True in theory, but that possibility is so unrealistic that it can be discounted. Nobody is *seriously * proposing abandoning “marriage”, even as just a word, except as a debating point, nor would a seriously-intended proposal have any chance of popular acceptance at *any * time. It is entirely fair to demand from its proposer an explanation as to why some persons could justifiably be denied a full, nonseparate, nondiscriminatory insititution, not allow a semantic exit route from the fundamental question.
Except that, as far as I can tell, risking being a fool by speaking for “most people”, most people aren’t interested in those conversations. Those are technical conversations involving knowledge of constitutional law. They are certainly interesting and important. There are even situations in which they are the paramount questions. But, for the most part, they’re not the questions being debated here, and they’re certainly not the questions that are causing people to flame you.
If you had said, from the beginning something like, “I think that gay people should be completely equal citizens of our great republic. And I think one of the most imoprtant and basic elements of human life is the right to get married. Thus, I truly and deeply believe that gays should be allowed to marry, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities. Sadly, however, my reading of the constitution does not [insert several pages of constitutional analysis here]. So, much as it pains me, and much as I find the current situation to be hideoulsy unjust, I believe that, due to the importance of rule by law, gay marriage can not currently be forced onto the states. I will continue to support whatever measures lead to further equality and justice, as long as I don’t feel they are unconstitutional. I will also support civil-unions-providing-full-rights as a stopgap measure”, or something like that, I don’t believe you would have been flamed much, if at all.
Two things:
(1) I’m curious to read your respnse to my post #87 in this thread, which contains the adoption analogy that Matt_Mcl was referring to.
(2) Hypothetical: You have two sons. One grows up straight, one grows up gay. The gay one joins a church which perfroms same sex marriages, legally-sanctioned or not. Both of your children have marriage ceremonies. At this point, would you treat your gay son-in-law any differently than your straight daughter-in-law? Would you refer to your gay son as being “married”? Would you refer to his partner as his “husband”? Why, or why not?
Oh, and for the record: my opinion on the whole constitutional issue is that, no, a strict reading of the constitution certainly does not indicate that the federal government has the right to force states to recognize same sex marriages. However, a strict reading of the constitution ALSO does not indicate that the federal government has the right to force states to recognize interracial marriage. So, since we’re already shoehorning things into the constitution basically because we want to live in a non-racist society, we might as well also shoehorn things in because we want to live in a non-homophobic society. Basically, I think the 14th amendment, and the things that are found to derive from it, is a big hilarious joke. Unfortunately.
Oops. You’re quite right, I skipped that link. I apologize, and withdraw my claim that you missed my point.
And, for the record, I find Hillary’s stated position to be bigoted and borderline evil. And if she honestly believes that, well, I’m disappointed.
Well, I’ve kind of lost track of exactly what we’re discussing at this point… I agree that Bricker has gotten more anger directed at him than politicians who have expressed similar positions. But I honestly don’t find that very surprising, nor do I find it to really “prove” or “mean” anything. If you think it does mean something, what do you think it means? Or are you just honestly and openly puzzled by the phenomenon?
Of course it does. He’s repeatedly stated he is not in favour of the right to same-sex marriage. That is an inequality.
But the Supreme Court ruling in *Loving v. Virginia * does. Start likin’ it.
Let me state my previous point more clearly: If one is to say that, yes, gays and straights alike should be allowed to have “civil unions”, that sounds fine in theory. But, if you thereby concede that there’s no basis for denying equal protection, why insist that the name for the institution be something rather than something else? If it’s okay to let “them” have something called “civil union”, why is it *not * okay to call it “marriage” instead? The proponents of that proposal do not have an answer for that that I’ve seen.
I asked you this over in this thread, which apparently you haven’t been able to get back to, so I’m goint to re-post it here.
Those who would abolish marriage for everyone over this issue remind me of segregationists who, when forced with court orders that public schools be segregated, tried to abolish public schools all together rather than have white and black students in the same classes.
Yes, but people are seriously proposing abandoning “marriage” as a legal institution. And that’s not any more unrealistic than including SSM under the legal definition of marriage.
Once again, proposals for abandoning marriage as a legal institution are not proposing separate-but-equal institutions.
Daniel
…and that’s just fuckin’ stupid.
Daniel
Kentucky is a commonwealth, not a state. Only the most pedantic of people (like my annoying but cute spouse, but he’s from Kentucky so we have to make allowances) will correct you if you call it “the state of Kentucky.” Calling it a state is easier and everyone knows what we mean by it.
