Yes, but women have been keeping their names for years now.
Heh, they still are in some circles. I have gotten shit for my wife going out and working and my staying home with the baby.
Nope. A law that says that nobody can do something you yourself won’t do anyway is an infringement on the rights of others, not on your own. Even if it were equally infringing on both, it’s not sufficient to support an “honest error” defense – that requires the hypothetical non-bigoted opponent of other people’s rights to be equally prone to illogically support oppressions targeted exclusively at their own group.
Well, do you agree that marriage has been traditionally defined as a union between a man and a woman? If so, then you must agree that SSM does not equal marriage. (I guess if one were to be hyper-technical, SSM really isn’t marriage as it has those extra words attached to it, but I digress…)
Look at the difficulty to changing the meaning of the word marriage to include SS couples. If we’re going to go through a difficult process anyway, we might as well change it for all state recognized unions. It’s fair, then, right? Civil union makes more sense, anyway, particularly in context of those states where common law marriages are recognized. Imo, that’s (common law) even further from a marriage than SSM is.
Besides, people are already claiming separate but equal is dead in the water anyway. Though, I don’t know why. If the law is identical regarding both types of union, then there should be no problem. It’s not like people are going to be using two types of government services (e.g. one for “married couples only,” one for “civil unions only.”) Calling all state-sanctioned unions as civil unions defeats that claim. The word marriage retains its original meaning. Like I said before, I firmly believe that ideas and concepts are better shared when people have a common language, and just between people, but between generations.
I think you need to take a course in logic, or re-read what I wrote, or both.
I want marriage defined as civil unions, to denote that they are registered/sanctioned/etc. by government, for all people. I would also like to outlaw common law marriage. I also did not agree with DOMA, because I believe the nation works better with the full faith and credit clause. I also believe that passing such a bullshit act is an end around to the Constitution, and an overreaching of government powers.
So, let’s recap: I don’t mind SSM. I wouldn’t campaign for or against it. I don’t want to see marriage changed, but if the people feel so strongly about SSM, then it should all be called civil unions and give marriage back to the religions. I also believe separate but equal terms for marriage is ok, but I recognize that separate but equal drinking fountains were not historically equal, and not to mention an inefficient use of resources (seriously, why have two drinking fountains?). However, since there is no apparatus or seating arrangement purposely used for couples, in general, whether married, civilly unionized, or SS, then I don’t see the problem with the separate term. But, if people are going to make historically (though, imo inaccurate) analogies to institutional racism, then let’s make it all equal and let’s all call it civil unions (oh, wait, I said that already). Lastly, I’m pro full faith and credit, and I’m anti-DOMA, and anti-common law marriage. Again, if this makes me a bigot, then that word has lost all meaning. – Which is really why I was in the thread in the first place.
The change is actually really really easy, unless you’ve got people around you who are deliberately making it difficult.
Why? Tradition isn’t nearly as powerful a force as that. Transportation traditionally was a horse and cart; does that mean we shouldn’t have incorporated the automobile into what we considered viable transportation?
There is no difficulty. Not legally, anyway. All it takes is a single extra law that says “Marriage shall be defined as between two consenting adults.” Most legal forms and the like are already gender-neutral, referring to spouses instead of husbands and wives. No, changing the structure of the system so that civil unions carry equal weight to marriages is significantly more laborious.
No, I meant exactly what I said. I want purely secular religion! Why does religion always have to meddle in my religion, dammit?
( :smack: )
So should calling someone a bigot (or even a group of people, where the group is defined by their position) be off limits in Great Debates?
I say no.
I don’t think you quite understood my point. I don’t what any given church thinks about my marriage. I care what the government thinks about my marriage. A lot of people think that the best solution to the question of SSM is to have the government quit the marriage business altogether, and offer everyone civil unions, while only churches offer marriages. This isn’t an acceptable answer for me, because all it does is change the reason I can’t get married from me being gay, to me being an atheist.
I get what Miller is saying, and though I’ve supported “all civil unions all the time” in the past, I can see now that as long as the government has been sanctioning it for the last 225 years, it would be simpler to just add SS couples to the existing convention. Count me firmly on the side of Marriage for All. Lawdy! I’ve been converted!
Bigot!
I’m not necessarily in favor of separating out the “civil union” part from the “marriage” part, myself. But if I were, I think that I wouldn’t so much call the “marriage” part the milieu of religion per se, but more that it would just refer to the vows part, and the civil union stuff would refer to the paperwork part. The “civil union” would be accomplished by going down to the the license, and that would be all it would take to be legally joined. Then you could stand wherever you want and have the vows (or not), have a religious ceremony (or not), it wouldn’t matter. The vows would simply not have anything to do with the legal part of it. Anyone who wants to could call themselves married, or they could buck convention and NOT call themselves married if that floats their boat, as well. But the state wouldn’t, they’d only consider the two a legal couple.
