At the risk of being accused of being an in-your-face gay activist for bumping up all these homo threads…
I was thinking about this thread last night while discussing this with some friends, and Otto, I have to say I think you did a good thing by starting this thread. Although I shouldn’t have been surprised, it heartens me to see that no one could come up with even one viable “special right” that the anti-gay crowd keeps crowing on about.
I just wish more people would read this board. 
Esprix
Still seeking input on this topic…
How about a law barring discrimination in housing because of sexual orientation? In other words, Landlord X could not refuse to rent an apartment to a gay couple?
Or a ban on discrimination in employment, to protect gay people from being fired by bosses who find their “lifestyle” immoral?
Or, stepping into a slightly different area of the law (I think), what about a law requiring companies to offer gay couples the same benefits as married couples? If the Smith Widget Co. has a health plan that includes spouses, it would have to include gay partners as well.
CalifBoomer, if you oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation, then it seems you should support these concepts. They simply require the same treatment of gay people as of “straight” people.
Up, up and away!
Clark K:
California already has such laws.
Esprix:
Clark K said:
Seems to me, this would constitute a ‘special right’, unless it would also include single people’s ability to choose a friend to receive these benefits.
Calif:
If California already has such laws, do you agree with them? If so, what laws guaranteeing certain rights to homosexuals would you oppose? Is marriage the only example?
If you oppose those laws, why? Is it because they are “special” rights? Or do you see them as guaranteeing the same rights enjoyed by others but you simply feel gay people do not deserve those rights?
I’m trying to be as non-confrontational as possible here. I really do want to understand your point of view on the issue.
Up, up and away!
There is a quantifiable difference between a “friend” and a partner in a long-term committed relationship. However, were the “friend” single and of the opposite sex, the employee could marry that person to allow him or her access to the benefits.
Clark K:
I really don’t understand why you are so interested in what I think. Yes, I do agree with them. It is flat wrong to discriminate against homosexuals in housing or employment simply on the basis of their ‘sexual orientation.’
Before I moved here to Orange County, I was a residential property manager in a very tight rental market. I had a dozen qualified applicants for every vacancy. My tenant screening process took in account only three criteria: Income, credit rating and rental references. Sometimes the best applicant(s)were black, sometimes same sex couples. Whoever came in best based on those criteria
got the available house or apartment-even over the objections of the owners for whom I was an agent. This is consistent not only with the law, but with my personal ethical structure.
Opposing special rights is not the same as being in favor of discrimination. Marriage is within the realm of not only the heterosexual world, but the ‘church’ world, if you will. It is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman-historically, for the protection of women and children. My view is that homosexuality is a deviancy, and should not be legitimized more than it already has. To me there is a ‘slippery slope’ here. An analogy would be a straight married man getting into pornography. It is not innocent and cannot have beneficial consequences for anyone.
::
Otto:
What constitutes ‘long term committed’?
And, because there will be no children emerging from this union, the case for ‘marriage’ is even weaker.
What benefits would inure to same sex couples through ‘marriage’ that could not otherwise be obtained through legal arrangements, ie., joint checking/savings accounts, joint ownership of property, etc., with named beneficiaries?
:
Your view is inconsistent. If homosexuality is to be discouraged, then any law offering succor to homosexuals should be met with equal contempt by you. If homosexuality is deviancy, then laws which prevent employers from removing deviants from their workplace legitimize it. Laws preventing landlords from preventing deviants from living next door to non-deviants legitimize it. Laws which allow deviant partners to register their relationship to access a handful of benefits is a legitimation of their deviancy. Where exactly is the bright line?
And where precisely is the slippery slope? Are you saying that if SSM is legalized, then other “deviant” marriages will also be? What ones, and upon what are you basing this?
What if the str8 married man is “getting into pornography” (by which I assume you mean begins consuming pornography) because his marriage is getting stale and he and his wife are looking for ways to spice it up? What if, by viewing pornography, the man becomes a better sex partner, thus satisfying his wife and staving off a divorce? Is that not a beneficial consequence?
Str8 married couples are granted access to “marital benefits” from the day they marry with no need to prove the long-term commitment any further. Were the same avenue open to same-sex couples, there wouldn’t be any question here. If the partners declare themselves to be in a long-erm commited relationship, then they are absent a declaration to the contrary.
