What are you getting out of all this, Bricker?

[Little_Nemo]

I respect Bricker. But I think he’s wrong about some things.

First, I think he’s wrong about the reasons for the vote results in Louisiana. I beleive he may actually see it as an issue of judicial activism. But I’m sure that 95% of the people who voted against gay marriages were voting because they don’t like homosexuals. And statements like “A basic level of respect? Queers have that.” isn’t going to convince anyone otherwise.

Second, I think he’s wrong about gay marriage. In my opinion, two consenting adults should be able to get married if they want to. It’s no business of his or mine or anyone other than those two. None of us have the right to decide whether or not they should be allowed to marry.

I think civil unions are only a smoke screen to discriminate from behind. The only way a civil uion will be the equivalent of a marriage is if the federal government passes a law saying that every legal precedent that applies to marriage applies to a civil union and no state, municipality, organization, or individual can create a law or practice that treats them differently. How likely is the possibility of that happening? And if it looked like it was going to happen, how many people who currently support the idea of civil unions would suddenly be opposed to them?

[Syntropy]

@beagledave

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.

Um…I read all of the following posts. I’ve been here from page one. You just jumped in. And it isn’t a “mere position” to a large number of people, it’s a position of discrimination. Just because you don’t see it that way, doesn’t mean you’re right.

@beagledave

So again…Bricker is getting the vitriol for the two things minty mentioned.

Wow. You snidely accuse me of trying to read the thoughts of other people and then do the same thing to me? I was arguing with him because I think he’s wrong about saying it should be left up to the states, and that marriage between to consenting adults should be recognized. Period. I also said I was willing to listen to what he had to say, and why he was taking that position. You claim to have read the other thread, this one, and still don’t get that? Then arguing with you further is pretty much a waste of time, as you don’t want to hear anything that doesn’t agree with your view.

@beagledave

:rolleyes: <== see I can do it too!

Yes, you’re a coding god. Ogod, obaby, ogod. And oh, so very grown up. Tell me, do you steal lunch money too? Or just jeer at the other kids accross the parking lot?

Little Nemo, this is my biggest argument against civil unions. If I have to move to say, Michigan, what happens to the rights that were valid in California?

[beagledave]

And it isn’t a “mere position” to a large number of people, it’s a position of discrimination. Just because you don’t see it that way, doesn’t mean you’re right.

So Al Gore, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards et al favor “discrimination” then? Right? (Or they’re liars about their true position?)

Which kind of begs the question (again, I guess) of why they aren’t deserving pitting for publically supporting “discrimination”.

Funny, that.

@Maureen

Wow. You snidely accuse me of trying to read the thoughts of other people and then do the same thing to me? I was arguing with him because I think he’s wrong about saying it should be left up to the states, and that marriage between to consenting adults should be recognized. Period. I also said I was willing to listen to what he had to say, and why he was taking that position. You claim to have read the other thread, this one, and still don’t get that? Then arguing with you further is pretty much a waste of time, as you don’t want to hear anything that doesn’t agree with your view.

Take a deep breath there…better?

My statement “So again…Bricker is getting the vitriol for the two things minty mentioned.” was not about your argument with Bricker in the other thread.

It actually wasn’t about YOU at all (egad!)…so I wasn’t trying to read your mind.

Yes, you’re a coding god. Ogod, obaby, ogod. And oh, so very grown up. Tell me, do you steal lunch money too? Or just jeer at the other kids accross the parking lot?

The wit…ahhh the wit! The junior high reference included as a bonus!

Sheer brilliance!

[Gatopescado]

I am going to pretend I didn’t read this thread. It won’t be hard.
(that’s what his wife said!)
DAMMIT!

[beagledave]

On re-read…the “junior high” and “brilliance” comments were really not needed in my post.

I should not have added them.

Apologies.

[Otto]

@Bricker

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.

