This would hold true even if the couple went to MA. Sure they have SSM there, but I don’t believe they have any legal mechanism to recognize a domestic partnership.
As I’ve mentioned before, this isn’t just about prop 8. This is a step to ensuring that we have equal legal recognition across the country, at all government levels.
No it’s not. I’ve proposed a mechanism to do just that and it’s been discounted. It’s not about legal rights. That much has been revealed.
I don’t appreciate being called a liar.
Well, something was revealed, anyway. I don’t think it was about us, though.
This is telling, actually. I didn’t call you a liar. You can go back and reread and look for words like “lie”, “liar”, “lying”, even “dishonest”, and guess what? You won’t find them. I very simply pointed out that what you said was incorrect. You said X, and I commented that X was not true. People can say things that are wrong and not be lying. Lying requires an additional component: that the speaker knew that what he said was incorrect, yet made the claim anyway.
So, if you did know it to be untrue and said it anyway, you were, in fact, lying. And, therefore, are a liar. If you did not know it to be untrue, then you were simply wrong—which was the only claim made in my post.
But I do find it interesting that you chose to jump to a defense of lying. Hmmm…
Ooooooooo, so cryptic. Okay, I give up. What, pray tell, might that be? And please be quick, the suspense is killing me.
I made a ‘claim’ on my own behalf, based on my own opinion. I also agreed pages and pages ago that if there were an entirely equal system in place that recognized my relationship with my partner in the same way that my brothers relationship with his wife is recognized, by all levels of government then I would not care what it was called.
I forget which thread, but I also noted that this was unlikely to ever happen and would be difficult to ensure.
So no, what I said is not incorrect. There certainly are those that disagree with me and strongly believe that the word marriage is of the utmost importance for us to be able to claim, but they do not invalidate my opinion on the matter.
Fair enough. I appreciate that you take the accusation of “lying” seriously, as I do, which is why a very rarely hurl it. That’s a mistake that is made on these boards with surprising and pathetic frequency, i.e., “incorrect statement = lie”.
And I am gratified to see someone from the other side state plainly that if gays were granted all the rights of married people, that that would be adequate.
What if we granted all the rights, made everything completely equivalent—except homosexuals would be granted “marryge” rights, i.e., the right of one man and one man (or one woman and one woman) to get marryd*. As one of the vanguard defenders of the eternal immutability of the English language (tracing it as far back as we can, to the time of Christ) do you think that would be an acceptable compromise for you and your fellow wordshippers?
- I realize this spelling is kind of ghey, and fails to address the problem of vision-impaired and illiterate bigots who would be unable to distinguish between “marriage” and “marryge”, and would therefore run a substantial risk of accidentally congratulating two fags/dykes on their recent betrothal—or worse, find themselves unwittingly marryd to someone of the same sex, a prospect which, while statistically very unlikely, carries such horrifying implications that every possible prophylactic must be applied to ensure its prevention…
People who care more about a word than about people haven’t earned discussion tropes above the level of “snide” and “cryptic”.
I think you’d have to be pretty thick not to figure out what the issue being protested is just from reading those signs.
That’s not a very logical conclusion. If someone commits an act of vandalism, and claims they did it because the target supported prop 8, how is the existence of a protest in the immediate area going to change how the event is viewed? Reasonable people (on both sides of the issue) are going to recognize that every movement attracts fringe elements. People with an ax to grind are going to use it as an example of how out-of-control gay activists are. Wether there are other protesters nearby isn’t going to effect that outcome one way or the other. If anything, the prescence of thousands of peaceful protestors will undercut any claims of wide-spread radicalism.
And you seriously aren’t seeing that anywhere on this board?!
No, I’m saying that only one serial killer is better than one hundred serial killers. I’m not saying anything about the relative “badness” of a single serial killer.
No, I’m starting with the assumption that mainstream activists won’t do anything bad. That’s more or less essential to the definition of “mainstream.” However, I’m recognizing that, in any political movement, there are going to be radical, non-mainstream elements. This is pretty much unavoidable. What’s important is how much of the political movement is made up of those radical elements. If a movement only has a tiny number of extremists, then that reflects well on the movement as a whole. The vast majority of, say, pro-life activists do not blow up abortion clinics. The small number that do should not be used to tar the entire group. Similarly, the vast number of gay rights activists do not deface places of worship. So the small number that do, should not be used to tar the entire movement.
Yes, but do you get that the reason for the event is significant? If you want to do those things specifically for the purpose of increasing support for gay rights, you do it at a gay rights rally. If you want to do it for the purpose of celebrating the founding of the nation, you do it at a 4th of July rally.
After talking to you, I can certainly relate.
It hurts because it hurts? There’s a clear answer for you.
THAT"S what was revealed through this thread? You mean, you weren’t aware that you held that opinion before the thread? Interesting.
Now, if your comment, perchance, is supposed to somehow represent my position, maybe you can show what leads you to conclude that I don’t care about people? Surely, you must have seen one of the umpteen times I offered that I thought keeping marriage as it is was more beneficial to society. And surely you must be aware that society is made of—what? PEOPLE! So you might see how I might be confused.
And why might I care about words? Do you think I might be the world’s first alphabet fetishist? Or do you think it might be I care about words because of what they mean. You know the very same reason some gays are so insistent that the word include them?
That’s it? Really? That’s what this whole thing is about?
I’m going to assume since you didn’t mention the other legal detriments that this is the only one and the rest are the same.