How so? Mixed-sex marriage does not hinge on the existence of children or the potential for children. Sterile people can marry. Old people can marry. Celibate people can marry. Couples with no intention of reproducing can marry. The USSC has declared that the possibility of children is not a factor in the legitimacy of a marriage. The various state courts which have ruled in favor of SSM concur.
Quoting from that site, which provides a link to the full report:
Taking too much time to compose a post can have drawbacks (like being late out of the gate), but I’m putting this one up anyway:
The right to have consideration as being “next of kin,” comes to mind.
The right to be considered a survivor of the deceased in a case where no valid will could be found is another (what exactly does the word inure mean in this context, anyway?).
I’m glad you made the following statement:
Well, “glad” may be a bit strong, since the sentence borders on the incoherent, but at least it gives me a sort of excuse to weigh in with the following: A rather amusing letter to the editor appeared in the L.A.Times last week, following the passage of the Knight Initiative. Boiled down to its essence, it addressed the opponents of Proposition 22 with words of comfort, pointing out that same-sex couples shouldn’t take the result personally; the voters who passed it were mostly concerned with protecting a religious institution; the vast majority of voters have no problem with gays and lesbians, they just want them to keep their hands off a sacred institution. (CalifBoomer, may I take the liberty of assuming that this is the point of view you were trying to articulate? If so, thank you; if not please consider the following to be not addressed to you) Only my native indolence prevented me from dashing off a reply to the Letters page. Such a reply would have gone something like this: Proponents of same-sex unions have never expressed any desire for legislation that would compel any religious organization to perform a religious ceremony, the nature of which ran contrary to that organization’s beliefs. Heck, if a married Lutheran couple decides to convert to Catholicism, the Catholic Church has every right to refuse to recognize the couple’s marriage as valid until their union has been consecrated in a Catholic ceremony. As I understand it, the Catholic Church already refuses to recognize the validity of a civil ceremony not officiated by an ordained priest (please understand, my information may be out of date). But as long as civic governments engage in the practice of sanctioning any such union, and that union carries the same name as the religious sacrament, that is the name of the institution that people will use when they are petitioning the government to sanction their own unions.
As to
That, of course, can only be answered subjectively by the participants in the relationship,until such time as civic governments objectively define it, presumably for the purpose of conferring the benefits of official sanction and recognition on them.
Read the “Domestic Partnership” thread - the legislation they’re passing in Vermont also includes extending benefits to people who can’t marry, i.e., blood relatives living in the same house, as well as same-sex couples. Opposite-sex couples have always had the option to marry.
Esprix
Oh, and you were doing so well… 
So, after all this discussion, I’m still waiting for a viable list of “special rights.” Since we can achieve legal equality without stepping on religious toes (i.e., have civil unions without requiring the church establishment to recognize it as equal), does this mean we’re “legitimized?”
And what’s wrong with a straight married man liking pornography?
Esprix
I hope someday someone questions your love for someone and you know what it feels like.
Here we go again… So heterosexuals who are unable to procreate shouldn’t be allowed to get married?
Well, the state of Vermont lists 400 references to 300 rights and responsibilities, and the federal government listed 1,049. You want to list them all, then hire a bunch of lawyers to get all the paperwork drawn up for you? Imagine the time and cost, when all heterosexuals have to do is pay $50 for a license.
Esprix
What surprises me about this thread is that it hasn’t yet been emphasized that anti-discrimination-on-sexual-orientation laws can protect heterosexuals as well. CalifBoomer, what if the landlords of the apartment I want to rent don’t share your admirably egalitarian principles about tenant qualifications, and they happen to be (unusually squeamish) gay men who think heterosexual sex is unbearably icky? They just can’t stand the thought of what I as a straight female might be inducing some sweet guy to do, right there on their property. (Plus, what if I got pregnant and within a few months nobody could look at me without being reminded of my disgusting lifestyle?) “No way,” they say, “we’re not going to rent to someone like that, no matter how responsible and financially solvent she is.” Does that strike us all as grossly unfair? Doubtless. In the absence of anti-discrimination laws, do I have any legal recourse? No.
