I hate being a political football. (NJ Gay Marriage Decision)

[Patty_O_Furniture]

@Really Not All That Bright

Two dudes moving in together is not going to result in you or anyone else being […] harmed in any way I can think of.

Agreed, DINK households cause property values to rise and all sorts of trendy boutiques and coffee bars will spring up like weeds

@Pharmboy

[T]his is another blow to the traditional family.

Are you a member of a “traditional” family? If so, I eagerly await a detailed explanation as to how your family has been materially harmed by this ruling.

[hawksgirl]

@col_10022

If every state in the union allowed for civil unions so that you could have all the rights that married couples have but we just didn’t call it marriage, would that satisfy the gay community or would it also have to be called marriage?

I think we can safely say that “seperate but equal” is never truly equal. That’s why some people will say that no, its not good enough.

[jayjay]

This debate is definitely one of those things that, were I only slightly less emotionally unstable than I already am, would drive me to rocking in a corner in a fetal position while repeatedly slapping my temples with the heels of my hands. The frustration is immense and I really can’t quite understand why the majority of my fellow gay men and women aren’t in that self-same position almost constantly.

It’s incredibly difficult to listen to completely disinterested bystanders who have no stake in the whole situation yammer on about damage to some legendary “traditional family” as if the modern nuclear family weren’t a product of the Industrial Revolution while (at the most pessimistic estimate) 2% of the population of the United States has to go begging like mendicants for their basic rights before the law. And it gets harder and harder to go on trusting people around me when I KNOW that a relatively large number of them would be entirely happy to send us all back into the closet (and the jail) for who we love. It gets harder and harder to continue to trust my co-orientationists who insist on supporting the party that’s made it’s bigotry an official political plank and continually uses us as a wedge issue. It gets easier and easier to wonder just how many Log Cabin Republicans would have been collaborators in Germany in the 1930s. Every time people start talking about all the financial and defense reasons they are voting Republican, I want to start shaking them and screaming, “What about RIGHTS? What about MY RIGHTS?! Is your extra $500 of tax money worth throwing all the gay people in the country under the bus? Is it?”

Sorry…Harold Ford’s response to the NJ decision has me less than content tonight…

[jayjay]

God…my grammar has completely submerged. “more emotionally unstable” and “its bigotry”, please.

[gonzomax]

This argument leaves me so numb. I just dont get it. Any one who says gays aren’t born that way are lying or not paying any attention.Who would say I dont want to reproduce .Its merely one of the biggest drives in critters.We have to keep the species going.
Who would chose to be abused ,potentially beaten and killed.? Who would chose to be discriminated against.?
If you believe in god ,you have to believe gays are gods creations.So why the hell can’t they just leave them alone. They are just people trying to live as normal a life as possible. They are entitled to exactly the same rights and responsibilities as any other member of society.

[Daffyd]

There is no way I will accept anything less than marriage. Why should my relationship be called something different the minute I cross the border from Canada into the U.S.?

Imagine the hell that most straight Americans would raise if Canada stated that American marriages were not recognized in Canada as marriages, but as civil unions. That their civil union might be accepted by some of the provinces, but not all, so they better make sure they don’t get sick or hurt in one that doesn’t accept it, because a hospital might or might not accept their relationship.

Or if straight Americans wanted to marry a Canadian, and were told by the Government of Canada that they were not allowed to marry or sponsor their American partner. They could have a civil union, but it would mean nothing on a federal level. If their “husband/wife” wanted to move to Canada, they would have to apply as a single, unmarried person.

Imagine if you spent your life paying into Social Security, and died at age 70, and your husband or wife you have been with for 50 years is not allowed to receive your benefits. But the two 70 year old guys around the corner met a week ago, got married a few days later, and after one died, the other could collect benefits.

I have a legal marriage performed in the largest Protestant church in Canada, and when my husband and I get to the U.S. border we aren’t even allowed to fill out one Customs form, because we “are not family”… And as we aren’t “family”, we aren’t even allowed to go through an inspection together. It is very clear that we are second class citizens in the U.S. We don’t even have to open the papers to see Political Candidates remind us of that fact - we can see it the minute we cross the border.

Nope… a civil union is not ever going to be good enough for me - or most Gays and Lesbians - we will fight until the day we can marry anywhere in the U.S., and the reprehensible “Defense of Marriage” Act is repealed. It might take 10 years, it might take 20, or 30 or 50, but it will happen - I have no doubt in my mind.

[Daffyd]

@jayjay

The frustration is immense and I really can’t quite understand why the majority of my fellow gay men and women aren’t in that self-same position almost constantly.

It’s very easy to get totally frustrated… I never understand the Gays and Lesbians who collaborate either… It’s sad just how much they must hate themselves.

[Sunspace]

@Daffyd

That was in June, and it’s really cool to deal with things like crossing the border, setting up banking, getting benefits at work, etc., where you just have to say you’re married and there’s no issue…

Welcome to Canada. Your experiences might make a good story for those of us who Don’t Quite Get It, But Are Sympathetic. Perhaps you’ll write them some day?

[susan]

My wife and I are very happy where we live, but are more and more drawn to Canada as the US gets to be a nastier place for gay people once again.

[Daffyd]

@Sunspace

Welcome to Canada. Your experiences might make a good story for those of us who Don’t Quite Get It, But Are Sympathetic. Perhaps you’ll write them some day?

