Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Ok, so today there will be protests across the nation... I am a news junkie, and I have heard a lot of issues regarding reactions to this proposition... anywho, I am curious how this protest will go in other towns...

[NinjaPoodle]

I will be there here in San Francisco taking lots of pictures.

[Jen]

I unfortunately have to work, or I'd be at the Vancouver Art Gallery protesting today.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

I support gay marriage... but this is getting a bit crazy... there is a blacklist in California of all the people that donated towards the ban... this one dude lost his job because of his donation... that is a little extreme, then again, so were the commercials for the ban...

[LightBulb]

Oh, awesome; I didn't know this was coordinated. I did sumble across a lively one while walking down the street in Morgantown, West Virginia.

It was sponsored by the BiGLTM (http://www.wvu.edu/~bigltm) (Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, & Transgendered Mountaineers).

[BabyPiNK_FL]

I tried to go. i mean I did. I got there just after they finished. I guess I have trouble noticing the correct time of events :o. It was sad. I made such a pretty poster. It said "Str8 against H8" with the 8s in rainbow patterns.

It was so funny because when we went to get a henna tatoo down on South Beach before going home we were telling the guy how we missed our protest and he's like "Oh, I'm so sorry you and you girlfriend missed it." And my little sister was like, "No, she's my sorority big sis! Neither of us are gay!" :p

[a.e.B.O.T.]

well, I heard that there were 40,000 in SanFran... which is a hell of a lot me thinks...

[PhiGam]

They should have put these resources into lobbying and campaigning instead of protesting after the fact

[AGDee]

I think it's going to be some time before the majority of the people are willing to consider the idea of gay marriage in most localities. In 2004, Michigan voters passed the amendment to define marriage as "between one man and one woman" and we're a very blue state too.

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently. This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are. The only thing is, I don't like the term civil union itself because I'm not sure what you would say "We're getting unionized" doesn't seem like a logical term to me. "We're getting civilized" doesn't work either. "We're being civil unionized"? "We're being partnered" ??? I just don't know what to really call it so that it makes sense. Take the religion completely out of the legal aspect of the whole thing. Then the government is allowing the same thing for any consenting adult and the churches can do what they want. The more I think about this, the more I think this is the way to go. It seems ridiculous to have to spend the kind of money it would take to do this when there is already a legal institution in place, but the term "marriage" has too many religious connotations to too many people at this point. This would better solidify a separation of church and state.

[moe.ron]

agree with you totally. what if another church want to marry gay couple? isn't it their right to follow their own doctrine as a religion. one church do not want to marry gay couple, it's also their right to follow their own doctrine.

government and religion should not be in one camp, government should only recognized civil union for administrative purposes.

[AGDee]

The Roman Catholic Church refuses to marry people for all sorts of reasons. I understand that one of the big issues people had was that they were worried that churches would be forced to marry gay couples or face law suits. If the RCC can deny people getting married because they are divorced, pregnant, not members of the church, etc, then they can deny it for people who are gay.

I keep hearing people say that civil unions do not carry the same rights as marriage but where do civil unions even exist to make that statement? I've heard of states that are allowing gay marriage. I've heard of states that do not. I've not heard of any states that have civil unions. Perhaps it's my own lack of research/awareness. It just seems like the most logical thing to me, to have the government recognize civil union for legal/administrative/tax purposes and have marriage remain solely in the church.

[Scandia]

There was one in my city yesterday that some of my friends attended. It was a protest for my state's similar amendment, but it would work for 8 as well. I was unable to attend because I was conducting a program at work that got a lot of people.

[DSTRen13]

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently. This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are. The only thing is, I don't like the term civil union itself because I'm not sure what you would say "We're getting unionized" doesn't seem like a logical term to me. "We're getting civilized" doesn't work either. "We're being civil unionized"? "We're being partnered" ??? I just don't know what to really call it so that it makes sense. Take the religion completely out of the legal aspect of the whole thing. Then the government is allowing the same thing for any consenting adult and the churches can do what they want. The more I think about this, the more I think this is the way to go. It seems ridiculous to have to spend the kind of money it would take to do this when there is already a legal institution in place, but the term "marriage" has too many religious connotations to too many people at this point. This would better solidify a separation of church and state.