No, the fucking answer for anyone who doesn’t hide like a scared little bitch behind plaintive whines of “it’s about the process!” is for SCOTUS and all lower courts to follow long-established precedent that marriage is a fundamental right in the United States, admit that there is not the slightest scintilla of a shred of rationality behind denying marriage to same-sex couples, and strike down bans on gay marriage so that we have exactly the same right to marry as mixed-race couples, deadbeat dads and serial murderers.

[MaxTheVool]

@beagledave

On re-read…the “junior high” and “brilliance” comments were really not needed in my post.

I should not have added them.

Apologies.

While you’re here, how about responding to my post #117 in which I respond to one of your posts in a lengthy and (hopefully) calm fashion?

[beagledave]

@MaxTheVool

While you’re here, how about responding to my post #117 in which I respond to one of your posts in a lengthy and (hopefully) calm fashion?

Yes you did…sorry I didn’t respond earlier.

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.
   "

I think that your argument (and I think maureen’s ) is that Al Gore, Bill & Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards really don’t “believe” what they have publically said over and over. The argument seems to be that they are making these statements for “political survival.” (a line of thinking, if true, btw that should earn a nazification label from lissener for trying to be part of the majority in the face of evil )

I don’t see compelling evidence to support that position…one small example below

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/19209.htm

Bricker has said that states should decide these kinds of matters. Notice that Hillary Clinton feels the same way?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/us_senate/articles/2004/03/15/elections_and_expectations/

During a moderated discussion with National Public Radio senior correspondent Juan Williams at the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum in Dorchester, Clinton said states should decide whether gays and lesbians should marry, though she personally supports Vermont-style civil unions. “I think they provide the kinds of protections and benefits that are really appropriate and necessary,” she said of civil unions.

Simple question: Is Hillary Clinton a bigot? Does she favor discrimination? (FWIW, I’ll go out on a limb and guess that Kerry/Edwards/Gore have probably opined similar kinds of things regarding the role of the states and gay unions. If there evidence to the contrary…I’ll gladly retract).

2. Because Bricker is “here” and Clinton/Edwards/Gore aren’t…they don’t get the same pitting for holding positions labeled by various posters as “discrimination”, “bigotry” or equated with racism and being a Nazi?

I guess I don’t have much of an answer other than to observe that plenty of folks who “aren’t here” get pitted all the time for their publically stated beliefs. I would think that if a “civil union” position truly rose to the level of bigotry, discrimination etc…that ONE of those folks would have earned a pitting by now.

[SolGrundy]

@beagledave

Simple question: Is Hillary Clinton a bigot? Does she favor discrimination? (FWIW, I’ll go out on a limb and guess that Kerry/Edwards/Gore have probably opined similar kinds of things regarding the role of the states and gay unions. If there evidence to the contrary…I’ll gladly retract).

Is she a bigot? Don’t know. Based on the quote you posted, she supports a bigoted position. Kerry is also opposed to same-sex marriage, claiming religious justification, which is also a bigoted position and one that violates the separation of church and state. I am unaware of Edwards or Gore’s positions on the issue.

@beagledave

I guess I don’t have much of an answer other than to observe that plenty of folks who “aren’t here” get pitted all the time for their publically stated beliefs. I would think that if a “civil union” position truly rose to the level of bigotry, discrimination etc…that ONE of those folks would have earned a pitting by now.

Hmm, you’d think that somebody on the SDMB would’ve started a thread protesting civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriage at some point, wouldn’t you? And yet the boards are strangely silent on the matter!

To the best of my knowledge, neither Hilary Clinton nor John Kerry have ever come onto the boards and told me personally that they have sympathy for me, initially evaded questions about their position on the issue by claiming that it’s a matter of states rights and only under duress revealing that they are opposed to it, and gone on to start a thread about every anti-gay ruling in the country, or expressing irritation at the idea that homosexuals would suddenly demand some made-up right to marriage.