I have to get a new driver’s license if I move to another state after a certain period of time. I find it inconvenient but I don’t think that it violates my civil rights.
That’s a HUGE change. And it validates the harm that magellan01 spoke about and invalidates all the arguments that this totally will not affect anyone else but gay couples who want to get married.
I found this fascinating:
There’s a heterosexual couple in California that wanted to have groom/bride on their marriage certificate and now cannot do so. This affected someone.
What happened to point 3?
My question wasn’t about whether they can; my question was about why it’s more likely which goes back to question 3. If they can strip away rights even if there were SSM, how is that different than stripping away rights under domestic partnership?
Huh? But the title of the thread is about Prop. 8.
Ah, I just saw your explanation, and I do remember that you made the argument that you personally weren’t that concerned about the word “marriage”, but since this whole argument is about that one word, given that most (I can’t get this affirmed) of the benefits of marriage already apply to domestic partnerships, then you’re actually in agreement with magellan01. And again, I notice the lack of cohesion on the part of what the pro-SSM group is looking for.
Great! Then we’re agreed. I’m willing to stop trying to argue with you. It’s not advancing my understanding of any of the issues. I will, however, defend my points if I feel you’re saying something about them, but since I won’t be addressing any to you, hopefully that won’t be a problem.
No this thread is about gay people continuing to exist have sex and want equal rights. The recent prop 8 is just another road bump that spurred the post
There is another thread specific to prop 8.
No, they aren’t the same. None of the federal benefits of marriage apply to civil unions. Even on the state level, in California, there are nine different benefits that apply only to marriages, and not civil unions. These nine issues were why the California supreme court originally ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional.
Yes. And so do I. And so does everyone else. See, no one’s complaining about that law, because that law treats everyone the same. However, if you move to another state, you don’t have to get married again. Homosexual couples do not have that luxury. Unequal treatment is discrimination.
No, it is not a huge change. It’s an exceedingly minor change, by any reasonable definition.
No, there isn’t. They wanted to use the old forms, so they brought back the old forms. No one was deprived of anything. Did you even read that article?
If the law says, “Married couples are entitled to this set of benefits,” then no, a private company cannot create an exception for gay couples and not extend them the same benefits allowed straight couples.
Try reading the thread title again. There’s no mention of Prop. 8 in it.
I know! It turns out, gays aren’t a hive mind who share exactly the same opinions on every subject, and react to everything exactly the same way? Isn’t that crazy? It’s almost like we’re real people!
Jesus, what the fuck is this? You dismiss what I’ve been writing as “exasperating, frustrating and annoying,” and I say the same thing about you, and all of a sudden you’re flouncing off in a huff and refusing to talk to me? So, only you get to be dismissive of other posters in this thread? Screw that. Suck it up and debate, or get the fuck out of the thread.
No, he and I are not in agreement.
His stated position is that if the options are,
- No recognition of SS couples.
- Recognition, but not the word marriage.
- Full recognition, including the word marriage.
He would accept either 1 or 2. I would accept either 2 or 3.
There’s likely quite a few more than just one heterosexual couple that have this preference for what appears on their marriage license, but that’s beside the point.
The compromise that was arrived upon, after a few months of “Party A” and “Party B” was allowing same sex couples to choose whatever combination they prefer from the traditional binary: bride/bride or groom/groom or bride/groom. I highly doubt that decision caused many same sex couples to cancel their October weddings.
So long as the document is legally binding, I don’t personally care about what social or cultural corner I’m painted into, and I’m not trying to take away anyone’s ability to customize their legal document with whatever makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside.
I also don’t believe that all heterosexual couples who prefer being able to have “bride” and “groom” on their license also wish to deny same sex couples the legal right to use the same form and enter the same contract.
This area of the debate begs a clearer distinction between the subjective cultural/religious significance of marriage and legal significance.
The system has evolved with cultural/religious references baked into the legal forms and documents. Magellan’s argument is that this is due to a perspective held by a majority, consistently through the history of our species, that there is an intrinsic and deep seated reverence for the ideal state of a woman and a man being the supreme social/cultural/biological united unit.
These cultural/religious references in these legal documents don’t necessarily stretch along the same axes as the law. People who enter into heterosexual marriages but do not appreciate filing out a form that requires them to apply terms that do not resonate with them are also “affected” by the language on the marriage license forms.
If, as has been suggested, the state gets completely out of the cultural/religious/marriage business and aligns only with the legal contract, rights, and protections business, is our society at large going to embrace this new system, or are some people going to feel like traditional marriage has been attacked or degraded? From what I can tell, both views and all stops in between would be vocalized if this came to pass.
Or, if as has also been suggested (or at least inferred), some compromises are made such that a broader range of cultural/religious options are made available on these forms, somehow allowing everyone to self-identify in the manner that best applies to them subjectively…that’s going to be quite a form, or it is going to end up as two blank lines that allow the two individuals to call themselves whatever they want on the front end, and functionally be treated as “Party A” and “Party B” on the legal back end. We’ve already seen that folks have problems with that too.
My point being, is that not all change is bad. And the changes that this movement are trying to make is an inclusive change. We are not taking away any significance from any other concepts of marriage.
Sorry, friend. As much as it might ruin your day, we do agree on the main issue. (And he never claimed we agreed on everything.) As you said:
We may agree that #2 is a potentially acceptable position, I believe that our disagreement on items #1 and #3 are significant enough to say that we do not fundamentally agree.