‘Separate but Equal’ is (was) discrimination, and Civil Unions are not even that. I stand by my contention that Civil Unions are discriminatory.
You’re correct that “some rights are better than none”, but by what logic should “some rights” be acceptable by some when “all rights” are automatically conferred to others? Why should someone have to wait for equality, or accept it in incremental stages?
The state Supreme Court said that the state constitution permitted same sex marriage. Hawaii amended its constitution to say that the state could limit marriage to opposite sex couples, and then the state passed a law doing that.
Many thanks,** jayjay**.
Almost immediately after the Hawaii court ruled, the Hawaii legislature passed a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Shortly after that, Congress passed DOMA. That set off the wave of state amendments and statutes defining marriage as one man and one woman.
In the interim between 1996 and now, nothing much happened until Massachusetts’ supreme court ruled striking down the state DOMA. That kicked off the current wave of passage. California had twice passed a marriage equality law through the legislature and twice Schwarzenegger vetoed it, saying that the courts should decide this (which was the exact opposite of most Republican stances on the subject). When the court did decide it in favor of marriage equality, Prop H8 passed and shut it down again.
Then Connecticut passed marriage equality (when its courts ruled that civil unions didn’t cut it). Then the Iowa Supreme Court had their ruling, and Vermont passed theirs (for the first time successfully through the legislature). Then Gov. Paterson in New York opened the state to recognizing same-sex marriages done elsewhere. Then Maine passed it and the governor signed, and then New Hampshire passed it and we’re still waiting for Lynch to make a decision.
And we’re up to date.
I haven’t included civil unions because I’m not really paying attention to them. They’re pretend marriage (not a disparagement of the relationships of the couples who have them, but of the states that decided half-a-loaf was good enough for the fags).
The brief San Francisco marriage equality moment is in the more recent end of that, though I’m not sure when it fell.
'Zactly. (bolding mine)
Separate but Equal is discrimination, but sitting on the back of the bus is still better than walking.
Because politics is largely the art of the possible. You can say that everyone should have equal rights, and you’re right that they should. But that doesn’t do any good if the majority doesn’t recognize it. The only way a discriminated group gets rights is if they change the opinion of the people in power about them, and a graduated approach can work.
I don’t know if you’d consider it good or bad, but I expect the immigration issue to settled well before the marriage issue. Immigration can be decided by the federal government alone. Marriage will have to be argued in each individual state. And there are going to be a few holdouts on the marriage issue for a long time.
So we agree then that Civil Unions are discriminatory.
And the gradual approach seems to be gaining traction and momentum, thank goodness. It just seems we, as a nation, still haven’t learned the obvious lessons from the Civil Rights struggles of the '60s, and it saddens me that, knowing what we know of that horrible time, we’re still willing to accept mindless discrimination of others, even by those who participated in the Civil Rights movement, which is just sick.
Well, human nature doesn’t generally work that way. The civil rights struggles of the 60s made discrimination against black people generally unacceptable, but it didn’t make discrimination in general unacceptable. People are always able to distinguish groups…to say “These people deserve rights but these people don’t.”
Here are the major differences b/w CA domestic partnerships and marriages:
One thing to keep in mind is that while marriage and CUs do not currently deliver couples the exact same set of rights, they can. The laws regarding CUs can be changed in order to make the rights identical. The same way most of the rights and privileges were attached to CUs, additional ones can, as well. But for many SSM proponents, even if the marriages and CUs offered the exact same rights and privileges, that would not be enough. There is a thread in GD now concerning “rational arguments for marriage” which goes into that in detail.
I came across an essay by a libertarian that does a good job of explaining some of the concerns of the opponents of SSM. I thought it was very good. You can judge for yourself here.
OK, I read it. The whole thing. It has some pretty good arguments in favor of marriage, but I don’t see anything that leads me to believe we should continue excluding gays from the party. The spectre of what might happen is laughably insufficient to change my mind about discrimination.
I had no illusion that the article would convert those with pro SSM beliefs. But I’m glad you read it. I included it to provide another voice to the debate. One that is woefully underrepresented here. Which is a shame, because it’s by far the more sensible one. 
You seem to be kidding, but it’s kind of pathetic that you would even joke like that after putting your best foot forward (that article) and still falling flat on your face.
:rolleyes:You’ll have to excuse me for acknowledging that we each feel very strongly about this issue and that we both think we are correct. I’ll be careful to not take such a conciliatory, polite tone with you in the future. I don’t know how I could have made such a horrible mistake.
And for the record, I am perfectly satisfied for what was revealed in that other thread. Particularly for the cry for rights being revealed to be 1 part bullshit, 1 part Trojan Horse. And the loose thinking employed by virtually all there who favor SSM, save mswas.
Let’s set aside your “separate can TOO be equal” argument, and your “marriage is for procreation, but we make exceptions for straights that we can’t for gays” argument, founded only in your repeated (and false) assertion that that’s what the word has always meant and therefore, unlike almost any other word, should always mean.
Just try supporting one statement here: What invader do you believe is being hidden in this “Trojan Horse” you allege to exist?
Then you’ll of course excuse me for not humoring people I feel to be bigots.
I have no idea what thread you’re talking about.
Well, I guess the question would be if marriage and civil unions were written so as to deliver couples the same set of rights, then why distinguish? It would be more parsimonious to just combine the two under one term, and I don’t see what advantage there is to distinguish civil unions from marriages if the two are functionally identical.
It was Statewide, Jack.
I’m not sure how it will go. One dumbass on facebook was bitching about it and saying how he’d sign the petition and vote yes on the referendum. The only person to defend this greasy, mouth breathing, idiot was his mother. They took up the “poor persecuted christian mantle really quickly.”