I’m pretty sure you could’ve gotten a different interpretation than that from what he’s written. Bricker’s been around the SDMB for a while and I’ve never seen something that he’s posted that would make me think otherwise. If he had written something along the lines of what you interpreted I’d be pitting him as well.
But I would like him to address Tomndebb’s point. Would the marriage/union legally dissolve as soon as you cross the border to a state that doesn’t recognize them?
This discussion comes up between my dad and I when I go over to his house for dinner every once and a while. I asked him why he doesn’t gays to be allowed to be married. He actually told me that he has a special affinity for the word marriage. The word itself is very important to him, and he doesn’t want it “ruined.”
I don’t get it, either.
All well and good, as far as it goes. I’d appreciate some clarification. Your support for state-by-state civil unions – is this based on some notions of fairness or social justice, or do you have another guiding principle behind such support?
Not to speak on Bricker’s behalf, but I’m pretty sure his guiding principle is Amendment X of the Bill of Rights.
To clarify my question: Bricker, why are you in support of civil unions being made available to same-sex couples?
Let me get this straight…Bricker is advocating the EXACT same position as one held by Al Gore, Hillary & Bill, and by Kerry & Edwards.
Hell I’ve seen gay folks on these boards and elsewhere call for a similar thing. Essentially they have said let’s get religion/morality out of the whole civil union thing. The government will recognize civil unions…if you want a “marriage”, that will be a cultural “add on” that has not much to do with the rights bestowed with a civil union.
Seems like a reasonably starting point anyway…something that folks from all kinds of political stripes could support. Maybe it’s not the best answer…but it’s a point held by a pretty broad spectrum of folks. If you’re going to nazify Bricker…shouldn’t you do that as well to EVERYONE who holds that position?
Yet HE gets called a bigot and compared to a Nazi.
I missed the threads that pitted the Al Gore, the Clintons, Kerry & Edwards for those positions. I missed the vitriol aimed their way. (I’m not talking about a simple “I disagree with Hillary and Al on this issue”…but the kind of language used HERE)
Can someone help me out and point out those threads?
There’s already been plenty of responses to this, but here’s yet another stab at it:
The man in your example is not entitled to be known as “Governor” because he did not serve as governor. “Senator” and “Governor” are not interchangeable words for “civil servant,” they have very meaningful differences. They are different jobs. You have to do different things to qualify to serve as either one, and you have to do different things every day while you serve as either one.
However, if a person serves honorably 52 years as a governor with long and faithful service, and you refuse to call him “governor” but instead call him something like “honorary head of the state government,” not because of what he does but because of his race, or his sex, or his sexual orientation, or any other aspect of him that he either cannot change or should not be expected to try to change, then that is showing him disrespect.
If this is merely a question of terminology, and the words have no meaning, then why do you take such umbrage when people point out that you are supporting a bigoted viewpoint? Isn’t “bigot” just a word?
Holy crap, I wish I’d written that. That was so perfectly put. Let’s see if I can fuck it up by rambling:
All heterosexual couples have to do is sign a piece of paper and they can get married, and it’s not questioned. But homos have to jump through hoops explaining why they deserve the status, why the name is important, why they’re really in love, why it’s a “marriage” and not just a “partnership” of convenience.
And we have to remember to be polite, too. Lose your temper once, and bam! You’re unreasonable! You’re part of the angry young gay agenda. You called me a name! I’m not going to listen to that anymore! Hope you’re happy.
Where did anyone compare Bricker to a Nazi? I’m not being fatuous; I’m genuinely looking through the thread and I’ve seen no such thing.
And it may surprise you, but not all gay people agree 100% on every issue with Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry! Shocking, but true. Even stranger: there are some gay people who aren’t even Democrats!
And get this: I don’t agree with John Kerry’s stance on same-sex marriage because he is opposed to it, and yet I’m still going to vote for the man!
Perhaps you missed this gem from lissener?
Wow…good thing I said that.
Oh wait…no I didn’t :smack:
What I DID ask is why the vitriol aimed at Bricker has not been aimed at the above folks. If it’s all about the evilness of favoring civil unions…certainly SOMEBODY (gay or not) would rise to the occasion and aim the same level of vitriol their way at least once, right?
