Gay Marriage

[markalot]

It's going to come up sooner or later.

Can the gay community now drop the M word and start focusing on what's important, equal rights?

Trying to take over a word or event that has meant basically the same thing for hundreds if not thousands of years is rather pointless. Both the ban on gay marriage and the abortion limits passed (barely) in California, a fairly liberal state.

Florida and Arizona passed bans easily, and Arkansas passed a ban on gay couples adopting, which is far far worse than any marriage ban.

[shivvy]

It was only 41 years ago when laws barring interracial marriage were struck down by the Supreme Court. Until the late 60's, it was ILLEGAL in most states to marry somebody who wasn't of the same race as you.

Last year, before her death, the woman at the center of that history making court battle (Mildred Loving) issued a statement on the 40th Anniversary of the ruling that allowed her to legally wed the white man she loved.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

[the happy prole]

We've been through this before. The reason why "marriage" is important was because all the legal statutes apply to "married" couples and states recognize "marriages" from other states. You keep saying that the distinction between a civil union and a marriage is a meaningless legal term and that a marriage is just a social/cultural thing. But you're wrong.

The reason states are passing anti-gay marriage laws isn't a backlash against gays. It's a last recourse to preserve a legal distinction between gay and hetero-unions so they can discriminate. The state can give you a "civil union" but what does it really mean? Is it anything more than a term that makes you feel good?

It's like if I said to you, "markalot, you are no longer a US citizen. You will be what we call an 'American rights holder,' it's totally the same thing." But you know right away there's something sketchy about it. Because if it's the same thing, why do we need two words? And furthermore, you know that they can just pass a new law tomorrow giving a new benefit to "US citizens" that won't apply to you.

The only way to be equal under the law is to have no legal way of distinguishing a gay union from a heterosexual union.

Politically, might it be better to just try and get a foot in the door and settle for "some are more equal than others" for the time being? Perhaps. But if you are focused on equal rights, you should absolutely insist that one legal term apply to both kinds of unions as an end goal. It's just a matter of how to get there.

The Arkansas law is a good example of what I'm talking about, actually. It doesn't just ban adoption by gay couples. We all know that's the impetus for the law, but that's not actually what it does. What that law does is ban adoption by ANY unmarried person. It's equal treatment.

And that's fine with me, because it forces you to deal with a larger population than just gays. If Arkansas hates gays enough that they're willing to fuck over heterosexual couples just to stick it to gays, then let them be hardcore that way. As it becomes more and more difficult to meaningfully distinguish between gays and heterosexuals, you'll have to write broader and broader and more stupid laws, and eventually you'll be having to screw over enough people that you won't be able to get away with it anymore.

[markalot]

Shiv:

But it's all between couples of the opposite sex.

I'm just trying to understand why it's so much more important to get Married when you can see there is little public support for it.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Look for:

"Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship."

It's split 3 ways, but clearly if you combine the 30% that believe in gay marriage plus the 28% who believe in civil unions you get a clear majority (58%). This assumes, correctly I think, that gay marriage supporters would support a civil union law, amendment, whatever.

Look at the movement in the numbers over 4 years. Support for gay marriage has gone up from 22 to just 28, while civil unions has stayed nearly constant.

Look at the very next poll.

"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples?"

51% favor while only 41% oppose.

The trend is clear. Leave the M word out and you get a clear majority of support.

Edit: I also agree with Prole, again, partially, but I think first getting equal legal rights is a good first step that leads into ... ok, why can't we call it marriage again? Both ways expose the stupidity of the restriction, and that's the only way to change minds.

[the happy prole]

The problem is that no one knows exactly what a civil union entails.

It's pretty easy to say "Yeah, sure. Have your cookie. We'll give you a slip of paper 'recognizing' your legal union." It's an easy out. When the rubber meets the road and we start talking about are you sure you want gay couples to get tax benefits and adopt, etc. some of those pro-civil union people are going to be like "Whoa wait. Let me rethink this."

I'm sure there are some people who have a religious view of "marriage" that they separate entirely from the legal term. And so maybe we could call all legal unions "Unified couples" or something and they'd be fine with it. But how many people are really like that? I don't know, but I suspect it's a very small minority of the pro-civil union/anti-marriage group.

The thing that jumps out at me is if you have considerable movement in the pro-marriage group from 22-28%, then you're winning. You're making very good headway in that category, and moreover it's ultimately the one that really matters. So why should you even dork around with civil unions?

Just a thought.

