Gay Marriage vs. Gay Rights

[sunoftheskye]

Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, no.

Thank you very much, President Clinton.

Obama says he will repeal it, but I'm 100% certain it won't happen until his second term (if there is one).

 

[Croynan]

where the problem really exists is that you are listening to Rick Warren.

if you do that you might get a more objective view of the whole subject matter.

eM.

 

[NineOfClubs]

The thing is the government should stop giving out "marriage" licenses altogether--it could start calling them "civil union" licenses, and give them to both straights and gays.

Churches could then be the only institution offering "marriages". Some would even allow gays to participate, others wouldn't. It would be a sacramental, not a legal, thing.

 

[FabFairy]

The argument over marriage is but a smoke screen because at the end of all this what is the fight really about equal rights and that is what we should be fighting about not some name the church want to give it.

The gay community has over time achieved many concessions anhd victories we can still get what we want regardless what anyone wants to call it

 

[RationalLunacy]

Hypothetically, if gays attained the same exact rights as married couples but it was called something else... would the fight for the word marriage be a gay rights issue?

Absolutely. Call it something else and the Rick Warrens of the world can campaign to make it something else, taking our civil rights away, and taking us back to square one. It's all about equality.

 

[gsdx]

We went through that here in Canada during the same-sex marriage debate. There were objections to using the term 'marriage' and suggestions that the word 'union' be used instead. However, a 'union' would still have stripped gay people of 'equality' and would have differentiated us from heterosexual couples. In the end, the word 'marriage' was used and we became first-class citizens with all the rights and protections granted to all other Canadians.

Substituting words simply doesn't work if you want to be equal.

 

[bankside]

I don't want to start an argument, but I'm curious about this issue.

I'm now listening to an old radio podcast from a radio show I love and the subject is Rick Warren.

Anyway... is having the title "marriage" a right? Hypothetically, if gays attained the same exact rights as married couples but it was called something else... would the fight for the word marriage be a gay rights issue? You pretty much would then have the same rights as married couples. It would then just be semantics(if that's teh right word).

So.. just wondering if someone could help me understand. Under this hypothetical system.. couldnt I just get partnered with him or whatever, and then just call it marriage even if that is not hte legal name?

3 questions:

• When has "separate but equal" ever worked?
• If having the title "marriage" is not a right, then how can it be claimed by straights?
• If "marriage" had been a religious word, what business does the government have restricting its use to anti-gay congregations?

 

[Shepherd 2]

lucky7,
I love my partner, but I will never marry him.
I prefer to be more concerned about the citizen issues
around inheritance and property, as well as my ability
to be able to be at his side no matter what, whether in a
hospital or my bedroom.

As you can see from this thread, the opinions are diverse.
My awareness is that we as a community of gays are diverse.
But legal minds and legislators can guide us through this mess.
And it may take a long time.

Shep+

 

[bankside]

lucky7,
I love my partner, but I will never marry him.
I prefer to be more concerned about the citizen issues
around inheritance and property, as well as my ability
to be able to be at his side no matter what, whether in a
hospital or my bedroom.

Shep+

I'm concerned about all those issues as well, which is exactly why I'm glad to be marrying my fiancé. It takes care of all of those things.

 

[FabFairy]

We went through that here in Canada during the same-sex marriage debate. There were objections to using the term 'marriage' and suggestions that the word 'union' be used instead. However, a 'union' would still have stripped gay people of 'equality' and would have differentiated us from heterosexual couples. In the end, the word 'marriage' was used and we became first-class citizens with all the rights and protections granted to all other Canadians.

Substituting words simply doesn't work if you want to be equal.

The substituting is in your minds eye, it does matter what it is called as long as it gives equal rights. You must remember thet word marriage is a word adopted by the church that was given to early unions. And given the previous efforts of the gay community it won't take long before their term adopted by all communities.

Very early in my active carreer I was told to never to fight against the impossible but to go for what is can acheivable. Get that and it won't take long before everything else will come. And as much as the church may like to try to define itself as seperate it will be incorporated soon enough.

As a community define what we want and then accept what is needed to get that is the argument. Then bitch and whinge about what we have acheived!! Remember Marriage or Union it won't make a difference as long as the goal is the same

 

[Apollo]

I think if the term marriage wasnt used to described same sex civil unions, than no one at all would have a problem with it.