And get this…that wasn’t my point!
Try reading my earlier post more carefully…here I’ll repeat it
“I missed the threads that pitted the Al Gore, the Clintons, Kerry & Edwards for those positions.** I missed the vitriol aimed their way.** (I’m not talking about a simple “I disagree with Hillary and Al on this issue”…but the kind of language used HERE)”
This is NOT about disagreeing with someones position (like you do with Kerry), but feeling the need to PIT that person and equate them with Nazis and racists.
Get it?
There can be something really special about being married. Lord Ashtar’s father knows it. But he’s wrong if he thinks that allowing others to enjoy that designation would “ruin” it. What makes it special are the two individuals who are in the marriage and what it means to them. That’s why Britany Spears can’t make my marriage less sacred with her first marriage. That’s why a 50 % + divorce rate among heterosexuals doesn’t reflect on what’s good about marriage. And that’s why two consenting adults should have every right to “inter-be” in a marriage.
It’s bad manners and uncivil to be so selfish as to want to keep all the goodies for yourself. Doing things just because “that’s the way it’s always been” would have denied basic human rights to most of the citizens of our country over the last two hundred years.
I don’t think that slaves were allowed to have legal marriages.
Abolition took a war. It wasn’t popular. Civil Rights wasn’t popular. Women’s Rights wasn’t (and in some cases still isn’t) popular. “Ready” doesn’t mean that we wait until it’s comfortable for most people. It means that it’s the civil and right thing to do for equality under the law – for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We’ve been ready for a long time. BTW, I’m straight and old. It was my generation that was known for its counter-culture movement.
But like the song says, “If you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need.” Thank God for that!
But it wasn’t the moderate arm that won the rights in the end. It was those who non-violently insisted that the time was Now and went in and sat down – at lunch counters, in schools, at the front of the bus – despite the unpopularity of their cause.
Very few bigots have fangs, claws and horns and they don’t always look like backwoods stereotypes either.
Great post, Zoe. Wanted to make sure I said that.
beagledave, why exactly do you suppose those people support civil unions as opposed to gay marriage? I can tell you with one cynical yet accurate statement: Because it would be political suicide to commit themselves any further to the cause of gay marriage. And they all know it.
Also, to my knowlege, not one of them ever came out and made the public statement of “Oh, look! Louisiana says gay marriage isn’t legal. Yay, them! Justice is served, and the system works.” Had they done so, you bet your ass there would have been pit thread after pit thread.
AKA “separate but equal.”
I may be misremembering, but it seems to me that that turn of phrase was briefly considered in some legal proceeding or other at some point. Now if I could only remember…
My post wasn’t designed to debate WHY those politicians hold those viewpoints…just to ask why they don’t get the same level of vitriol… (although it’s interesting that you can read ALL of those folk’s minds…and that you’re accusing them of being liars…that they SAY they oppose gay marriages when they really support gay marriages)
Oh please. Look through the thread. Look at lissener’s remarks. lissener compared Bricker to a Nazi because of his view on civil unions pure and simple. Most of the posts in this thead have now focused on civil unions in general, not specifically on what happened in Louisiana. Apparently favoring “civil unions” is a bigoted position in and of itself. Yet again…I’ve yet to see the afore mentioned folks ever pitted or referred to as nazis for holding that position.
I’m sorry, I thought you were asking why bricker was pitted. The OP linked a thread bricker started about Louisiana passing a law against gay marriage. THAT is why he was pitted. Were any of the politicians you mentioned to publicly state that justice was done and the system works due to the Louisiana voters passing this nasty bit of homophobia, they would have been pitted, too.
And no, I’m not reading their minds, but it truly doesn’t take a mind reader to be cynical enough to reason out that politicians have their own personal agendas (getting elected) which sometimes take favor over their personal beliefs. If you’ve actually read Bill Clinton’s book, then you know that. If you haven’t, go read it and we’ll talk about his opinion on gay marriage and gays in the military.
As for what lissener said, I believe he said that bricker would go along with popular opinion, no matter how disastrous it turned out to be.
