Two words for my fellow Americans...

[Domi]

Civil rights protect the expressions of personal desires such as choice of religion and political participation.

[Sorrow]

Well, really, if the Church, as you put it, has "to adapt to the world we live in today", then it would not be a real Church. Since God never changes, then His Church can never change its teachings, or it's not His Church.

I disagree with that - for example Catholic Church changed a lot during its existence - even the last Pope made some changes - for example he has removed Hell.

[icelus]

It makes no sense to address the grievances of one group, while in turn cause grievance to another.

 

I'm sorry, but this sounds just like the principle of "separate but equal."

Not quite. Race (civil rights) is not the same as sexual preference (personal desires). And Coretta Scott King (MLK's daughter) has made this very clear.

Your second sentence is your personal opinion and not a fact. It is also based upon the utterly false assertion that homosexuality is a choice. Trust me--it is not. Civil rights are also not the sole domain of race relations. Would you say the same thing to a Jew, if the big debate in the country was whether two Jews could get married?

 

Your third sentence is irrelevant, as Correta Scott King is not her father. She is also one person, and hardly the only person qualified to make such a statement.

[EiriktheScald]

It makes no sense to address the grievances of one group, while in turn cause grievance to another.

 

I'm sorry, but this sounds just like the principle of "separate but equal."

In the words of my day, "You can catch more bees with honey than vinegar." I do not condone the systems of segregation that were a part of the 50s and 60s.

 

Now, as I understand it, the political goals of the LGBT movement include changing laws and policies in order to gain new rights, benefits, and protections from harm. Cultural goals include (but are not limited to) challenging dominant constructions of masculinity and femininity, homophobia, and the primacy of the gendered heterosexual nuclear family. Activists seek both types of goals in both the civil and political spheres.

 

I may be pragmatic, but political change is more likely to succeed than cultural. LGBT movements are opposed by a variety of individuals and organizations. They may have a personal, moral, political or religious objection to gay rights, homosexual relations or gay people. In the US, same-sex marriages are legal in two states, Massachusetts, and Connecticut (New York is not far off). Meanwhile, some municipalities keep enacting laws against homosexuality. Proposition 8 did not affect domestic partnerships, and the California Supreme Court stayed out of it, denying a petition to remove it without comment.

 

It is yet to be seen whether prop 8 will be found unconstitutional, but the kind of demonstrations that were seen afterward, will not help their cause. It was reported that ten LDS church buildings in the Sacramento region, and seven houses of worship in Utah, were vandalized in the ten days following the November 4 election, more than that expected for an entire year.

[devSin]

I'm sorry, but I find that utterly offensive. Your stance seems to be akin to saying "Be a good house negro and do as massa says; your day may come, but you should take the whip until then."

 

Be good fags, sit down, and shut up until we decide to give you something.

 

If you can't see past the few nuts (who show up everywhere in every crowd at every event) to peaceful protests that had no "homosexual agenda" other than declaring that two adult humans have the right to marry under state laws, then you're really farther behind than I would have expected anybody frequenting these boards to be. On occasion, you have to stand up to be heard, and your policy of "out of sight, out of mind" would have blacks in chains, immigrants expelled, and human beings deserving of all the rights and protections we as a society deem worthy to grant to the majority left forgotten and undefended.

[KIrving]

I disagree with that - for example Catholic Church changed a lot during its existence - even the last Pope made some changes - for example he has removed Hell.

Darn! I suffer badly from the cold and I was hoping for a nice warm reception in the afterlife.

[EiriktheScald]

I'm sorry you took it that way, and surprised that you did. Not exactly sure where you got the idea that my policy is "out of sight, out of mind." My point is that cultural opposition exists, for various reasons, and the expediency of political gains. Yes, I realize that there are undesirables who show up at any demonstration; but they do not help, regardless.

[devSin]

I'm sorry you took it that way, and surprised that you did. Not exactly sure where you got the idea that my policy is "out of sight, out of mind." My point is that cultural opposition exists, for various reasons, and the expediency of political gains. Yes, I realize that there are undesirables who show up at any demonstration; but they do not help, regardless.

If what you're saying here is that peaceful protest is somehow a harmful activity (regardless of those who choose to retard society with their juvenile actions), then that is exactly where I got the idea that the policy you're describing is the marginalizing of and ignorance toward an entire group of people. More abrasive than I should have been, sorry, but it's one of those things where I cannot help but vehemently disagree.