I personally don't care what you want to call it, as long as I am giving the same rights and privileges of married couples if me and my partner choose to enter into one.

Britain calls them Civil Unions, Canada calls them Marriages. Both sides are happy, so America needs to choose the name and get on with it.

 

[bankside]

There is nothing divine about the word "marriage." Governments have been regulating marriage without any need for church involvement for centuries.

Especially in countries with freedom of religion as a well established right, it makes even less sense for the government to support a definition of marriage that pleases a few religious conservatives, because it isn't their word, it isn't their government and it isn't their right.

How did governments manage to establish any other kind of equality given what religions have had to say about the subject over the years?

 

[josher]

They tried that in New Jersey: Marriage for straight people; civil unions for gay people (and straight people who might want that.)

It hasn't worked. Those who want to, still deny gay people marital rights.

The commission overseeing all this has recommended that same sex marriages become the law. It said it is the only way to provide the true equality mandated by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

 

[gsdx]

They tried that in New Jersey: Marriage for straight people; civil unions for gay people (and straight people who might want that.)

It hasn't worked. Those who want to, still deny gay people marital rights.

As I said earlier, we went through all that. Instead of all your naysayers contemplating what might happen to the sanctity of marriage if gay people are allowed to get married, perhaps they should look north of the border for the first time in their lives and see what will happen to it. . . which is 'nothing'.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

The problem with "civil unions" is that private companies don't have to honor them. For example, they can give medical benefits to married spouses only and gay couples are shit out of luck. If we're legally married they can't do that. Even the New York Times had an editorial pointing that out.

 

[mojoe54]

I don't want to start an argument, but I'm curious about this issue.

I'm now listening to an old radio podcast from a radio show I love and the subject is Rick Warren.

Anyway... is having the title "marriage" a right? Hypothetically, if gays attained the same exact rights as married couples but it was called something else... would the fight for the word marriage be a gay rights issue? You pretty much would then have the same rights as married couples. It would then just be semantics(if that's teh right word).

So.. just wondering if someone could help me understand. Under this hypothetical system.. couldnt I just get partnered with him or whatever, and then just call it marriage even if that is not hte legal name?

I don't care what they call it as long as my spousal rights are exactly the same as a heterosexual's. But they are not--there are many rights that married couples receive but those in domestic partnerships or civil unions do not. The fight for marriage equality isn't about the marriage; it's about the equality.

Having said that, I will also say that no matter what the government calls my husband and I ( I am currently legally married in CA--at least until March when the Supreme Court decides), I will always be married in my heart because that is how my partner and I have lived our life together for the past 31 years.

 

[mojoe54]

The thing is the government should stop giving out "marriage" licenses altogether--it could start calling them "civil union" licenses, and give them to both straights and gays.

Churches could then be the only institution offering "marriages". Some would even allow gays to participate, others wouldn't. It would be a sacramental, not a legal, thing.

I agree with you 100% on this. It is the most sensible thing to do. But can you imagine the outcry from the hets if the government decided to do this?

 

[gsdx]

They are incapable of doing that. They are god's chosen country and what happens in other countries is of little interest or import to them. Indeed, as god's chosen country, they are to set and be the moral example, that shining light and paragon of virtue that Israel was to be in the Old Testament amongst the nations of it's day.

I bet they were the ones to put the kibosh on the conversion to metric as well. Perhaps they'd go metric if the government told them that cubits metric.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

No, we can't go metric because it's a Communist plot, obviously. And now that Obama's going to be president, we have enough communists on our hands.

 

[mojoe54]

They are incapable of doing that. They are god's chosen country and what happens in other countries is of little interest or import to them. Indeed, as god's chosen country, they are to set and be the moral example, that shining light and paragon of virtue that Israel was to be in the Old Testament amongst the nations of it's day.

They hold to a higher and more noble calling and the scrabblings of the lesser nations are beneath their notice... lest they be tempted and fall into perdition and blasphemy.

It's all very simple really.

Jeez...my husband and I would love to be Canadians. Unfortunately, we were born a little too far south. Care to adopt us, anybody? Only one requirement--you have to live in a warm part of Canada!