My concern is what Senator Clinton and others do. As for her personal feeling about the historical meaning or significance of marriage… it is secondary to what she, and others can get done. I think that it would be expedient to go about this in steps. First, get the civil unions recognized so that all the benefits married couples enjoy, can be equally appreciated by gay couples. I guess the reality of politics require responses on these issues to be vague. At this point, it is worth putting up with, imo.
I’m a trifle confused here. Where, exactly, did Toaster say that he wanted to restrict the legal rights of anyone? As near as I can tell, all he’s done is say that he objects to application of the term ‘marraige’ to same-sex unions. Oh, right, and that he has an irrational dislike of homosexuals; his personal tastes and feelings are hardly any of our business, when it comes down to it. Still, he’s shared it with us, so I suppose you should feel free to comment.
Anyhow, it’s hardly fair to accuse him of “imposing” anything. In fact, he’s explicitly stated his support for equal rites several times:
Toaster’s response:
Again, where does he suggest that he wants to anything but adhere to an archaic usage?
Er, rights, rather. Pratchett’s done me a good one this time.
Nah, as an amateur liturgiologist, I think they’re entitled to equal rites – the wedding of their choice!
I wish to take a moment to distance myself from Polycarp’s anti-semanticism.
Disgraceful, sir! Even had I thought of it first, I should never have said it.
Firx, thanks for your comments. I didn’t think I was advocating restricting the rights of anybody, but as Otto said, by not letting homosexuals use the designation of marriage, but rather giving them a different designation (which would still carry the same legal rights and responsibilities), this would be restricting their rights. I don’t agree, but there you go…Kimstu, that sounds like a working interem arrangement (at least to me).
elucidator, you have me confused. Perhaps I’m being dumb, but I guess I don’t see the anti-semitism there?
Look a little closer at elucidator’s post.
It’s “anti-semanticism,” not “anti-semitism.”
As to whether the CLintons are homophobes, that would depend on why they believe the word “marriage” should be off-limits. If it’s because they get all squeamish at the idea of two same-sex people having sex or considering themselves “married” then yes, they are homophobes.
As to whether the CLintons are homophobes, that would depend on why they believe the word “marriage” should be off-limits. If it’s because they get all squeamish at the idea of two same-sex people having sex or considering themselves “married” then yes, they are homophobes.
In Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that marriage was a fundamental right. (And Virginia defended its miscegenation statute on religious grounds.) (Cite: http://www.lmaw.org/loving_v_vir.htm )
When I went to get married, I wanted to get married, not civilly unionized or declared to be a feral partner. I wanted to be recognised by my community within an institution with gravitas, with established social etiquette, and with personal meaning. A “civil union” does not, at this point, have such weight, and it is my strong suspicion that if such were to be established, the fact that it does not have that weight will be used by many as an excuse for not treating the partners in a civil union with the respect that they would automatically grant to a husband and wife.
If I can partake of this institution, this “vital personal right”, as the SCOTUS put it, why should gobear not be able to do so? Or Otto? Why should they only qualify for a legalistic clone, one without the weight and meaning that I could get with perfect ease and no trouble?
anti-semanticism…snicker
:smack:
Get rid of the word “marriage”, and hand out “shackin’ contracts” for everybody. There, problem solved.
I’m not sure why the litmus test is “squeamishness”.
According to the cited interview, Senator Clinton doesn’t think that gay unions fit the historical definition of marriage (although she would grant some of the rights to civil unions, it appears). I don’t suppose that she would admit in public to “squeamishness” when it comes to gay unions.
I’m not clear on Predident Clinton’s thinking behind behind signing the DOMA…but at the very least, it doesn’t seem like he’s very supportive of granting gay unions “marriage status”.
It doesn’t seem like Bill or Hillary would consider any kind of same sex union to be “legitimate” enough in a cultural/historical sense to be called a marriage. It seems like that qualifies as homophobia under the previously stated posts.
FTR…although I’m focusing on the Clintons in this post…I don’t mean to suggest that they’re aren’t plenty of other politicians in both parties with similar viewpoints…a willingness to grant similar rights to same sex unions, but an unwillingness to consider them as marriages in a cultural/historical context.
