarding terrorism, my opponent is not my enemy.
But on the issue of gay rights, which is more important than all of the above, and all other issues, combined, my opponent is fighting for the degradation and eventual elimination of my humanity. When it comes to gay rights, my opponent is my enemy, totally, completely, and in the end only one of us can prevail. There can be no permanent compromises, there can be no peace. Either gays will be made full American citizens, or we’ll eventually be eliminated. Those who work against my humanity, my citizenship and my equality are my enemy – no matter what else we may agree on – and that status overrides all.
If marriage is fine for loving gay people, it’s fine for loving heterosexual people. The point is that we’re not talking about a contractual agreement of convenience here, and to suggest that gays put up with being lumped in that category (whether as an interim or not) is going to meet with some justified resistance. This householding thing is a complete red herring.
Personally, I don’t buy the civil-unions-as-waypoint argument. I think you risk codifying inequality that’s merely dressed up as equality. Subsequent pushes for change will no doubt be met with cries of “but you’ve got practically the same thing, what are you complaining about?” I don’t see that civil unions need to be a waypoint. Take you, for example. I don’t see that you have any fundamental objection to the principle of full equality for gay people. You seem to be arguing exclusively along the lines of “well, it’s best to compromise with the conservatives and get there in the end.” Possibly it is, but it’s equally possible that the waypoint will become a sticking point, putting back full equality for years. Why not support the outcome you claim to intend anyway? If all those supporting civil unions “came out” for gay marriage, har har, the complexion of the debate would be utterly altered.
There’s no need to compromise on equality - I don’t even think it’s possible. As Jayjay’s quote points out, it’s either equal or it ain’t. Given the general trend of opinion, I think it’s far more likely that by splitting the vote in favour of gay marriage, civil union is in fact playing in to the hands of those who want to pass bills like that in Virginia.
Confusingly, here in the UK we appear to be instituting separate civil unions for gay people, and nobody cares, least of all gay people (as far as I know). Weirdly, there are now two types of civil union - one for heterosexuals and one for homosexuals, and neither seems to have all the rights that the other has. I don’t understand why they couldn’t come up with the blindingly obvious solution of just having one process for everyone, but I guess that’s governments for you.
Lib, I think spectrum was talking about government-bestowed privileges. Much as I’m sure he’s quite powerful, George Bush is not what gives whizz to people’s wangs, I’m quite happy to report…
Benefits are WORTHLESS if they are coupled with what amounts to a declaration that gay relatinoships are no more valuable, no more worthy of acclaim or recognition than the relationship of two friend or a couple of rommates.
I would rather have no rights than have what you are proposing. I would rather maintain the status quo than have a “union” that is so meaningless that any two folks can just saunter on in and get one, without even having a presumption of romantic relation.
Any relationship that does anything one bit less than ELEVATE gay relationships ABOVE the status of friendships and roommates is not worth it. Ideally, we should be elevated as far above the other groupings as heterosexual marriage is. But regardless there MUST be some difference, or it’s just another slap in the face.
I’m heading out of town for the weekend, so don’t think me rude when I don’t respond to anything else until Sunday (or ruder than you may already think I am).
Dead Badger, what, exactly, did I say that’s getting me beaten up here?
All I said is that there are other people, besides gays, in long term householding relationships with another person. Many of these people cannot be considered to have anything resembling a traditional marriage or gay marriage, because they are not sexually or romantically involved.
Still, they face the same problems gay couples did in setting up a household because they aren’t married. They cannot share health benefits. Hospital visitation is closed to them. The whole litany.
If a person is in a household like this, and is not in a traditional marriage or other civil union, they should be able to enter a civil union with the other person. This in no way denegrates the relationship of gay couples who similarly enter into a civil union.
I think the American people would be far more comfortable with such a benefit if it were open to all.
Be careful what you wish for. As I said before, Virginia passed, with veto-proof majorities, a breathtaking bill banning not only civil unions and recognition of gay marriages and unions from other states but also contracts, POA’s and other legal arrangements that would give legal status to a gay relationship.
Incidentally, 3 Democratic senators and 8 Democratic delegates voted for this measure. So you can’t blame it all solely on the right wing.
