I guess now Marc and I have to figure out which of us has been insulted…
I thought it was kind of funny.
Marc
I’d have e-mailed this to you but couldn’t, so I’ll ask here.
Seven sexes? The only way I’m coming up with more than two is by pairing gender with gender-orientation, and even then I only get six:
[ul] [li]male-het []male-gay []male-bi []female-het []female-gay female-bi [/ul][/li]Am I on the right track? And if so, what did I miss?
[I now return you to your irregularly scheduled Pit Thread.]
Well, I don’t quite see the equation between the hiring practices of the Salvation Army and this amendment.
But let’s all remember that the answer is not to have the government sanction homosexual/incestual/polyamorous/etc. marriages but to get the government out of the job of sanctioning marriage at all.
A marriage is between two people and whomever they choose to involve. If they want to involve a church, great. If they want to involve a water buffalo, great. If the church refuses because they don’t approve, bummer. If the water buffalo is afraid of flash photography, bummer.
If the two (or more) people involved want to attach contractual obligations to their union, that is why god invented lawyers. Create and sign a contract.
The only role the government should have is in ensuring the safety and well-being of any children and that is an issue independent of marriage.
You forgot asexual.
Esprix
**
The government has no care about your wedding ceremony or your religious affiliation. You can get married in a religious ceremony or you can be married in a civil ceremony. Right now homosexuals could get married in a church if that church chooses to do so. Unfortunatly it isn’t a legal and will not confer the benefits of said union.
**
If it is so easy why don’t gay people just hire lawyers to draw up contracts? How is hiring a lawyer to make a contract less invasive then marriage? They still have to register the contract with someone don’t they?
What happens if one person whishes to opt out of the contract? Oh yeah, they take it to a court of law where the government is in fact involved.
Marc
How do you figure my saying that we’re outnumbered by the pigfuckers means I want to flee the country? You’ll please note that I referred to human history in my post, not U.S. history. Go where you will, you’ll most likely be outnumbered by pigfuckers. Not plebes, not commoners, not peasants, not fucking proles. Pigfuckers. Bastards. Short-sighted, shit-throwing monkeys who have been trained since the day they could understand language to identify social anomaly and attack it, and who are only too happy to do so. That last clause is the one we should focus on, because where you apparently see classism or elitism or some shit like that, what’s actually being expressed is more like disappointment. People choose to be bastards. More often than not, if all accounts are to be believed.
D’oh!! smacks forehead with heel of hand Ouch!
This reminds me of one of my big pet peeves: the “Straight But Not Narrow” bumper sticker. The implication of that statement, in my mind, is this: “Yes, I support gay rights. What? No no no, I’m not gay myself. No, not at all. Yeah, I support the cause, but that doesn’t mean I’m gay at all, huh-uh, au contraire, nope, not me.” Hypocritical bullshit, IMHO. Except that I dislike bumper stickers in general and won’t put one on my vehicle, I’d much rather have a statement that says, “Equal rights for gays NOW,” and any yutzes who draw conclusions from it beyond the stated fact that I support gay rights, who gives a shit what they think?
Shall I email you my street address so I can be assured of receiving an invitation? I can’t guarantee where I’ll be in ten years, but I’d be honored to receive an invite.
I think it’s to say that not all straights are homophobic bigots. And to say, “I’m comfortable enough to say I can support homosexual rights”…I don’t feel “threatened by them”, or what have you.
I agree with Guinastasia. The bumper sticker could be saying, “There are straight people who support gay rights. I’m one of them, and you can be one too. It’s OK.” I don’t think it’s much different than saying, “Even though I’m white, I support equal rights for black people.” or “Even though I’m a man, I support equal rights for women.” They main difference is that in those cases you wouldn’t need to state those dependent clauses explicitly, because skin color and gender can be noticed just by looking at a person, whereas sexual orientation cannot. I think there is definitely value in saying, “Although I am not a member of [name of minority group], I support equal rights for the members of that group. [Name of minority group] aren’t alone in caring about this issue.”
This reminds me of something I posted in Eve’s Well, Thank Goodness There Are No ATHEISTS in Kansas! thread. I made a similar point there, and I think I was more coherent in that thread than I am right now.
Despite the fact that I almost fainted when I realized that Cervaise liked one of my points (kinda like having Clapton say “Nice riff”), I really don’t have much of a problem with the “Straight but not narrow” bumper sticker. At least it’s something. If I was getting picky, I might nitpick, but in a prolonged battle you’re grateful for all the allies you have. Maybe in a few years, once victory seems more certain, they might come to realize that being taken for being gay isn’t the end of the world. But in today’s reality, where being gay can cost you your job, your housing, and/or your life, it really might be the end of the world. I can understand the urge to cover your ass. So to speak.
But mostly what I see the bumper sticker proclaiming is that straight people can support gay rights, which I am, of course, 100% behind. My thanks to anybody who sports such a bumper sticker. It means a lot to me when I see them on the streets. These are the people who will help us win the battle against bigotry, and I am grateful.
The government may not care where you get married but unless you get their piece of paper they say it doesn’t count for much. The problem with that piece of paper is twofold. One, it puts the government into the position of deciding who gets the paper; this is bad, even if the uses the broadest possible definitions because definitions can always be narrowed. Two, it becomes a crutch for private institutions; the existence of a marriage license has made it much easier for intensive care wards in hospitals to establish visitation policies. Get rid of the crutch.
I would imagine many gay people do, in fact, do something like this. However, as I mentioned before, the existence of a marriage license is used as a crutch. For example, a recent dog-mauling case has pointed out that homosexual partners can not bring wrongful death lawsuits. Perhaps this could just be a clause in the contract, defining your non-child “dependents”.
If an insurance company didn’t have the marriage license to rely on for defining union, they would have to come up with other means, means that would likely be open to any currently “non-traditional” union.
Yes, but the governments decisions would be adjudicated based upon the definition of union established by the interested parties. The current situation is reversed. The government has defined the meanings and responsibilities of marriage and only by entering into a legal contract (a pre-nuptual agreement) can those definitions be changed.
My biggest complaint about marriage licenses is not that they limit access to the government (though they do) but that they are used in the private sector in ways that are not appropriate.
Strangely enough, I am aware of who Bill Clinton is, and that he signed the act. Thanks for taking that opportunity to be helpful, though.
Additionally, quite a few states have passed local DOMAs. California was one of them - and it passed by direct initiative. This tells me there is a frightenly large amount of support for these laws. Enough that I don’t share your optimism about the future of this amendment.
While we have similar problems around here, we are slowly working our way around the issue by forgetting about ‘marriage’ and enacting laws that cover all de-facto relationships regardless of who is involved.
Oh and here has an entry for 2001-MAY-31 that is just a hoot.