SECOND!!

[DGTess]

I think it's going to be some time before the majority of the people are willing to consider the idea of gay marriage in most localities. In 2004, Michigan voters passed the amendment to define marriage as "between one man and one woman" and we're a very blue state too.

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently. This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are. The only thing is, I don't like the term civil union itself because I'm not sure what you would say "We're getting unionized" doesn't seem like a logical term to me. "We're getting civilized" doesn't work either. "We're being civil unionized"? "We're being partnered" ??? I just don't know what to really call it so that it makes sense. Take the religion completely out of the legal aspect of the whole thing. Then the government is allowing the same thing for any consenting adult and the churches can do what they want. The more I think about this, the more I think this is the way to go. It seems ridiculous to have to spend the kind of money it would take to do this when there is already a legal institution in place, but the term "marriage" has too many religious connotations to too many people at this point. This would better solidify a separation of church and state.


Hear, hear!

Why can't we have a "civil union" between members of opposite sexes? (In fact, that's what my "marriage" is - we were married by a Judge in Colorado, in a "civil service").

No religious organization that I know of will perform "marriage" ceremonies without a civil license.

Look how many companies will allow an individual to provide "same sex domestic partner" benefits, yet my office mate cannot cover her long-time live-in boyfriend, because he's not same-sex and they're not married.

Recognizing marriages/unions for what they are -- contracts -- would go a long way.

[UGAalum94]

I think it's going to be some time before the majority of the people are willing to consider the idea of gay marriage in most localities. In 2004, Michigan voters passed the amendment to define marriage as "between one man and one woman" and we're a very blue state too.

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently. This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are. The only thing is, I don't like the term civil union itself because I'm not sure what you would say "We're getting unionized" doesn't seem like a logical term to me. "We're getting civilized" doesn't work either. "We're being civil unionized"? "We're being partnered" ??? I just don't know what to really call it so that it makes sense. Take the religion completely out of the legal aspect of the whole thing. Then the government is allowing the same thing for any consenting adult and the churches can do what they want. The more I think about this, the more I think this is the way to go. It seems ridiculous to have to spend the kind of money it would take to do this when there is already a legal institution in place, but the term "marriage" has too many religious connotations to too many people at this point. This would better solidify a separation of church and state.

Yep. But I ask, what interest does the state have in civil unions either, especially ones without kids?

Why not do away with it all from a civil perspective and offer government benefits of union only to those with children currently living at home?

[KappaKittyCat]

Look how many companies will allow an individual to provide "same sex domestic partner" benefits, yet my office mate cannot cover her long-time live-in boyfriend, because he's not same-sex and they're not married.

My company does the same thing. I don't have a problem with it because if my state recognized gay marriage or even civil unions (which we don't - our ban prohibits both actual marriage and "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage"), my company would require that same-sex couples be married or in a civil union in order to have the partner receive benefits. As it is now, they have to have been in a committed relationship for >1 year and sign an affidavit stating more or less, "We'd be married if we could." Our HR folks were talking about rewriting the policy if our ban failed and gay marriage or civil unions were legalized. Alas, even my blue state is full of bigots.

I second the motion for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely.

[LightBulb]

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently.Why argue for a separate but (allegedly) equal system?This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are.Opposite-sex couples can get legal marriages (e.g. at the courthouse) without getting religious marriages (e.g. at the church); why shouldn't same-sex couples have this same opportunity?Take the religion completely out of the legal aspect of the whole thing. Then the government is allowing the same thing for any consenting adult and the churches can do what they want.The government cannot force a church to marry a couple for any reason! However, it can do its citizens the justice of allowing them legal marriage.

ETA: Sorry, I misread your post the first time. I thought you were saying for only same-sex couples get civil union licenses. My bad. Please disregard this post.

[LightBulb]

Yep. But I ask, what interest does the state have in civil unions either, especially ones without kids?

Why not do away with it all from a civil perspective and offer government benefits of union only to those with children currently living at home?This discriminates against couples with no children. Rights are not given in the interest of the state; they are recognized in the interest of the individual.

Additionally, couples who are not married (or only married on a state level) miss a lot of benefits that are completely unrelated to children. For example, when a gay married couple joins the Peace Corps, the two are not placed together because their marriage is not federally recognized.I second the motion for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely.Civil/legal marriages have an important role for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. For example, an atheist couple would likely prefer to be married outside of religious institutions.

