Forgive me for being pedantic, but the expenses you listed were not heterosexual expenses - they were parental expenses. If Cookies and her girlfriend had kids, they would be paying exactly the same expenses you are, plus an additional $340 a month for COBRA. Or more: if the kids were the biological children of her partner, who knows what that would cost her to get them onto her health care plan? I really can’t think of anything that would be strictly a heterosexual expense. Abortions, maybe, but only if you exclude rape cases. And I don’t know what the going rate on abortions is, but it’s probably less than $340 a month.
Anyway, your subsequent post cleared up my major confusion about what you were trying to say. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re suggesting that the best way to go about securing civil rights is to couch our arguments in philosophical terms. Don’t make it personal, make it political: it’s an abuse of government power, an intrusion into our personal lives, D.C. sticking it’s nose where it doesn’t belong, etc. etc. Is that the gist of it?
Because I don’t think I really agree with that.
Sure, those are good arguments, and there are plenty of people who would be swayed by them. But they’re not going to be effective on everyone. Some folks couldn’t give a shit about the philosophy behind it. But $340 bucks a month? Just about everyone can understand that. Other folks, the money isn’t a big deal, but the idea that these laws are actually hurting people can make the difference. All three approaches - the philosophical, the practical, and the emotional - have their places in the civil rights movement. Trick is, knowing when is the best time to use which argument.
I may be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure that Cookies lives in California. California, as we all know, recently passed Prop. 8, outlawing gay marriage. Most of the people who voted for Prop. 8 will tell you they don’t think gays should be discriminated against. You talk about your philosophical principles of individual liberty and government non-interference, they’re going to agree with every word you say. And they’re still going to oppose gay marriage, because they don’t understand why civil unions instead of marriage is a form of discrimination. So, here’s one good reason why: because being in a civil union doesn’t get you COBRA coverage for your spouse, and it ends up costing money. A lot of it. And that’s just one of a thousand other, often petty, injustices. The more people complain about it (or whine, in your parlance) the more other folks will realize that this accumulation of unfairness adds up to a major violation of their own principles.
So… Perry v. Schwarzenegger gets to the Supreme Court, and they decide that the EP Clause does NOT mean that same-sex marriage rights must be extended by the feds or the states.
That is rather pedantic a strictly heterosexual expense would be an unplanned pregnancy (putting aside bisexuality, rape, weird lab accidents, and immaculate conception.)
Straight people have kids by accident quite often. It’s less of an issue if your gay. That’s kind of how I framed my poor attempt, so again, my fault that it wasn’t.
This is kind of like saying some people eat pizzas for cheese, others for bread, and others for marinara sauce. I suppose some might be like that, but most like pizza for the gestalt of cheese, bread and sauce.
Similarly, I think a strong argument on a social issue is not simply a personal argument, or a financial argument, or a philosophical argument… but really all three.
In this issue, I would think the primary issue is that of social justice and basic equality. Lots of issues are fuzzy and hard to define. But… this is pretty clear. Equality and anti-discrimination are pretty basic values. In an issue like abortion you have to weight the right to life against a woman’s right to control her body. It’s a difficult issue with basic values in conflict. No easy answer.
Here, there is an easy answer. We’re denying basic constitutional rights for no good reason whatsoever, damaging our own rights, and weakening society.
At a very basic level, a strong partnership is a good thing. It’s like the buddy system. Two people take care of each other, provide and watch out for each other. The buddy system wouldn’t be as strong with three. More to keep track of, more conflicts. Two is a pretty maximum number for a strong partnership. It doesn’t really matter whether the two or both male, both female or whatever.
Equality, and anti-discrimination are pretty basic values that I think a majority of Americans feel are key components to our country’s strengths.
As clear cut as this is, I think it needs to be highlighted. It’s a strong, indeed the major argument in this case. From that fundamental stance, I think you can indeed personalize it further. Bring it home, make it real. Without discussing the base issues though almost demeans the argument.
It’s like saying the holocaust was a bad thing, because the jews couldn’t choose the color of the star of david they were forced to wear. While that is indeed unfair, it’s not the main thing of the holocaust, and leads to a dismissal.
Again, without insult the OP doesn’t really address the major issue. He even says there might be something in DOMA he agrees with. While I appreciate the open mind, I think DOMA is one of the most shameful pieces of legislation of the last century. It’s worse than the healthcare bill (couldn’t resist.)
DOMA is pretty brief: The Defense of Marriage Act, basically gays and other undesirables are damaging marriage with their loose morals, and the mere existence of their lifestyle is somehow hurting the basic fabric of this country and therefore they should be denied the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples. Under law most states must recognize the laws of other states. DOMA says that the federal government does not need to recognize state marriages, and that other states don’t need to recognize state marriages.
“State right” has been somewhat demonized, but this is pretty egregious. It’s as if a driver’s license was only valid in one state, or my marriage was only good in the state it was issued (What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, indeed.) So, again, aside from the whole equality nondiscrimination thing, we also have the state rights thing which any self-respecting redneck, or even a klan member can get behind.
So, it is a short and totally and completely shitty and wrong piece of legislation on so many levels… but the OP thinks there might be something in it that’s ok.
I’m sure familiarity would breed contempt.
Now the OP is a nice guy, I understand his argument and I agree with it. But I think it’s a lot larger than his personal inconvenience and expense, and I think that’s the least compelling factor of the argument aside from the small subset of gay folks with domestic partners in jeopard of being fired and losing coverage who of course will find it captivating.
But… I think the brush can be broadened.