It’s not so much the “civil union” position he holds that gets to me, its the entire tone of his posts. The consdescending, “the people have spoken, praise democracy. States Rights” tone.
It seems like thinly disguised bigotry to me. You can coach it in terms of “states rights” if you want to, but that’s the same thing that many from the segregationist south did. Cling to a political belief which helps perpetuate bigotry, then pay lip service to the rights you are effectively helping to deny to others by wringing your hands and faintly saying “I’m with you, but I can’t allow those fascist judges to give you rights, even if you do deserve them.”
That is what pisses me off.
minty green was right…
Bricker was pitted because (1) he doesn’t approve of the use of the word “marriage” to describe a same sex union (a position held by the above mentioned folks)…(2) He pointed out that actions like the Mass. decision could have a counter productive backlash
There are a couple of key differences.
(1) It’s not that Bricker supports civil unions and opposes gay marriages. It’s that he thinks that straight marriages are different enough from same-sex unions that the word “marriage” should not be used to describe same sex unions, and he has specifically enunciated this precise position. That is, he’s not just some politician who might hold private opinions I disagree with, or might not, but is endorsing a carefully chosen political position. Rather, he’s someone who, if he was given the free choice, if there were no legal or societal ramifications involved, would refuse to use the word “marriage” to describe the relationship between (for instance) my cousin and her lover/partner/wife. That’s an important distinction.
(2) He’s here, and they’re not.
Oh, and for the record, I think comparing Bricker to a Nazi is ludicrously off base. That said, why didn’t I noisily object when the comparison was made? Because until I’ve lived as a gay person in a straight society, I hesitate to judge the passion and vitriol with which such a person speaks. I don’t necessarily refuse to judge it, but I hesitate.
Actually, and this is related to that last comment, I feel that I do have a bit of a double standard about how I judge the way people express themselves about this issue, and I think it’s (for once) a reasonable double standard. Take two people, one on each side of the issue. A gay man or woman who wants to get married, but can’t, has an incredible, personal, immediate emotional stake in this issue. It’s very hard for there to be an argument against gay marriage which is not, to this person, basically saying “we can have it, you can’t, we don’t really accept your kind”. If someone hears that and responds with anger, rage, name-calling, etc., well, who could blame them? On the other hand, someone who is passionately anti-gay-marriage almost certainly does NOT have a real personal stake in the issue. Worse comes to worse, no one is coming in and denying that person rights, rather, they’re just forcing that person to live in a state where the gay people (who were already there) live together (they already did) and get to use a different WORD to describe that relationship.
And don’t, by the way, think that I’m just making excuses for people whose position I agree with. I’m definitely pro-choice, but I can see how someone who honestly believed that a fetus was a human being would get incredibly passionate about that issue. I respect that passion far more than I respect anti-gay-marriage passion.
Ah. Well that certainly explains why the thread linked in the OP was titled “Louisiana approves ban on gay marriage by 78 percent” :rolleyes:
Huh.
I actually read the OP…not just the title.
So yeah…the OP of THIS thread concerned Bricker’s observation about the backlash over something mandated by the courts vs. “up to the states”. This thread (really…read some of the following posts) then ALSO proceeded to chastise the mere position of favoring civil unions over gay marriage.
So again…Bricker is getting the vitriol for the two things minty mentioned.
:rolleyes: <== see I can do it too! 
I’m getting a little sick of the whole “It’s a backlash against judicial activism!” bullshit. No, it fucking well is not. A backlash against judicial activism would be passing laws that restrict the powers of the judiciary. Passing a law specifically banning gay marriage is an act of homophobia, and not a damned thing else. If Massachusetts had legalized gay marriage by putting it on a ballot and voting for it, Louisiana would have still passed exactly the same bill.
It’s as if a state had passed a law stripping women of the right to vote, and then claimed it was a backlash against the judicial activism behind Roe v. Wade.
And I’ll go ahead and say again that I don’t think Bricker is a bigot. Dead wrong, yes. Bigot, no. In the same vein, however, I’ll also point out that there can be more than one reason to support civil unions instead of gay marriage, and that some of those reasons might be bigoted, and some of them might not.