[Predot listener]

The thing that jumps out at me is if you have considerable movement in the pro-marriage group from 22-28%, then you're winning. You're making very good headway in that category, and moreover it's ultimately the one that really matters. So why should you even dork around with civil unions?

Just a thought.

I would think that considerable headway doesn't matter much to a couple who's not likely to be around to see the movement through to completion. It's wonderful for their non-existent grandchildren, but doesn't do much for them during their lifetimes.

I recognize what you're saying, and it has merit. But at the same time, there are undoubtedly real gay couples who would benefit from many of the things a civil union grants who are now further away from taking advantage of those things. I think that's meaningful, and reason enough to dork around with civil unions until the rest of the country catches up.

[markalot]

The thing that jumps out at me is if you have considerable movement in the pro-marriage group from 22-28%, then you're winning. You're making very good headway in that category, and moreover it's ultimately the one that really matters. So why should you even dork around with civil unions?

Just a thought.


If you look at the poll I misstated the gains. The first number is an outlier. It's basically remained at a constant 28%. There's been little movement in each category for 4 years. No, including 2008 it's been 2% in 4 years if the 30% measured in 2008 is a trend.

[the happy prole]

I don't disagree with you Predot. I'm just saying look, IF you are making massive headway in the "gay marriage" category and none in the "civil union" category... it makes sense to focus on gay marriage. 22-28% in four years is massive movement in a big social issue like that. That's why it jumped out at me.

But I guess if markalot is right and it's just an outlier (which makes more sense) then we are back to square one. There is a tension between getting something now and holding out for something bigger later, just as there is with any political position.

I am still of the opinion that in this instance it doesn't matter. The acceptance of gays (and really let's not kid ourselves, that's what it is about not gay marriage) is a social phenomenon and not political.

Old people do not accept gays and they are not going to change their minds. The younger generation really doesn't care. Nothing will happen until the older people die. And once they do, it's an easy win.

It's just a matter of the switch turning on in say, 2012 or thereabouts.

[Predot listener]

I don't disagree with you Predot. I'm just saying look, IF you are making massive headway in the "gay marriage" category and none in the "civil union" category... it makes sense to focus on gay marriage. 22-28% in four years is massive movement in a big social issue like that. That's why it jumped out at me.

But I guess if markalot is right and it's just an outlier (which makes more sense) then we are back to square one. There is a tension between getting something now and holding out for something bigger later, just as there is with any political position.

I am still of the opinion that in this instance it doesn't matter. The acceptance of gays (and really let's not kid ourselves, that's what it is about not gay marriage) is a social phenomenon and not political.

Old people do not accept gays and they are not going to change their minds. The younger generation really doesn't care. Nothing will happen until the older people die. And once they do, it's an easy win.

It's just a matter of the switch turning on in say, 2012 or thereabouts.


No disagreement there. But will all of the state constitutional amendments that have been passed make it more difficult to get there politically, even if we are there socially?

[the happy prole]

Yeah, they will. And of course, that's what they were designed to do. It's a natural (and prudent) last-gasp strategy to buy as much time as possible and to stick it in your opponent's face. Especially if you're like 75 and another 5 years might be all you need.

But I don't know how much you can blame gays for a pushback. The reason there weren't anti-gay marriage laws before isn't because people previously didn't care and now suddenly do. It's because they never needed them.

One state recognizes civil unions, and now the other states see that it could happen to them and that they might possibly be forced to recognize someone else's gay marriage.

It's like Obama, man. Forty years talking about civil rights and racism and affirmative action and all this other legislative stuff. And then bam! there's a black President. It just kinda snuck up on everyone. And the reason it snuck up is because people kinda forgot about race being an issue.

That's the way it's gonna be with gays. There will be lots of political heat and lots of shouting from everyone and legislation and counter-legislation and no progress will be made. But in the meantime, there will be more and more gays on TV, in the movies (both real and portrayed), and in people's personal lives. It's just going to creep into the social fabric and one day people are just going to be like "What the hell? What were we even arguing about?"

I think as a legal matter, it will happen in the courts. I mean, can anyone really come up with a remotely reasonable policy justification for treating gays differently than heterosexuals? Honestly, you have to make an active effort to stack the court with political justices to keep gay marriages from happening. The Democrats aren't going to do that, obviously. And it's not going to be worth it even for Republicans in another few years because they have deeper crap to worry about.

Even if you're a conservative who is personally against gay marriage you have to ask yourself is this really something that should be #1 on my agenda? Over national health care and taxes and the economy?