You claimed earlier that I missed your point and was putting words into your mouth, beagledave. So why is it that the people you mention as deserving a good Pitting were all high-profile Democrats? Was I just making up the implication that homosexuals are defensive of their Democratic allies and will only argue against Republicans, making the issue of same-sex marriage merely an issue of party politics instead of basic human rights? I realize I’m prone to plucking ideas out of the ether, but I suspect that you’re not being entirely truthful when you claim that your posts here have been an attempt to reduce the arguments to nothing more than partisan politics.

[beagledave]

@SolGrundy

Is she a bigot? Don’t know. Based on the quote you posted, she supports a bigoted position. Kerry is also opposed to same-sex marriage, claiming religious justification, which is also a bigoted position and one that violates the separation of church and state. I am unaware of Edwards or Gore’s positions on the issue.

I’m not sure what the difference is between “supporting a bigoted position” and “being a bigot”. However, thanks for the honest answer.

Hmm, you’d think that somebody on the SDMB would’ve started a thread protesting civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriage at some point, wouldn’t you? And yet the boards are strangely silent on the matter!

I really don’t think the boards are “silent” in terms of folks labelling the civil union route as bigoted. I have no idea if a separate thread has ever been started.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Hilary Clinton nor John Kerry have ever come onto the boards and told me personally that they have sympathy for me, initially evaded questions about their position on the issue by claiming that it’s a matter of states rights and only under duress revealing that they are opposed to it, and gone on to start a thread about every anti-gay ruling in the country, or expressing irritation at the idea that homosexuals would suddenly demand some made-up right to marriage.

I guess I haven’t seen this “evasiveness” on the civil unions issue from Bricker. Hell…here is one example from last spring…I’ve seen several other similar posts
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4705546&postcount=30

You claimed earlier that I missed your point and was putting words into your mouth, beagledave. So why is it that the people you mention as deserving a good Pitting were all high-profile Democrats?

FWIW, my point (again) was NOT about disagreeing with Kerry or Clinton etc on the issue (which several folks, like you, have done when asked) but the kind of vitriol tossed at Bricker. I’ve NEVER seen one unsolicited post from anyone calling any of those folks a “bigot”, “nazi equivalent” etc…

Why did I mention Dems? There haven’t been a LOT of high profile Republicans who have publically, proactively, supported a civil union approach (which was what I was addressing) . Off the top of my head (I could be wrong) I’ll throw out Ahh-nold and Rudy (maybe McCain…I dunno?). But sure…add their names to the list as well. I guess we’re talking about socially moderate or liberal folks, right?

Why didn’t I mention other Republicans? Because they don’t supporteven civil union rights for gay couples (AFAIK)

If it’ll make you happy, pretend that I added the names of socially liberal/moderate Pubbies to my earlier list of folks who SUPPORT the civil union approach.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

When I hear people hiding their bigotry behind the facade of: “I don’t have any problem with gay couples having all the rights and privilages tha straight married couples have-- so long as they don’t call it marriage.” I am reminded of a simlar canard from our recent past-- “Separate but equal”.

Same kind of lame bullshit, it seems to me.

[matt_mcl]

@Rysler

… 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.

Can I quote this too?

[matt_mcl]

Also, I really hope Bricker is going to respond both to my point on portability and to GLWasteful’s point on adoption.

Not that I think he won’t. Just a reminder.

[Scylla]

Bricker:

I really don’t understand your objection to the term “marriage” used in a same sex situation.

If it has something to do with Sanctity, than I refer you to the aforementioned “Britney Spears rebuttal.” Like the famous “Chewbacca Defense” the “Britney Spears rebuttal,” states that if Britney Spears has the legal right to call her “oops I did it agains” marriage, than how can one deny a gay person that right? If the institution of marriage can survive Britney Spears, it can probably survive some gay guys and gals.

Previously you stated that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, and there is no reason to change it.

This is simply not true. As a word “marriage” refers to any union, i.e. the “marriage” of science and art, the “marriage” of cinema and the stage and any other host of usage where, as the Spice Girls put “two become one.”

If a couple of guys, want to formalize their bonds of affection, share a residence, have tax status, and freely exchange property. I’ll be damned if I’m going to have to learn a new word to describe it!