 

I ask you: What, exactly, would help? To be sure, I don't think anything good will come of protest, but only because I realize that people, in general, are unsympathetic to those but themselves. There's no point not to refuse to remain silent when those opposed will remain in the opposition regardless, however, and if any minority doesn't seize whatever opportunity they are given to stand up and advocate for their rights, then they will likely never be granted those rights.

 

The idea that simply refusing to suffer in silence, to make aware the public that things are not all right, can be harmful to a cause is offensive to me, regardless of opinions about specific human rights or civil rights issues.

[EiriktheScald]

If what you're saying here is that peaceful protest is somehow a harmful activity (regardless of those who choose to retard society with their juvenile actions), then that is exactly where I got the idea that the policy you're describing is the marginalizing of and ignorance toward an entire group of people. More abrasive than I should have been, sorry, but it's one of those things where I cannot help but vehemently disagree.

Not at all, peaceful protest has been a cherished American right since the Boston Tea Party. It's unfortunate when individuals (be they affiliated, or not) go beyond that.

 

As for policy, I was referring to president-elect Obama's comment: "Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," he said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

 

I ask you: What, exactly, would help? To be sure, I don't think anything good will come of protest, but only because I realize that people, in general, are unsympathetic to those but themselves. There's no point not to refuse to remain silent when those opposed will remain in the opposition regardless, however, and if any minority doesn't seize whatever opportunity they are given to stand up and advocate for their rights, then they will likely never be granted those rights.

 

The idea that simply refusing to suffer in silence, to make aware the public that things are not all right, can be harmful to a cause is offensive to me, regardless of opinions about specific human rights or civil rights issues.

My view observation is that it hinges on the word "marriage" and what it symbolizes to the individual, equally diverse. Would you explain -- from your perspective -- the significant difference between the terms "marriage" and "domestic partnership" (other states use the term civil marriage). I've read that as of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships most of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). And if that's the case, then its certainly not a legal one, is it? Please expound.

[devSin]

Not at all, peaceful protest has been a cherished American right since the Boston Tea Party. It's unfortunate when individuals (be they affiliated, or not) go beyond that.

Certainly. Some people are able to handle themselves as adults and are able to respect their fellow human beings. Others are not.

 

To be sure, violence and threats against people and property serve no purpose and help no one, although I wouldn't suggest that these individuals are representative of any particular cause or concern (certainly, I don't hold it against the gay community nor the supporters of gay marriage that a particular person or group of people decided that vandalizing private property was somehow appropriate). And I'm definitely not a saint, so I can't really condemn (too loudly) people getting whipped up and doing something wholly inappropriate.

 

As for policy, I was referring to president-elect Obama's comment: "Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," he said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

I don't advocate taking politicians at their word, especially during an election, and in this case, it's equally odd depending on one's interpretation of the various Constitutions (and as a liberal Democrat and a Constitutional lawyer, I rather think Obama's interpretation would tend to be quite meticulous and fairly progressive) where granting the same sets of rights under a different name or convention is itself nothing more than a discriminatory policy (if we agree that the rights and responsibilities afforded the institution of civil marriage apply equally to same-sex relationships, how can we then not agree to afford them the institution of civil marriage). With nothing to go on but his public statements, I don't really see anything of particular substance beyond a tacit admission that there won't be any White House initiatives to universally guarantee same-sex marriage (which would have lost him the Presidency; issues such as this are more complex than simple "yes" or "no," however, so there's no real way to gauge his feelings outside extensive discussion). (In any case, given his statements and record, I think it's absolutely clear that he won't do anything to *prevent* gay marriage -- it's just a complete absence of promotion as well as opposition on his part.) Also, Obama's rhetoric is much too measured for me to actually believe anything he says as being the whole truth (yes, I'm west coast liberal and voted for him and am heartened by his actions and words so far, but the world still will not be saved, so spare me your "Yes we can" platitudes, all you 'bamarama fanatics).

 

My view observation is that it hinges on the word "marriage" and what it symbolizes to the individual, equally diverse. Would you explain -- from your perspective -- the significant difference between the terms "marriage" and "domestic partnership" (other states use the term civil marriage). I've read that as of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships most of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). And if that's the case, then its certainly not a legal one, is it? Please expound.