Again, this whole thing pisses me off. Where is a Barry Goldwater to stop playing these fucking games and just do what is right and remind us what makes this country great. If Bill Clinton and Obama are such heroes why don’t they attack this thing and this thinking on a fundamental level.
Alright, Scylla, you’ve convinced me. I’m now pro-gay rights.
Seriously, though, I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying*. I agree, that all three elements are important. I’m just saying, you don’t have to include all three in every single gay rights argument. It’s okay to have a conversation that focuses on just one element, such as the financial cost imposed by anti-gay legislation.
[sub]*Except one thing: the OP isn’t a nice guy. Nice, sure, but she falls a little short in the other department[/sub]
And another thing, if you asked any of my ex’s I’m confident they would tell the OP that $340 a month is a perfectly fair price to avoid having to deal with my penis.
The stupid * on “everybody” and the disclaimer was just me trying to avoid some jackass coming in to ignore everything I said in the post because he found some old quote of mine that happened to be in agreement with some hypothetical something lingering in the dusty dark corner of DOMA that I might agree with.
Naturally the one time I try and sidestep such bullshit ahead of time, someone turns it around to paint me as a whiny crybaby who is so ineffective in her arguing for her own rights that she somehow does more damage to her cause than good when opening her mouth.
I don’t think the base issues demean the argument, they are the bricks with which the argument is built. This little spike in my constant advocacy pressure (exerted in all of the ways you describe as being superior to my tact in this thread) is my little personal brick that I am slathering up with mortar and plopping down to do my part to help ensure that, someday, this will all be just an embarrassment of the past.
Good question. For me, it depends entirely on their reasoning. I am sure it would not be at all difficult for you to point to a ruling with which you disagree with the Court’s reasoning. As you’ve pointed out in the past, sometimes an opinion is tailored to a result, as opposed to drawing logical conclusions from the law. I reserve the same right as you to disagree with the Court in terms of personal opinion, while of course giving GQ-style responses based on the law of the land, the opinion as stated.
I am open to having it proven to me by legal logic that EP does not call for recognition of SSM. I am also open to evidence demonstrating conclusively the existence and taxonomy of the Loch Ness monster. I suspect seeing either is about equally unlikely.
Scylla, your analogy is crap. Plenty of heterosexual couples never have children, or have children with exactly the same amount of planning and effort that a same-sex couple would require. Babies are *not *a heterosexual marriage expense.
Agreed. (Consider, for example, the roots of the words *suicide *and homicide. Taken purely literally, suicide is “self-killing.”) I think this pretty firmly puts the nail in the coffin of who doesn’t understand the word tantamount.
Well, that’s something. Probably way too much to hope for that they’d cover the difference for you.
I didn’t mean to be an asshole here. You’ve been very nice. I guess I started arguing and just assumed I would be dealing with a typical asshole.
Hmmmm. Thinking about it a little bit more, why am I apologizing? After all, it is your fault for being classy, and having a sense of humor, and meeting aggression with a good quip and a cogent argument. Why’d you have to do that? Who do you think you are?
Seriously you’ve deserved better than my responses. I’m sorry.
I really think you should read DOMA though. It’s short… and appalling.
No worries. It has been a pleasure almost entirely agreeing with you. I can’t get too testy with (or kick the two testes of) the person who’s tales of daring dirigible danger dopefied me.
Even if Prop 8 hadn’t passed, and CA still had same sex marriage, being in a same sex marriage doesn’t get you COBRA coverage for your spouse. The problem isn’t Prop 8, the problem is DOMA. But, that being said, insurance carriers can extend COBRA-equivalent plans to same sex couples, which it looks like the OP has. The problem is, though, that those plans aren’t eligible for the ARRA subsidy to spouses/domestic partners, thanks again to DOMA.
So this really doesn’t have anything to do with civil unions instead of marriage. It has to do with DOMA.
But it has literally *nothing *to do with being in a heterosexual marriage versus a same-sex one. The only thing that results in unplanned babies is a penis ejaculating inside a vagina with no birth control (or with birth control that’s being used improperly, or birth control that’s used properly but hitting its tiny failure rate). *None *of that has anything to do with being married to someone of the opposite sex.
(Also, there are many, many things a heterosexual couple can do to prevent getting pregnant, or to avoid the expense of the pregnancy and/or raising the child after conception occurs. There are *no *options for a same-sex couple to receive the same rights as a heterosexual one, short of moving somewhere that they’re treated like human beings.)
First I agree that the Gov’t should be out of the business of marriage except as a public health issue (consainguity) or protecting minors. Sanctity of marriage? Ummmm . … separation of church and state? If we have to have a lawsuit about if “under God” is ceremonial deism and it doesn’t matter anyway because the kid has the freedom of religion to not say the Pledge, then how can the Gov’t say who can have a holy sacrament and who can’t.
That being said, if you’re on COBRA, you’re fucked anyways monetarily. As pointed out elsewhere, you’re bearing the full brunt of the cost and I don’t know how people on unemployment can afford it. And the discrimination works in reverse too. If one person makes significantly less than the other and they have a child, it penelizes them taxwise to get married and file accordingly than to stay single and file head-of-household. And if you get married New Years Eve, you lose head of household status for the whole year costing thousands (been there).
And it isn’t only homosexuals. My sister and her boyfriend registered as domestic partners because they didn’t want to get married, but later when my girlfriend and I tried it, the law was changed in California that only same-sex partnerships could register. In other words, to get the benefits we HAD to get married. I guess in some legislator’s mind it made of for the fact that you and your partner can’t get married.
So for everyone it is pretty fucked up and yes I am a Republican saying that about DOMA and am pro same-sex marriage because homosexuals should have to put up with the same crap us heteros do.