Two questions for those in favor of “civil unions” for gay couples instead of “marriages.”
-
Were civil unions to come to pass, would you be bothered or offended or seek to correct someone’s terminology should they refer to their gay friends or themselves as being “married”?
-
If you favor the creation of “civil unions” that are not a romantic or sexual pairing, while at the same time there would be civil unions that were romantic or sexual pairings, would you object to those civil unions that have a romantic basis being called “marriages” in casual conversation?
Separate but equal. As others have pointed out, that won’t fly.
Except that you advocate this separate but equal benefit for a group that I imagine is statistically insignificant. In addition, of course, to homosexuals. Thereby assuring that your imagined separate but equal benefit will never be allowed as a federally or state recognized union. Neat trick, that.
Oh, and Bricker: My issue was with your union benefit and dicking around with the tax code so that it would be recognized, as well as the impossibility of enacting it. If, as you maintain, it should be a federal benefit, then you’re going to a hell of a lot of trouble to create it when you could declare SSM a valid marriage and save all of the time and hassle that accrues from your desire to create something that would never pass muster. Or are you not in favor of your position being voted on? Also, what happens when a couple moves from one state that recognizes their union to another that does not? Like you advocate here:
As ElvisL1ves said earlier, “Nobody is seriously proposing abandoning “marriage”, even as just a word, except as a debating point, nor would a seriously-intended proposal have any chance of popular acceptance at any time.”
But I’m also not in favor of state recognition of marriage for opposite-sex pairings.
That is an equality.
My answers:
- Not only wouldn’t I be bothered by it, I’d probably use that as the default setting for any two folks, romantically entwined, who’d received a civil union. In private life, I’m all in favor of gay marriages, and indeed for any marriages between any consenting adults. They’re great things; I love being married, and I recommend it to everyone.
- I think my answer is clear from above.
I want the government not to be involved in my love life, or in anyone else’s. I don’t need the government’s approval to be committed to my spouse: that ought to be between myself and my loved ones, not between myself and the state of North Carolina. All that the state needs to know is that I’m entwining my rights and property with that of another person: the state doesn’t need to know anything else about our relationship.
Daniel
Do you mean to say you are actively militating against the ability of opposite-sex couples to be married? Or is that just a pipe dream for you?
We differ over the word “seriously”. Do you know of any actual bills introduced in any actual legislatures to that effect, for instance? How much support has any of them received? There may be a few sincere persons out there, sure, but not enough to have any effect AFAIK.
The position isn’t realistic or intellectually self-consistent, as I’ve already discussed. It’s just a word-chopping approach to *appear * to be compassionate and fair-minded while avoiding the obligation to *act * that way.
Another example of that mindset would be the one Blalron mentions, where both whites and blacks would have been “equally” free not to have public schools, as long as separation could be maintained. Where does that analogy fail? How is abolishing marriage altogether not “just fuckin’ stupid” in the same way as abolishing public schools altogether? The real goal is pretty much exactly the same. Or maybe not: Segregationist parents at least could argue that their own children were affected by attending integrated schools. We married straights really cannot argue that our marriages are affected by the existence of married gay couples.
So what’s wrong with the government’s using the word “marriage” to describe that entwinement? The way it does, the way it’s always done, and the way it did centuries before religion got its hands on it?
Everybody who is posting “seperate but equal,” by the way, is cordially invited to shu…
Excuse me. I almost got mad.
Everyone offering this rationale should consider that Brown was decided fifty-two years ago. If its reasoning were applicable to same-sex marriage, there have been fifty-two Supreme Court sessions to make that claim. No one has. The language of Brown limits its finding to the field of public education.
THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF FEDERAL CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT THE RENUNCIATION OF “SEPARATE BUT EQUAL” IN PUBLIC EDUCATION APPLIES TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.
Your citations referring to this principal are thus distinguishable. Stop making them.
- Rick
Then why’d you bother getting married, legally? Why didn’t you just have your religious service, then go to lawyers and get a whole bunch of papers drawn up to codify the entwinement?
Um, it took twenty-one years between the time the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was brought in and the time when it was explicitly ruled that the equality provisions thereof required same-sex marriage.
Why is it so hard for you to deal with the fact that not everyone fetishes the law and when most people talk about Rights, we are talking about Principles and Core Beliefs and not specific cases?