In fact, this would open up the possibility of another idea of mine, which is to allow the “civil union” part to non-romantic couples, as well, and then they would legally get benefits for one other party such as a sibling or friend. Why should people be punished because they never found someone they’d like to marry? I’m still working through that one in my head, though.
The reason I am against this solution is the fact that it would give legs to the idiotic idea that SSM will “destroy the institution of Marriage”.
You think no religious person ever wanted to go shopping on Sunday, or was otherwise inconvenienced by blue law restrictions? It is perfectly possible for a person to support such a measure in the abstract but to find its actual enactment a pain.
In reality, people support stuff that impedes their own freedoms all the time, for reasons both rational or not; though obviously it is easier to support stuff that mostly impinges on other people, because for you there are no costs to doing so.
Yes and? Not to be insensitive, but how long has this truly been an issue? I mean when you compare gay marriage to the entire civil rights struggle, it is a young effort. This has not been going on for 100 years, hell, even 50 years. The fact is that there has been much progress and there is much progress still to come, but you will galvanize people against you with whom you fail to compromise. This is THEIR country too and while you’re waiting for them to ‘die off’ they are building more of their own. The squeakiest wheels in the cause for gay marriage can’t see far enough past their own desires to marry to see that they are continuing to make enemies that will gather in sufficient numbers to overturn thegains made today. This country voted for Bush. Twice. If you don’t think the republicans will be ready to stuff this right down your throats in 2012, you’re wrong.
As an aside, t bothers me that gays equate themselves with blacks with regard to the ‘struggle’. It is mildly, remotely similar to one part of one part of the civil rights movement, it does a disservice though to compare directly the desire for gay marriage to the entirety of the civil rights movement. It’s handy rhetoric but it’s a lie. Gays aren’t bought or sold, gays can vote, drive, hold jobs, go to schools, restaurants or laundromats and date whoever they choose. Blacks couldn’t do that until this nation came to its’ senses. The struggle is not the same.
No. I’m talking about enjoining a million people in favoring the cause and them talking to a million of their friends and so on. The militant crowd will enjoin 500,000 for their cause and the otherside will enjoin 495,000 for the anti-SSM cause and there will be what we have today.
Let me share something. As a kid that grew up on the South Side of Chicago, I didn’t know anyone that was gay. Hadn’t seen a gay person in my neighborhood (that I knew of) and was raised both at home and at work to generally see gays in what I’ll put mildly as a less than favorable light. I was an Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve guy. I was an unenlightened asshole. Then, I met some friends of Mrs. Jockey from college who were gay. Then some of their friends and eventually, through time and knowledge and the connection with people who were both gay and ‘good people’ I’ve completely changed direction. I’m actually involved in things that 10 years ago would have been unthinkable for me. I actually enjoy the Pride parades, go to events that the person I was 10 years ago would have drives 15 minutes just to avoid. Now if the people I met were shouting me down and demanding something from me that I was unready to give, unable to understand and unwilling to relinquish, it would have taken MUCH longer to come to the place I am now.
I’m a hard headed pain in the ass, but I’m smart and analytical. The bulk of the people that the pro-SSM crowd is trying to convince are just hard-headed pains in the ass, not smart, not analytical not even willing to examine what they THINK they believe.
This is NOT a war you will win with bombs and guns and rainbow flags, this is a diplomatic war that will be won at kitchen tables, in bars and resturants, parks and bookstores. It’s going to take time, perhaps twice the time you’ve already invested, but it will be a real win, with perhaps 750,000 enjoined in the fight and a true minority on the outside looking in.
I’m not black, so I cannot speak with any personal authority, but I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if black people are offended by the direct analogy with their struggle. It just ain’t so, if for no other reason than that you know someone is black on sight, and if someone is gay, they pretty much have to tell you so.
Naturally, I commend those black people who can overlook and forgive such a crude gesture. But it is quite enough to seek their good will and support, without expecting sainthood.
Well now, that’s actually pretty cool! How’s the email debate with your friend going, by the way? I had meant to come back in here and suggest using segregated movie theaters and buses rather than bathrooms, but I’m sure by now it’s too late for that.
I personally know both gay and straight Black people who embrace this analogy with great fervor. Nor do they consider it a crude gesture whatsoever. 'S funny how readily the victims of one form of oppression lend their support to victims of another form of oppression, innit?
Considering the level of homophobia in the black community, I wouldn’t be surprised if many black people considered the analogy offensive, either. That does not mean that the analogy is inapt, or should not be made.
That’s exactly why there’s no point in settling for civil unions: we are moving so fast that if we don’t compromise we’ll get where we need to be before we know it. If we had settled for civil unions in Canada in, say, 2002, when the first SSM ruling was just around the corner, that’s where we’d still be. Instead we held out for marriage equality and got it.
It’s not going well. He’s absolutely convinced that there’s no difference between the two. His analogy, and I quote:
I’m so disheartened. He seemed so different 35 years ago. 