First. Yes, you are. By saying they cannot be married.
Second, WHY? Why does the term not apply? If two people commit to each other to spend their lives together, share the same struggles, the same happinesses, the same bedroom, raise a family & grow old together, why does the term “married” not apply? Because it sounds like marriage to me. You can’t possibly mean because they cannot produce children without help. Lots of people can’t. Hell, lots of hetero people choose not to. Are they less married?
[quote=bricker]
It’s “different than,” yes, but not “less than.”[/bricker]
Semantically null at best, total lie at worst. You think it’s less than your marriage. Or you wouldn’t insist on the distinction.
[quote=bricker]
And I continue to find this fascinating. I am in support of full legal equality for same sex unions, and I’m a bigot. This attitude may be a good clue for those activists who actually wish to accomplish something in this arena.[/bricker]
Your condescension is not appreciated. And yes. You are a bigot. As you insist on a distinction between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. That is what it comes down to. If, in your opinion, there is no difference between “married” and “civil union”, then why call it civil union at all? Why not married?
Yes, I see. This way you can pat yourself on the back, guilt free, and say “I tried. I was willing to meet them half way. But they weren’t satisfied with that. Not my fault.” And wash your hands.
It rather reminds me of the two children arguing over cake. The one says, “I want the whole cake!” And the other says, “That’s not fair. I should get half the cake!” Their mother says, “Children, children, we must compromise! You get three quarters, and you get one quarter.”
:smack: And I’m pre coffee, here, so forgive the atrocious coding.
MrMoto, I think you may have a slightly skewed view of the civil rights movement. It’s obvious that you have certainly studied it; were you actually there for it? The activists didn’t really have all that much political accumen. They were students, housewives, normal everyday people. They got what they wanted because they pushed. Not because the government was willing to give it and because they had a good PAC in there fighting for them. It was given in increments because, as in the case of gay rights, the administration wanted to give no more than was absolutely necessary in order to suppress insurgency.
Will couples of different sex be allowed to enter civil unions?
Unlike some of our other worthy posters I am not defending gays’ rights to enter the sacred state of marriage, create a stable family with 2.5 children and live in their house with a white picket fence, happily ever after… until they are striken with lightning from above.
What I am defending is gays’ rights to get drunk, stumble upon a Las Vegas chapel and get married by Elvis and find out the horrifying news the following morning after the drunken fog has been lifted. Nobody is denying hetero’s that right, why shouldn’t gays too?
Ah, but the leadership of the civil rights movement was certainly politically savvy.
Don’t think for a second that Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t craft his rhetoric in very specific ways, presenting the issue not as one of fairness, necessarily, but presenting it instead as the full expression of American ideals.
This was done explicitly to appeal to white leaders and voters, and make the movement appear American, rather than some faceless movement promising only scary change.
Not to stop the degineration of this thread to namecalling and steadfast refusal to debate, but I do have a question, if anyone can answer it for me, I’d be very grateful.
Mattmcl makes a very good point. If a civil union is not afforded all the legal recognition that a marriage is, I don’t think you can call a “civil union” the same as a marriage. My marriage is recognized by all fifty states. If I move from Illinois to, Og forbid, Louisiana, I would still be considered married and I would still have all the benefits under state and federal law for that marriage.
Is the same true for a civil union? If two people who happen to be gay get married in Massachutsettes and then move to Louisiana, it is my understanding that they will not be afforded all the privileges and immunities my marriage would be, because of the law in LA. This, I think, would be unfair and proof that a “marriage” and a “civil union” are separate, but unequal. Hence, the problem with civil unions.
Here is where I get confused by Bricker’s statements. On one hand, Bricker, you seem to be saying that the people of Louisiana have the power to determine that they will recognize marriages, but not civil unions, but you also say that marriage and civil unions are the same, with the same benefits and responsibilities. I believe it has to be one or the other, and I would be interested in which one you choose.
I’m all for nationwide, federally recognized civil unions, myself. Federalism is all well and good, but better or worse, marriage impacts on so many federal benefits that he federal government has a compelling interest in it, and alternatives to it.
I think civil unions could be enacted at the federal level and imposed on the states, especially if this move can be seen as heading off gay marriage.
Hence Gavin Newsome and the “civil disobedience” in February. Unfortunately, because it’s California, it isn’t taken seriously by too many people. As everyone knows, those nuts in California (and I’m quoting several people on this board) will do anything. It’s frustrating in the extreme. Had Massachusetts not made the first move, the issue wouldn’t still be in the forefront.
Neither semantically null nor an accurate conclusion - the “or” is a false dilemna.
I insist on the distinction between “Governor” and “Senator”. Yet I don’t believe one is less than the other. I insist on the distinction between “helicopter” and “airplane” even though I don’t believe that one is less than the other. Nor do I agree that the differences between governors and senators, or between helicopters and airplanes, are “semantically null.”
Why? Why is a helicopter not called an airplane? They both are man-made machines. They both fly. They both require operators be licensed. They are both under the jurisdiction of the FAA. It sure sounds like “airplane” to me.
Why is a senator not called a governor? They are both elected. They are both constitutional officers. Etc, etc.
It’s not marriage because marriage MEANS “the union of two persons of the opposite sex.” That’s what it means in the law, that what’s means in fact. That’s why.