The change isn't going to happen because gays overcome resistance either via political strategy or strident public movement. It's going to happen because the resistance goes away. The rest of the population is just going to realize it's a really stupid thing to even argue about.

[Predot listener]

Yeah, they will. And of course, that's what they were designed to do. It's a natural (and prudent) last-gasp strategy to buy as much time as possible and to stick it in your opponent's face. Especially if you're like 75 and another 5 years might be all you need.

But I don't know how much you can blame gays for a pushback. The reason there weren't anti-gay marriage laws before isn't because people previously didn't care and now suddenly do. It's because they never needed them.

One state recognizes civil unions, and now the other states see that it could happen to them and that they might possibly be forced to recognize someone else's gay marriage.

It's like Obama, man. Forty years talking about civil rights and racism and affirmative action and all this other legislative stuff. And then bam! there's a black President. It just kinda snuck up on everyone. And the reason it snuck up is because people kinda forgot about race being an issue.

That's the way it's gonna be with gays. There will be lots of political heat and lots of shouting from everyone and legislation and counter-legislation and no progress will be made. But in the meantime, there will be more and more gays on TV, in the movies (both real and portrayed), and in people's personal lives. It's just going to creep into the social fabric and one day people are just going to be like "What the hell? What were we even arguing about?"

I think as a legal matter, it will happen in the courts. I mean, can anyone really come up with a remotely reasonable policy justification for treating gays differently than heterosexuals? Honestly, you have to make an active effort to stack the court with political justices to keep gay marriages from happening. The Democrats aren't going to do that, obviously. And it's not going to be worth it even for Republicans in another few years because they have deeper crap to worry about.

Even if you're a conservative who is personally against gay marriage you have to ask yourself is this really something that should be #1 on my agenda? Over national health care and taxes and the economy?

The change isn't going to happen because gays overcome resistance either via political strategy or strident public movement. It's going to happen because the resistance goes away. The rest of the population is just going to realize it's a really stupid thing to even argue about.


I agree wholeheartedly with everything above, and have previously argued that the blowback wasn't the fault of gays.

I do think that some of the court decisions (Massachusetts in particular) have inadvertantly retarded the progress by leading to these state amendments. Maybe they would have happened anyway, perhaps even as a response to civil unions, but it seemed the truly galvanizing moment of the anti-gay marriage movement this decade was the Massachusetts court ruling.

[epeolatry]

maybe if straight people would stop getting married while the battles are going on, people would start to see what this is about.

when straight people get married, it's akin to buying a house in a neighborhood that doesn't sell to people of color, or joining Augusta that doesn't allow women.





and yes, i realize i used to be legally married.

[silentpaul]

maybe if straight people would stop getting married while the battles are going on, people would start to see what this is about.

when straight people get married, it's akin to buying a house in a neighborhood that doesn't sell to people of color, or joining Augusta that doesn't allow women.

I never thought of it that way.

[purple_octopus]

maybe if straight people would stop getting married while the battles are going on, people would start to see what this is about.

when straight people get married, it's akin to buying a house in a neighborhood that doesn't sell to people of color, or joining Augusta that doesn't allow women.





and yes, i realize i used to be legally married.
I disagree. Rather, I think the government should stop recognizing all marriage. It is, after all, a religious institution. And civil "marriage" is quite a joke, considering the divorce statistics.

People, gay or straight, should do what they want and call it what they want. And let the state ignore our relationships equally.

[silentpaul]

...it seemed the truly galvanizing moment of the anti-gay marriage movement this decade was the Massachusetts court ruling.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. :rolleyes:

The threat of a negative reaction does not justify backing away from a positive course of action.

[shivvy]

Personally, it isn't something I am interested in, although I understand why people are. I thought the whole benefit of being gay was to not have to worry about marriage and kids! :-D

[juggles]

I disagree. Rather, I think the government should stop recognizing all marriage. It is, after all, a religious institution. And civil "marriage" is quite a joke, considering the divorce statistics.

People, gay or straight, should do what they want and call it what they want. And let the state ignore our relationships equally.

I've been making this argument for a while. In my ideal world, the state would recognize some form of civil union between consenting adults that would cover all the rights and responsibilities traditionally associated with marriage. You can call it whatever you like.

[Predot listener]

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. :rolleyes:

The threat of a negative reaction does not justify backing away from a positive course of action.

First, I'm not assigning blame, just recognizing the cause and effect.

Second, I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion.