"Civil union." (All marriage as handled by the state is civil -- everything you get outside personal and spiritual well-being as delivered through a church wedding is "civil marriage.")

 

Functionally, I don't believe there is much difference, but the societal connotations are too complex to really cover here. The Connecticut Supreme Court has a fairly concise ruling on perceptual and practical differences, which I agree with. In short (and I will not believe that anyone cannot find difference between "married" and "domestic partnered," so I don't take the question entirely seriously), I cannot see how a domestic partnership can be viewed as anything other than convention created to prevent marriage of two consenting adults of the same gender (remember, you're offering them most everything about marriage except the "marriage") and actually think those who deny any legal recognition of same-sex relationships are on much stronger footing when opposing equal marriage rights.

 

But my interest here is not really the gay marriage aspect (although I am in support, the opposition has already lost and the events of these intervening years are largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned), just the idea that protest was inappropriate action. Except when they block traffic (I actually do live over here*). ;-)

 

*On this note, the action against Proposition 8 is not predicated on it being ruled unconstitutional, but is instead to determine if the measure is legal (based on the proposed classification of the modification to the State Constitution, revisions require 2/3 majority support, whereas simple amendments require only majority -- is the redefinition of marriage, remembering that marriage is defined nowhere in law as actually "one man and one woman" so changes thus are the actual redefining, an amendment or a revision of existing Constitutional convention is the question before the court).

[temujin]

I gotta agree with my man, devSin - the voice of reason, as always.

 

Gay couples should have the right to be equally unhappy in 'holy matrimony' as heterosexual couples.

 

 

Then, in a few years, we'll start seeing gays demanding the right to file for divorce... That'll be quite a sight.

 

 

[EiriktheScald]

My view observation is that it hinges on the word "marriage" and what it symbolizes to the individual, equally diverse. Would you explain -- from your perspective -- the significant difference between the terms "marriage" and "domestic partnership" (other states use the term civil marriage). I've read that as of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships most of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). And if that's the case, then its certainly not a legal one, is it? Please expound.

"Civil union." (All marriage as handled by the state is civil -- everything you get outside personal and spiritual well-being as delivered through a church wedding is "civil marriage.")

 

Functionally, I don't believe there is much difference, but the societal connotations are too complex to really cover here.

This is the crux of the matter, I agree.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has a fairly concise ruling on perceptual and practical differences, which I agree with.

Where can one find this if they want to read it?

In short (and I will not believe that anyone cannot find difference between "married" and "domestic partnered," so I don't take the question entirely seriously), I cannot see how a domestic partnership can be viewed as anything other than convention created to prevent marriage of two consenting adults of the same gender (remember, you're offering them most everything about marriage except the "marriage") and actually think those who deny any legal recognition of same-sex relationships are on much stronger footing when opposing equal marriage rights.

I wanted to know what your perceptions were. According to Obama (his word is all I have to go on at this point), civil union is "the right balance to strike in this society;" a compromise nevertheless. It is quite another thing to address those connotations you referred to. Those of the opposing view feel just as strongly about the issue. Denying legal recognition is kinda mute at this point.

But my interest here is not really the gay marriage aspect (although I am in support, the opposition has already lost and the events of these intervening years are largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned), just the idea that protest was inappropriate action. Except when they block traffic (I actually do live over here*). ;-)

A poor choice of words on my part. The "kind of demonstration" was directed toward violence and threats against people and property. And fair, or not, some will connect that activity to the cause or concern. Its unfortunate and these things do not lead to a meaningful resolution.

*On this note, the action against Proposition 8 is not predicated on it being ruled unconstitutional, but is instead to determine if the measure is legal (based on the proposed classification of the modification to the State Constitution, revisions require 2/3 majority support, whereas simple amendments require only majority -- is the redefinition of marriage, remembering that marriage is defined nowhere in law as actually "one man and one woman" so changes thus are the actual redefining, an amendment or a revision of existing Constitutional convention is the question before the court).

There has been a lot of legal maneuvering regarding that proposition, both before and after the vote. I used it as an example of the cultural opposition they face (yes, even in California). Proposition 2 in Florida passed with a greater margin. What's interesting, is that two existing Florida statutes already prohibit same-sex marriage. And if that wasn't enough, the amendment as written included a clause prohibiting judges from overturning the law. This was a response to what happened in Massachusetts, where a judge overturned that state's law banning same-sex marriage.

