Um, you forgot Hitler. Sure, he’s already dead, but as long as you’re gonna wax hyperbolic, you might as well throw in the obligatory Nazi reference.
An easy oversight to make.
Captain Amazing, one of the dictionaries compiled through www.dictionary.com tracked ‘marriage’ back further to a word meaning ‘husband’, which tracks back to a word just meaning ‘man’.
I tried to go back through the OED for confirmation on this, but at the moment I’m too brain-fuzzy to pull etymological information out of it through links. (My access to the OED online is a little circuitous at best.)
Well, his posts do nothing for your cause, and the opponents read his crap and get PO’d, which can be transfered over to other members of his cause unjustly. So in that definition he does hurt your cause in my opinion.
You continue to miss the point; he hated us because of who we are, and we hate him because of what he did. He merited contempt for his hateful actions. You continue to act as if Strom never hurt anyone.
The day I pass a law to deprive old, ignorant white men of their rights to marry or to be employed, then you can say I’m as bad as he was. Until then, you’re talking nonsense.
Why is it hyperbolic, Archiveguy? Tars Tarkas has explicitly laid down the principle that one must never be glad of anyone’s death, no matter how vile. Granted, I provided some extreme examples, but the principle is still the same–if I cannot smile at Strom’s passing, then nobody who has criticized me had better say one word against bin Laden, Hussein, or Hitler for that matter.
Hitler may have sent some gay people to their deaths in Auchwitz, Treblinka, and Dachau, but I’m sure they were just the rude ones who had it coming. Right, Tars?
People who think that sloppily are not likely to be our friends, no matter how sweetly we post.
Hmmm…
Righteous indignation over a lifetime of discriminatory politics
vs.
Respect for the dead
Priorities, priorities…
Esprix
Have you stopped beating your unable to marry husband?
Hey, you’re the one who implied that human rights are predicated on one’s politeness.
Wow. I think I’ll just patiently wait while those who jumped all over me for besmirching all straight men when one does something stupid jump all over you for doing the same thing to us gay guys. (Frankly, I understand what you’re saying, but forgive me for being a little self-serving for a moment.)
Esprix
I notice that this week’s Onion has the sidebar headline, “Strom Thurmond Finally, Finally Dies.” I trust that Tars Tarkas, Scylla and company will write them a stern letter of rebuke for not writing a serious, moving tribute to the late hero of the republic.
No, no, gobear - that’s parody. They don’t really mean it like we do.
Esprix
Hillary Clinton on WNYC 6/18/2003 w/Brian Lehrer:
*many…not all, mind you
(Claiming he was taken out of context) Reuters quoted (and never retracted) John Kerry in 1998as saying
When pointing out he was misquoted and was commenting on child care legislation, Sen. Kerry issued a clarification stating “I deeply regret any misunderstanding which might arise from this misquote. I have not and will not change my position that gay people in this country deserve all the rights that are afforded to every American. I hope that all supporters of gay civil rights judge me by my votes and deeds and not spurious comments attributed to me.”
Well I don’t think anyone’s ever doubted that there are morons on any side of the political fence. I’m not always thrilled about being in the same party as Hillary, but she’s a damn sight better than a lot of other politicians out there, at least for my purposes.
Esprix
Because we’re dealing with what amounts to civic recognition of a religious institution (or at least, it is perceived as such). Seeing as so many religions take a dim view of homosexuality, I can understand how some would bristle at terming gay unions “marriage.” It seems to me that using a different term while extending the same civic benefits makes the fewest number of people unhappy: gays get the equal treatment they so richly deserve while religious conservatives can plausibly claim the state isn’t making a moral equivelancy between the homosexual and heterosexual unions. It’s a good compromise where everyone basically wins.
gobear: There’s a difference between gallows humor and glee at someone’s death. I don’t read that Onion sidebar as “boy I’m glad Thurmon died,” but rather “geez, I can’t believe he lived so friggin’ long.” YMMV. You’ll note I didn’t criticize Eve for similar gallows humor regarding Katharine Hepburn’s death.
You knew someone would do this
So, you’re suggesting separate but equal?
Esprix
Of course, a rather simple solution would be to legally redefine it as a “Civil Union” for EVERYONE - gay and straight. Why does the government even need to use the term “marriage”?
I think RickJay has the right idea. Government can’t get completely out of the “marriage” business, per se, given all the rules and regulations about property, power of attorney, child care, and everything else. However, government can say, “Look, we’re going to manage all of this under one heading, ‘Legal Joining.’ If you want your church to label that a marriage, that’s fine. We don’t care. From now on, though, it’s going to say ‘Legally Joined’ on your tax form.”
An entirely sensible solution, elegant, rational, simple.
Hence, doomed.
Spare me. I’m not saying gays should head to the back of the bus (or marriage license bureau, or whatever). It’s a friggin’ label for cryin’ out loud. Who cares what it’s called so long as you and your S.O. get all the benefits you’ve been yearning after?
It’s comments like this that make me think you’re less interested in improving the way society treats gay people and more interested in sticking it to social conservatives.
I mean, really: if you could tangibly improve the lives of thousands of your gay brethren with a fairly benign compromise, you’d throw it all away over a goddamned name?
RickJay’s idea solves the problem, but is most likely politically impossible.