And how about if I apply for a job at a firm run by (unusually bigoted) lesbians, who view any straight relationship as a woman’s cowardly subjection to a man, and have nothing but contempt for any woman who’d put up with that? (They don’t discriminate against men, let’s say, they just think any woman who’d have a relationship with a man is too subservient and spineless to be a worthwhile employee.) They don’t hire me, simply because I’m straight. Again, that’s unfair, but if the law permits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it’s not illegal.
You see the point? I need anti-discrimination laws to protect my basic right to be treated fairly in employment and housing. It’s all very well to say “well, people shouldn’t discriminate in such matters on the grounds of sexual orientation, and personally I never do,” but many people will often discriminate if it’s not actually illegal to do so, and we need laws to prevent that. Admittedly, discrimination against straights as in the scenarios I presented is much rarer than discrimination against gays; but the parallel is in principle perfectly valid (and I’m sure such cases do sometimes occur). The protections offered by anti-discrimination legislation do indeed apply to us all; this is not a “special right.”
Kimstu
(who has actually talked herself into feeling a tiny bit defensive about her lifestyle! gosh, if I were the victim of real bigotry I’d be a crumpled wreck.)
And let’s not forget protection against people who are perceived to be gay. Who’s to say someone won’t think CalifBoomer and his roommate {wink wink} aren’t lovers trying very hard to conceal the fact and not rent to them anyway?
I should point out that CalifBoomer has said before that he is in support of legislation that would prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians; it is same-sex marriages he is against.
Hmmm, I’ll ask him what I asked Flinx - are you against the proposed civil unions in Vermont, as they are not “marriages?”
Esprix
Ok, guys…
I really, really don’t want to get caught up in another downward-spirally vortex of rhetoric culminating in the verbal equivalent of ‘mine is bigger than yours’.
Really.
For what’s it’s worth, awhile back in some related thread, I said that I am prepared to do a quasi ‘flip-flop’. This was after reading AND considering your point of view, through your posts and links. I really had not thought about the discrimination issue thoroughly, moreover, I reacted to Esprix’s first post in The Pit re: homophobia. Of course, once I had done that, I’d locked myself in. :0
During the ensuing dialogue, I discovered that Esprix-in addition to being very tenacious- is articulate, even and patient. He lays out his case in a logical, methodical fashion that is hard to refute. His statements are (almost) always factual.
Otto (Esprix’ alter ego?) is less so; more abrasive and confrontational, although admittedly more patient than me were the roles reversed.
It is pointless to discuss the pros and cons of homosexuality vs. heterosexuality. We know where each other stands on that issue and no one is going to change anyone else’s mind. The real issue here is discrimination. I have a real problem with mindless discrimination-in any form. No one should be denied housing or employment or any other benefit available to his/her fellow citizens *solely on the basis of his/her race, religion, national origin, physical handicap, marital status or sexual orientation. Not here and not now. It is just flat out wrong. If laws need to be passed in other states, or even at the federal level for that matter, to put an end to this ignorant practice, more’s the power. It is high time that this country -as a country rather than disordinate factions came into the now. The anti-discrimination laws here in California work. But they are anti discrimination as opposed to pro something (controversial). The short answer is no, I am not opposed to civil unions for the purpose of relieving discrimination. A private legal contract between two same sex individuals that would provide them with the same security were they in a ‘mixed-sex’ marriage does not, in my opinion, legitimize homosexuality, nor does it threaten traditional marriage.
::
And the heavenly choir sings “Hallelujah” and Esprix and I split a toaster oven. <eg>
But mine is bigger… oh, never mind! 
Yeah, well, we all need to learn how to separate being a bastard in the Pit and being a human being in GD, me included. But you proved, at least to me, on one occassion that you hadn’t “locked yourself in” when you posted that “flip-flop” post (although you did backslide).
{urk} Wow. Thank you, Boomer.
{Ahem} I’m not Otto - please stop this, or I’m going back to calling you Marvinboomerdiamondorion. Although Otto and I may play on the same team, I do not always agree with how he handles things, and I’m sure he doesn’t always agree with me.
Wow. Common ground. Mutual understanding. Compromise.
See? You’re not “locked in” - you can break the mold. Keep posting in a rational manner and people will eventually stop calling you a troll, something I know irks you.
I’m impressed.
Esprix
Hey Booker, I’ve been meaning to ask, did you ever hear back from that right-wing group about their bogus “gay agenda” citation?