Lilarien, all that you say about the relative cultural weight of “legal unions” vs. “marraiges” may well be true. For what it’s worth, I agree that if you can get married, gobear and Otto should also be able to do so - and have not just the legal equivalent, but a social equivalent (in other words, the same thing, title and all). But I’m not sure whether you’re suggesting that Toaster holds a different view. Do you think that he wants to give same-sex pairs the legal rights of marraige but then play some nebulous word game to try and deny them the “gravitas, … established social etiquette, and … personal meaning” everyone else gets? Why should he bother, since they’d have the same rights as everyone else and most people wouldn’t see a difference?
I suppose I don’t see what his personal respect has to do with the issue. So what if he’s squamish about gays? As long as he does nothing to harm them and nothing to hinder their rights, what does it matter what he personally thinks? Isn’t the definition of tolerance enduring beliefs and practices different from your own? He doesn’t necessarily have to approve.
…and voting for Hilary for President…
Firx wrote:
His expressed position is that he is willing to hinder their access to the right of marriage, though. Had he the power to grant access to that right, he would not do so, solely on the basis of the judgement exhibited by his appendix.
I do not think that it matters that he, personally, might not choose to play semantics games. I think it matters that I have witnessed those semantics games being played, and I find them abominable.
No, I don’t see that as his position. Or rather, he’s only expressed a willingness to hinder their access to the rites (ha ha!) of marraige, not the rights of marraige. And not even really that - he’s only specifically mentioned barring gays the term ‘marraige’.
So again, it hinges on whether you think he’s opposed to granting same-sex couples access to the cultural institution, whatever that may be, of marraige (while still granting them the legal rights and responsibilities of marraige). Specifically, is that what you think he’s saying? And to be fair, Toaster, is that what you’re saying?
Perhaps the instances you mention having witnessed will shed some light on the subject. Not to pry, but what is it you saw?
Well, there are the cases that various Dopers have mentioned of people having civil unions formed in Vermont who aren’t able to divorce in other states, just for a broad cite.
There’s the bit of legislation I encountered where I live (and attended a hearing about) that would have legally prevented people from extending benefits to domestic partners commensurate with those that are granted almost automatically to spouses.
For more of the interpersonal stuff . . . I’m not sure how to express what I’ve seen. Consider the difference in weight and connotation on, say, ‘boyfriend’ and ‘husband’. The sort of relationship that you would presume would go with each of those, the minimum requirement for consideration of the existence of that relationship that is socially expected so that one isn’t taken as a jerk. I don’t know how to get the words expressive here, but I hope I’m getting my gist across at least.
I’ve encountered people who have expressed themselves in such a way that I came away with the conclusion that they consider “domestic partner” to be a jumped-up, uppity fancy-shmantzy way of saying “boyfriend”. Not only does it not have the weight and meaningfulness of “husband” (and carry the bonds of the etiquette rules governing interactions with spouses), but it is a focus of contempt at presumptuousness – that someone in That Sort of relationship would presume to pretend that their relationship was as worthy as a real marriage.
In regards to the social aspects of marriage…"to be recognised by my community within an institution with gravitas, with established social etiquette… ", I have this thought, FWIW:
The institution of marriage has “established social status” because the partners in marriage over the centuries have EARNED that status. That is, they have demonstrated the traits of a good marriage (ie, standing by ones partner, etc) (And please; I know that there are many gay couples that have been together for years and will be so until death do they part. I’m not disputing that.)
The push for gay couples to be a part of that institution is new enough that perhaps many people don’t believe that they are somehow “worthy” of that designation? That gay couples have to “earn” that status, that they are trying to attain something that they aren’t entitle to yet?
Dunno.
So maybe something as Kimstu proposed would work as an interim solution?
Firx…am I opposed to granting gay couples access to that institution? Right now, I guess I would have to say yes. I’m not too proud about making that confession, but there you are. Maybe in the secret recesses of my heart, I’m scared of someone saying (in essence), “Oh, you’re married? Like all those gay couples?”
Like I say, I’m not too proud about knowing that.
AHEM Larry King … Liz Taylor … Donald Trump … My grandmother (3 times divorced) … Pamela Anderson AHEM