[cmorgan]

Regardless of view, the resolution pretty much *has* to be at the federal level. Vermont's Civil Union makes a point of reminding folks that there are all sorts of unknowns when what one state recognizes and supports differs from what other states support.

 

I am not sure I got your point, devSin, on the differences between marriage and civil union, but I can try to put it in my own words, and have you correct me, which will clarify your point -

 

"civil union" = state recognition of a social contract between two individuals providing rights determining access and care of the other individual, shared property, benefits coverage, and all other employer and law-derived benefits of marriage (except perhaps IRS taxation, which is a whole other kettle of fish - dunno what they do with the whole thing) - restricted to people of the same gender.

 

"civil marriage" = the same set of protections, rights, etc. developed from both religious and common-law (including in most places a recognition of common law marriage )- restricted to persons who are of opposite genders.

 

"marriage" = currently used (by the legal system? I get the idea that isn't true - probably just a social term) to cover everything from common law/length of cohabitation to religious ceremonies by everyone from Sea Captains to The Church Of The Open Door, or any faith-based organization able to be registered as a church - restricted to persons who are of opposite genders.

 

 

If I have got this right, then the argument is that if you remove gender restrictions from A, B, and C, they all are the same under the law

 

A = B = C

 

and creating civil unions is a shell game based exclusively on the homosexual/heterosexual status of the couple.

 

So basically, the creation of (A =/= B) , (A =/= C), (B=C) is meaningful in that it creates a secondary supposed "separate but equal" that is intrinsicly "not equal".

 

Am I close?

 

Which brings us back full circle to the sociological question - who's point of view are we using to determine the equality? If we are using logic, fundamentally A=B=C, so dump the restriction and you get A, and religious expression can take it from there for those who believe it is appropriate. If we are working from a view of religiously based marriage and the social contract comes in to protect the fundamentals of marriage, then fundamentally A =/= C based on the gender of the participants alone - which applies a specific religious view to the social contract. Of course, if we are doing this, then why are we recognizing common law marriage, or other denomination's marriages, or any other forms of non-church-based hookups - that ship has long ago sailed as we recognize common law and non-religious ceremonies and label them marriages.

 

Bleh. Sometimes I just don't understand the human race. We tend to make things so much more complicated.

[devSin]

I am not sure I got your point, devSin, on the differences between marriage and civil union, but I can try to put it in my own words, and have you correct me, which will clarify your point -

 

"civil union" = state recognition of a social contract between two individuals providing rights determining access and care of the other individual, shared property, benefits coverage, and all other employer and law-derived benefits of marriage (except perhaps IRS taxation, which is a whole other kettle of fish - dunno what they do with the whole thing) - restricted to people of the same gender.

 

"civil marriage" = the same set of protections, rights, etc. developed from both religious and common-law (including in most places a recognition of common law marriage )- restricted to persons who are of opposite genders.

 

"marriage" = currently used (by the legal system? I get the idea that isn't true - probably just a social term) to cover everything from common law/length of cohabitation to religious ceremonies by everyone from Sea Captains to The Church Of The Open Door, or any faith-based organization able to be registered as a church - restricted to persons who are of opposite genders.

B is really a misnomer. There's marriage as governed by the State and federal governments and there's marriage as consecrated by your religious beliefs. They're really the same thing, but they're handled differently by the respective backing institution (obviously, your religion imposes another set of rules and responsibilities over the government, but these are irrelevant to said government). Almost universally, people in the US obtain both a "civil" marriage license and have their union blessed by the church (I believe some even demand a license before performing wedding ceremonies?). Common Law is just a de facto marriage -- for whatever reason, these two people don't have a license and possibly didn't have a wedding but are just a couple that consider themselves married; it definitely falls outside the system and isn't really relevant.

 

Basically, under the law, there's non-marriage providing some State rights and responsibilities of marriage and there's marriage providing those rights and more (in some cases). There's nothing preventing those from Group A from having a church wedding (for those institutions blessing same-sex marriage), but these will not be recognized by the State (you can be married in the eyes of your church, but the government cares not). Additionally, civil unions and domestic partnerships aren't necessarily restricted to couples of the same gender (a quick end-run around some discrimination concerns), but for all intents and purposes, it's a new status designed to grant some legal rights to homosexual couples.