There’s already a whole host of offensible words that simply describe being gay, all with complex rules as to who may use them and when “Gay,” “Queer” “Soddomite” “Fey” “Fag” “Queen” “Swish,” etc. etc. I see know reason to make up a whole bunch of words to describe what is pretty clear and mundane. What’s going to happen is if we make up a new word to describe gay marriage, that word is going to be used as an insult by bigoted folk to depecrate married gays.

Than the gays are going to take ownership of the word and use it as a badge of honor amongst themselves. Then those who are not bigotted will decide it’s cool and start using it, and so the bigots will have to make a new word, and then that one will become cool (except when used innapropriately or by bigots, or somebody decides to take offense.)

Then, the next thing you know we have this whole new vocabularly, and meanwhile I’m still trying to figure out whether a “Rice Queen” is some kind of Pokemon or a gay chinese guy.

We just don’t need this kind of angst.

“Marriage” is just fine. It’s egalitarian. It describes everybody. Nobody has the right to get offended, and it aptly describes the situation.

That’s my two cents.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

Mr. Moto said:

A lot of parallels are being made to the civil rights movement. But that movement, at least the moderate arm of it, was led by people with far more political savvy than this. They knew they wouldn’t gain all of their goals immediately. They instead took every victory they could, and used their expanded rights and power to press for more rights, and more power. The progress they made was incremental, yet very effective.

The gay marriage issue doesn’t parallel the civil rights movement, it **IS ** the civil rights movement.

Gays have been settling for slow, incremental progress. And now they are trying to “use their expanded rights and power to press for more rights.” It’s been some time since it’s been legal to discriminate against homosexuals-- now isn’t it about time, finally, that they can get married? Or do they have to wait until Joe and Jane Chucklehead drag themselves by their knuckles out of their caves and see the light? Cuz’ that’s gonna be a while and there’s some folks out there who’d like to get married before the Sun goes nova.

[SolGrundy]

@Bricker

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.

Damn, I really need to read more carefully and pay closer attention. I totally missed this gem.

If that is such an obvious fact, then how come it’s necessary for people to institute legislation and referenda and Constitutional amendments redefining marriage as being between people of the opposite sex? Is it a “fact” because you say it’s a fact? How come there are so many thousands of people who want to be married and see themselves as married, if it’s so obvious by definition that homos need not apply?

And you go on and on about how it’s the “PROCESS” that’s so important to you.

I hate to be so crass, but it seems there’s no avoiding it since the opposition always reduces the issue down to one of nothing more than sex. So I’ll ask this of every straight married man who opposes same-sex marriage: what is the most important aspect of your marriage? What is it about your wife that made you want to marry her? Was it because you love, honor, respect, and cherish her, and want to spend the rest of your life with her to the exclusion of all else? Or is it just because she has a vagina?

[jayjay]

@I Love Me

It’s been some time since it’s been legal to discriminate against homosexuals-- now isn’t it about time, finally, that they can get married?

First, thank you.

Second, it is only illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in certain self-limited political entities, unfortunately. Many cities include sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination laws, some counties, a few states. Congress has consistently voted down any anti-discrimination measures that include sexual orientation (most famously on the same day as they passed DOMA back in 1996 (THERE was a dark day for gay rights…)).

Anti-discrimination statutes that include sexual orientation are nowhere near universal in this country.

[jayjay]

@SolGrundy

Or is it just because she has a vagina?

That’s silly. She needs to have a uterus too, or that all-important procreation thingie won’t work.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@jayjay

Anti-discrimination statutes that include sexual orientation are nowhere near universal in this country.

(sigh) I guess you’re right. I sometimes forget just how backward this country is. Then I get online and see the Presidential Election poll numbers and I quickly remember.

Anyway, my main point was that it was silly for Mr. Moto to imply that the fight for gay marriage is anything other than a fight for civil rights.

[Little_Nemo]

I find myself in agreement with both Liberal and Scylla in a policital thread.

Surely this is one of the Seven Signs of the Apocalypse.