Sorry if I’m giving that impression - I’m not trying to have a go at you. I can’t speak for spectrum though, who judging by his posts in this and other threads is past the sanity horizon and accelerating. I don’t think you deserve to be called a gay-hater, I just think it’d be preferable if you supported proper gay marriages instead of a half-way house. It’s kind of frustrating to have people who seem in principle to support equality to be advocating compromise. In particular, since neither of us is gay it doesn’t really seem to be our place to inform gay people what an acceptable compromise should be. We lose nothing by such a compromise, so what to you might seem tolerable leaves a lot to be desired for someone whose life is directly affected by the outcome.
This may be so but I just think it’s a red herring. It’s got nothing to do with the main point, which is that straight people can marry, and gay people can’t. For that matter, there’s nothing to stop two straight people who just want marriage rights from getting married - it’s not like there’s a quiz you have to take to check that you’re in love with each other. If you want to institute some sort of scheme whereby two people who don’t much care for each other can get a bunch of rights, fine, but it doesn’t affect the argument about gay marriage at all. It’s a whole new kettle of cliches.
If there was a civil union benefit, open to gays, or full gay marriage, either one, that would still leave people like my friend’s mom and his aunt in the cold.
They couldn’t enter into a gay marriage, see, because they’re sisters. And even though they raised a child together, they can’t share health benefits. All of the same arguments that apply to gay marriage apply to them.
Because the controlling factor is that they are householders who aren’t married.
That’s why I think the civil union should be a more broad benefit. In fact, I think if this idea were floated in very free thinking, individualistic Vermont, it would go over well.
If two senior citizens get married right now to get some tax relief, it doesn’t impact anyone else’s marriage.
If a male and female roommate get married right now so they can joint-file but have an “open-relationship”, it doesn’t impact anyone else’s marriage.
If I entered into a sham marriage with one of my best friends (who’s a woman) right now, so that we could get visitation rights in the hospital, it doesn’t impact anyone else’s marriage.
And all of these things are being done, every day.
You sound exactly like the troglodytes who say that gay marriage “cheapens” straight marriage.
You also seem to have this bizarrely desperate need for the government to give “acclaim” to and/or “elevate” your relationship. Why do you care? As long as you get the same benefits that straight couples get, what difference does it make if other people get it too?
Hell, how to you propose to have the governement test the depth of your twu-luv for your partner? Government psychologists giving compatiblity tests?
Frankly Mr. Moto’s suggestion sounds like a damned good and equitable one: ALL adult couples, regardless of gender, get the same benefits from the government if they choose to register as a married couple. No need to check to see if they’re fucking each other, no need to administer psychological tests to verify that they’re truly in love…none of that is the governement’s business.
You want fair and equitable benefits and taxation? I agree. On the other hand, you want your relationship validated by the government? Tough. That ain’t the government’s job.
I was born in Virginia. I lived there until I was sixteen.
This is not a backlash.
This is the way the voters there have felt for a long time. They simply never saw a need to pass those sentiments into law before.
Somewhat Flawed Analogy-
I have never allowed smoking in my house. All my friends know this. So, I don’t have a “No Smoking” sign. Should I suddenly make a bunch of friends who do smoke, I may put up a sign to remind everyone. My feelings haven’t changed. But, now there’s a sign.
(Note that I am not comparing homosexuality to smoking)
After 9/11, the US passed laws requiring increased documentation from foreign visitors. A few countries felt that this was unfair and unnecessary as we had friendly relations with them. To make their point, they passed their own laws requiring increased documentation from visiting US citizens. An event caused new feelings, leading to the passage of a new law. That was a backlash.
No, that’s Bricker’s argument. Mr. Moto still has straight couples getting full-fledged marriages not civil unions like the rest of the not-quite-measuring-up relationships. Let us not forget that it was Mr. Moto who suggested earlier in this thread that gay marriages and civil unions are destroying marriage elsewhere.
I don’t understand how allowing gay folks to get married was supposed to make straight marrage rates go up or the rate of divorce to decrease. Nor do I understand why that is relevant. It seems to me that he believes the bullshit that allowing gay folk to get married cheapens “real” marriages somehow. And that seems the real reason he opposes it not some hand-waving about compromise. He suggests compromise only as a way to avoid the “unintended consequences” of gay folk ruining marriage somehow…
The only way a Civil Union is acceptable if that is the legal recognition available to both gays and straights, with marriage solely a matter of religion.