 

What keeps A from being equivalent to C (and if A were truly equivalent to C, under the Constitution, there should only be A or C, not both) is the societal implication of "marriage." The sticky part comes with personal belief of marriage, but I contend that the concept as it exists in modern society is entirely removed from any single belief. Born and raised in this country, I have been surrounded by marriage my entire life. My parents are married, the children I played with in school had parents who were married, my teachers were married, everything I watch on TV, everything I read, the movies I see, the newspaper and magazine articles... our society is now hand-in-hand with the idea that you grow up, fall in love, get married, and have a family. Everything you experience in your life serves to reinforce this, and to suggest that a domestic partnership or civil union is somehow equivalent to the modern concept of marriage is simply unbelievable. (It gets hard because the sociological concept is so nebulous and has little to do with rights and rules and religious beliefs, which vary from country to country, state to state, individual to individual, and from one religion to the next.) The goals, expectations, and assumptions are that I will be married; "domestic partnered" or "civil united" have absolutely no significance in mainstream society (these days, you could kinda guess that the participants are a hopefully-faithful homosexual couple if you hear such a thing).

 

I wanted to know what your perceptions were. According to Obama (his word is all I have to go on at this point), civil union is "the right balance to strike in this society;" a compromise nevertheless. It is quite another thing to address those connotations you referred to. Those of the opposing view feel just as strongly about the issue. Denying legal recognition is kinda mute at this point.

It's a difficult situation. I'm certainly not neglecting that there are people fundamentally opposed to the idea. I approached it from a standpoint that I hope bypassed a lot of personal belief and religious opinion -- you're creating separate classes of human being by enacting policy that purports to treat people equally but does so differently (I have seen no legal or logical argument against divorced from personal belief of "marriage" to influence my perception of the current situation; I very much want to, but absent, this is the only conclusion I can divine). Either marriage is integral to society and has been declared a social right or it is just a term that has no secular significance and is itself relevant only to a select few (the opposition all too often falls into the habit of trying to have their cake and eat it too). Now, you can put things into a situation where the interim solution to provide "pseudo" marriage could potentially allow the opposition to soften, but this really only carries you so far (and I submit that opposition will not naturally soften to a significant degree -- although society and its populace are incredibly resilient and have a knack for change, they are also quite resistant to it when left to evolve on their own).

 

To me personally, regardless of whether it's considered right or wrong by the majority, if we accept that marriage has special significance in our society and determine that homosexuals cannot be a class forever denied this part of our nation (hence, "domestic partnerships") with no basis in law, to then enact rules that continue to exclude an entire class of human from a key part of our society is not a solution, merely a delay of the inevitable right and recognition of two adults of the same gender to enter into legal marriage. If we endorse now rules that serve only to pacify our own beliefs and opinions and indefinitely hold a group of fellow man separate and lesser than ourselves, history must and will judge us wrong. And I claim as a matter of historical fact (and a challenge to President Obama) that this travesty is the true danger to our society; I will never know in my lifetime a world where our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay will be recognized as holding as much value to our society, to our lives, and to our species as the rest.

 

Where can one find this if they want to read it?

I don't know offhand, sorry. You should be able to find quick summaries, but I don't know where you could get the full judgment (Google will hopefully turn up something).

[Guest s-k]

Political issues will continue, people will point and counter-point forever. I look at it from a general point, the current topic is gay marriage (and off shoots of that)

again I look at it as 'does this infringe on my (or others) rights. no, so if they want to be 'married' then whatever.

 

now personally I am against it. But the 'left' is screaming that I accept that their way of life is normal/fine/whatever, I can do that and remain against it. but the left has to, in turn, accept that people will be against it, and that is also normal/fine/whatever.

 

remember people that this country was founded on unpopular expression, among other things like morals.

 

so should society dictate morals or should morals dictate society?

well if the former; society could say cold-blooded murder is morally acceptable. so no, it can only be the latter. I realize that this is very simplified so don't twist it and put words in my mouth.

 

are we doomed to repeat history? Rome did not fall from an outside invader it rotted from within, because of lack of morality. this is not a gay thing here more like bribery/corruption thing. However I am trying to point out that morality is important.

 

people stop using the catholic priest thing unless you can prove that there is an unusually high ratio in the ministries. However these have people lost their morals.

 

nb: I am not personally taking the moral high ground (since I can't) I am just pointing certain things to consider.