Strawman. I never once mentioned procreation. It’s wonderfully exhilarating, I’m sure, to so handily defeat an argument, but that’s not an argument I ever made.
I’m saying I support civil unions – which means that I would support each and every state permitting civil unions for same-sex couples.
But I also support basic notions of self-governance, which means that I recognize that not every state may agree with my notion of what the wisest public policy is.
Civil unions enacted by every state would be the equivalent of marriage, and this would be the goal I would urge.
As long as civil unions are not enacted by every state, I agree that they are not the full equivalent of marriage.
The question then becomes: what is the proper resolution to the problem? And the answer is: work the issue in each state, because that is how the system works.
(Hint for others reading, not Hamlet: those persons assigned to work Virginia should not begin by identifying those in favor of civil unions and screaming “Bigot!” at them. Just a helpful strategy suggestion.)
Yes…that’s what we’re trying to get changed. What you have yet to explain, is why it shouldn’t be. So. Why shouldn’t it be? Because that’s the way it is, and that’s the way it was, and nothing should ever change? So sayeth you? If not, fine. I’m more than willing to listen. But give an actual reason. A law which is unconstitutional and infringes on the civil rights of its citizens is not a just law. Tell me why you think it is.
No. You personally did not make this argument. I was asking if that was your reason. See how there’s a question mark after it? That, in circles where people interact and have discussions where ideas are put forth and listened to, is called a request for further information.
Your earnest appeal to the better angels of our nature speaks eloquently to your optimism on the fundamental nature of man. Speaking only for myself, I am quite certain that if it were not for the veneer of social-political graces of western modernity which inform my opinions, I would be hunting people and animals with sharp sticks. What keeps me from your door is the expansive tacit, and not-so-tacit web of arrangements and understandings we have about our roles and how we relate to one another.
Bricker’s point about the social accuracy of definitions and their appropriate applications is not, as some seem to think, a rhetorical Kabuki dance to cover up some simmering crypto-bigotry on his part. He is quite pointed about the distinctions he makes, and in the end, as matt_mcl correctly divines, it is all about power. On the most fundamental levels “marriage” is powerful and transparent across the borders, cultures, societies, and legal systems of this planet. “Partnership agreements” are not.
One is a big loaf of bread, and the other is a cracker. Semantic tap dancing aside, Bricker knows this, and he is challenging gay people and their supporters to take the bread if they think they are able. Gay people are among the socially weakest groups in terms of real world support from the larger masses. Cursing Bricker will get you nowhere. Moaning about the inequity of the situation will get you nowhere. Organizing and getting your desired definitions made into law is the only solution.
The law is not unconstitutional in the United States federal system and in 49 states therein. Nor does it infringe on the civil rights of its citizens, because no citizen has the civil right to marry a person of the same sex.
Why shouldn’t it change? Because there is no compelling reason to change. I agree that the denial of benefits to same-sex couples is unjust, but I contend that this can be solved with civil unions. What is the reason to change the definition of the word “marriage?”
As the proponent of change, the burden is on you to show the reason for the change. You can certainly identify problems with the extant situation, but a civil union solution will solve those problems. What problems are NOT solved by a civil union solution?
Gay marriage by “judicial activism”-how would that be any different from desegregation-didn’t it start with Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, KS?
Anyone see this ruling and immediately wonder how it would impact this discussion?
Bricker, your helicopter/airplane thing only works if you want different rights for married couples and civil unions. You profess you don’t. So how is it different from giving people the same education, but making them go to different schools due to gender or race? I bring that up not morally, but because it’s been ruled illegal by a court (that previously ruled it legal).
I think it’s the words in bold that get you accusations of bigotry. There are plenty of same-sex couples who get married religously, in churches (and equivalents), with the full blessing of God’s representatives. Are those not marriages in your eyes? Ministers call them marriages. Churches call them marriages. The happy couples call them marriages. Cite for Unitarians and Reform Jews. What the hell are they?
You seem to expect that each of the 50 states can have a different idea of marriage and that there can be no interaction between them. Yet, if I remember from Civics class, even though a South Carolinian can get married by common law, and Nevadans can get married by Elvis, and New Yorkers can be married in a church, they’re all recognized equally as marriages by all the states. Theoretically, a civil union in Vermont must be recognized by Nevada, and a gay marriage in Mass. must be recognized in Florida. Assuming DOMA didn’t exist to prevent this exact thing from happening, shouldn’t civil unions, at least (to stay away from your pesky court issues), be already legal in the US?
As far as “savvyness,” gay men have worked hard to obliterate their bathhouse image. They’ve become responsible, monogamous parents, at least on paper, and clean-cut, de-sexualized, friendly, harmless folks on TV. All calculated moves to assimilate, so we won’t be thought of as pushy interlopers in pink boas who are just demanding too damn much. I’m not sure which I find more painful–The majority of the situations where it hasn’t worked and we’re still thought of as freaks, or the minority of the situations where it has.
I wish I could take credit for such a noble optimism as you describe. Honestly, if I thought men were angels, I would advocate anarchy. Instead, I advocate a strong government that forces busybody moralistic meddlers to leave peaceful honest people the hell alone.