I’m not sure my experiences are that unique, and I’m not quite sure what to say…

Except -

I might start a Pit thread on job offers that get canceled once you sell a house and move 3,000 miles though… :mad:

It’s a great way to force you to work on survival skills…

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Zyada

If the government were to decide tomorrow that attorneys were no longer to be called citizens, but would still have all the rights of citizens, would that work for you?

I’m surprised to see that you have attorney listed as your profession and would consider this to be a usable suggestion. It seems to me that in the law, wording has even more power than it does in our day to day life.

Of course I would have a problem. If gay marraige had been a traditionally accepted form of marriage all along and the government decided that they would stop calling it marriage tomorrow, I would have a problem with it as well. And the majority of the judges sitting on the top court in New Jersey think this is a useful suggestion, most judges are also lawyers.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Miller

I don’t think it would actually be possible for civil unions to be completely legally equal to marriage. As I understand our legal system, it relies very heavily on precedent. I’m not convinced that civil unions would enjoy all the protections established for marriage by centuries of precedent. Civil unions would always be more vulnerable than marriage because of this reason. Additionally, I do not think that this scenario is remotely likely. The vast majority (if not the totality) of opposition to gay marriage is rooted in simple bigotry against gays. They don’t want to let us marry because they don’t want us to have all the rights and protections straight people have. Civil unions are a compromise in more than just name: they’re a middle ground between people who want us to have all the rights, and people who want us to have none of the rights. If we were actually able to move the country into a position where the majority of the country wanted us to have all the rights, we would be in a position to simply legalize gay marriage, and there would be no need of a middle ground.

However, running with your hypothetical, no, I would not be satisfied with anything short of marriage. Civil unions would be an acceptable stop gap, but they will never be an adequate replacement for marriage, no matter how many rights are appended. I addressed this point in one of the concurrent threads on this subject, and rather than crossposting it, I’ll simply link to it here.

The fact that the law calls your union a marriage instaead of a civil union is not going to make people blind to the fact that you are a homosexual couple.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Patty O'Furniture

Agreed, DINK households cause property values to rise and all sorts of trendy boutiques and coffee bars will spring up like weeds

Are you a member of a “traditional” family? If so, I eagerly await a detailed explanation as to how your family has been materially harmed by this ruling.

Now his son is going to think that being gay is exactly the same as being straight so he will consider his option and may elect gayness. Heck, maybe he will forget that he is straight or worse yet, his wife will forget that she is straight. Then there is the problem of people marrying cats and dogs to give them some legal rights too. And giving legal rights to pets would tear his family apart.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@hawksgirl

I think we can safely say that “seperate but equal” is never truly equal. That’s why some people will say that no, its not good enough.

You need to read Brown v. Board to see what they had to say on the matter. Among other things, seled to de facto differences in facilities, funding, staff, etc. Separation was based on a constitutionally disallowed basis (race). Unless you can show some difference between the rights afforded married couples versus coupled joined by civil union, I don’t see how you can calim discrimination. Add to that the fact that homosexuals are not a protected class under the constitution and your analogy is inappropriate.

[the_PC_apeman]

@col_10022

You need to read Brown v. Board to see what they had to say on the matter. Among other things, seled to de facto differences in facilities, funding, staff, etc. Separation was based on a constitutionally disallowed basis (race). Unless you can show some difference between the rights afforded married couples versus coupled joined by civil union, I don’t see how you can calim discrimination. Add to that the fact that homosexuals are not a protected class under the constitution and your analogy is inappropriate.

Was race always a protected class under the Constitution?

[Miller]

@col_10022

The fact that the law calls your union a marriage instaead of a civil union is not going to make people blind to the fact that you are a homosexual couple.

:dubious: I don’t believe I suggest otherwise, and I’m not sure why you think that comment was relavent to my post.

Now his son is going to think that being gay is exactly the same as being straight so he will consider his option and may elect gayness. Heck, maybe he will forget that he is straight or worse yet, his wife will forget that she is straight. Then there is the problem of people marrying cats and dogs to give them some legal rights too. And giving legal rights to pets would tear his family apart.

That was a joke, right?

[vivalostwages]

@Miller

:dubious: I don’t believe I suggest otherwise, and I’m not sure why you think that comment was relavent to my post.

That was a joke, right?

It has to be, because I can’t stop laughing while reading it.

[hawksgirl]

@col_10022

You need to read Brown v. Board to see what they had to say on the matter. Among other things, seled to de facto differences in facilities, funding, staff, etc. Separation was based on a constitutionally disallowed basis (race). Unless you can show some difference between the rights afforded married couples versus coupled joined by civil union, I don’t see how you can calim discrimination. Add to that the fact that homosexuals are not a protected class under the constitution and your analogy is inappropriate.

I wasn’t really attempting to bring Brown v. Board into this. However, differences in rights, tax status, power of attorney, etc seem like they would make it a decent analogy. There is no way a civil union will be legally identical to marriage unless it is marriage. I wasn’t trying to make this a Brown v Board-style issue, just using the language because it fits.

[Miller]

@vivalostwages

It has to be, because I can’t stop laughing while reading it.

Thing is, it’s one of those situations where the reality is so incredibly stupid it’s almost impossible to parody. I’m pretty sure col was kidding, but I’ve heard too many people make exactly those arguments in dead seriousness to be sure.

[susan]

I’m sorry that this thread was moved to GD, because the “debate” content isn’t why the OP posted. If anything, it seems to me that the OP was sad about being the object in this sort of debate. I’m sorry that** pharmboy’s** post served to take this thread in a direction pretty much guaranteed to increase the OP’s distress rather than provide companionable support.