Take Vermont. Since enacting civil unions, it seems from afar that the solution has been accepted without rancor.

But if a gay couple decides it isn't enough and takes it to the court looking for full marriage rights, it would be foolhardy not to recognize the potential outcome of that push. Residents of state after state have shown themselves not comfortable with that particular distinction, and have gone the amendment route. And once on that path, there's a possibility that gay couples in Vt could lose part or all of the rights they already have. It's not fair, and I'm with the majority here who believe it's simply not right, but it's a political reality at this particular point in time.

You want to advocate a "Full Speed Ahead" attitude, so be it. But you can't pretend that such a mentality doesn't come without potential negative consequences.

[classicgrrl]

maybe if straight people would stop getting married while the battles are going on, people would start to see what this is about.

when straight people get married, it's akin to buying a house in a neighborhood that doesn't sell to people of color, or joining Augusta that doesn't allow women.





and yes, i realize i used to be legally married.


dammit. well, Phreon and I will just live together forever. I kinda of wanted a wedding though.

frankly, I don't think the states should be recognizing marriages. it's a violation of seperation of church and state. the states should create their own union with their own word and assign rights to it.

we need a new word anyway. marriage along with the word "wife" gives me the heebee jeebees...

[AmericanScience]

Thomas Jefferson wrote this nearly 200 years ago. It's inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial:

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

I see the gay marriage fight the same way. As the bar continually gets pushed towards that obvious/easy passage line, those stuck in the past keep pulling it back to the past. And trying to legislate their historic perspective on the future.

It's clear the trend is continuing towards the reasonable and inclusive conclusion. Canada, Spain, Norway have equal rights. South Africa joins shortly.

Legislate and hate if you must; laws can be repealed. Just remember: hate shouldn't help you sleep at night. If it does, you're interpreting something incorrectly.

[the happy prole]

I do think that some of the court decisions (Massachusetts in particular) have inadvertantly retarded the progress by leading to these state amendments.

I see your point, because I've been advocating the most effective action is a stealth action where it becomes socially acceptable first, then the politics naturally follow.

But when can you do, really? A gay couple in MA wanted to get married, they have the right to bring it to court. A judge ruled that the MA constitution shouldn't prevent this. And legally, I think we'd agree that is the right ruling. You can't ask a judge to ignore the law in favor of what is politically expedient, and you can't ask a gay couple to not sue for something they believe in. It's all part of the ebb and flow.

I would favor the government getting out of the marriage business altogether as well, but it's a side issue. Gays needed to be treated the same as straight people first and foremost. Get equal treatment, and we can decide on exactly what that equal treatment is later.

Saying no one should get marriage benefits you run into the same problem with the same people. What you are fighting against is people who think homosexuals shouldn't get equal treatment under the law. It's never been about gay marriage, but about equal protection for gays.

[Predot listener]

I see your point, because I've been advocating the most effective action is a stealth action where it becomes socially acceptable first, then the politics naturally follow.

But when can you do, really? A gay couple in MA wanted to get married, they have the right to bring it to court. A judge ruled that the MA constitution shouldn't prevent this. And legally, I think we'd agree that is the right ruling. You can't ask a judge to ignore the law in favor of what is politically expedient, and you can't ask a gay couple to not sue for something they believe in. It's all part of the ebb and flow.

No disagreement. I understand the desire for homosexuals to want the right to marry - I want it for them. And I can't really blame a couple for pursuing it, nor a judge for ruling correctly. Unfortunately, the correct legal ruling has a trump card -- the constitutional amendment process. And at the moment, recent history indicates that most states will use it, successfully, to block gay marriage from being legalized.

Some gays (and straights, for that matter) will not be content with partial victories, and will push forward until homosexuals have full rights to marry, or marriage is removed from the public sphere in place of civil unions for all. It's an idealistic approach.

Others are likely content with incremental change, and are willing to accept the stopgap measure of civil unions, and the benefits they carry, until the country's political landscape has shifted further.

The desination in both cases is the same, but the paths they're willing to travel to get there differ, and in some cases, fork significantly (I suppose that metaphor is now fully strained). It's a pragmatic method.

As more of a pramatist myself, I'd follow the second course of action. But I can't fault those idealists who choose the first. All I hope is that whatever strategy is pursued, that ample consideration is given to the other's concerns and the consequences of both victory and failure.

[lutz]

http://www.bunny-comic.com/?id=392
Clickie (http://www.bunny-comic.com/?id=1264)