[preciousjeni]

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently. This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are...Take the religion completely out of the legal aspect of the whole thing. Then the government is allowing the same thing for any consenting adult and the churches can do what they want. The more I think about this, the more I think this is the way to go. It seems ridiculous to have to spend the kind of money it would take to do this when there is already a legal institution in place, but the term "marriage" has too many religious connotations to too many people at this point. This would better solidify a separation of church and state.

SECOND!!

Hear hear!!

ETA: I had a civil marriage and began to make a point about calling it "legally joined." When I was "married" in my church, I considered that the date of my marriage.

[UGAalum94]

This discriminates against couples with no children. Rights are not given in the interest of the state; they are recognized in the interest of the individual.

Additionally, couples who are not married (or only married on a state level) miss a lot of benefits that are completely unrelated to children. For example, when a gay married couple joins the Peace Corps, the two are not placed together because their marriage is not federally recognized.Civil/legal marriages have an important role for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. For example, an atheist couple would likely prefer to be married outside of religious institutions.

Only allowing benefits to couples with children wouldn't discriminate against childless couples anymore than marriage benefits today discriminate against the unmarried. Do you think offering marriage or civil unions unfairly discriminates against those without partners?

There ought to be a good reason that the state is involved in marriage or civil unions at all; otherwise the whole thing ought to be left to individuals to decide the terms of. The well being of children may be the only area in which I think it makes sense to offer a different tax rate, health benefits, automatic assumption of shared property, etc. Otherwise, why should the state be in the business of dictating the terms at all?

[preciousjeni]

There ought to be a good reason that the state is involved in marriage or civil unions at all; otherwise the whole thing ought to be left to individuals to decide the terms of. The well being of children may be the only area in which I think it makes sense to offer a different tax rate, health benefits, automatic assumption of shared property, etc. Otherwise, why should the state be in the business of dictating the terms at all?
It's actually cheaper for my husband and me to have two separate individual health insurance plans than to have a single married plan. That particular "benefit" is not as shiny as people want to make it.

Why should the state be involved? Money. That's the bottom line. Married couples consistently show higher rates of income/wealth accumulation, lower healthcare costs, etc. It is to the state's benefit to encourage and recognize legal unions.

[Jimmy Choo]

I think it's going to be some time before the majority of the people are willing to consider the idea of gay marriage in most localities. In 2004, Michigan voters passed the amendment to define marriage as "between one man and one woman" and we're a very blue state too.

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently. This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are. The only thing is, I don't like the term civil union itself because I'm not sure what you would say "We're getting unionized" doesn't seem like a logical term to me. "We're getting civilized" doesn't work either. "We're being civil unionized"? "We're being partnered" ??? I just don't know what to really call it so that it makes sense. Take the religion completely out of the legal aspect of the whole thing. Then the government is allowing the same thing for any consenting adult and the churches can do what they want. The more I think about this, the more I think this is the way to go. It seems ridiculous to have to spend the kind of money it would take to do this when there is already a legal institution in place, but the term "marriage" has too many religious connotations to too many people at this point. This would better solidify a separation of church and state.

EXACTLY!!! This way the churches that want to recognize it can and the ones that don't want too can keep on doing that.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Here is where I see the issue getting iffy... Ok, one of the big propaganda things during the yes on prop 8 campaign was that Catholic Adoption Agencies pulled out of Mass, because they were required to allow same sex marriages to adopt. Here we have the government forcing themselves on to religious beliefs, while the other side argues that religious beliefs should stay out of the government... I believe in gay marriage and gay rights... I believe it is their civil right to be recognized by the government. I ALSO believe in separation of the church of state, meaning that if a Church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, or provide them with adoption, they shouldn't have to... it gets iffy when you think about however, how far the church then would be allow to discriminate, and that is where I get perplexed

[AGDee]

Yep. But I ask, what interest does the state have in civil unions either, especially ones without kids?

Why not do away with it all from a civil perspective and offer government benefits of union only to those with children currently living at home?

I fail to see what kids have to do with 1) being able to provide health benefits to your spouse, 2) community property laws, 3) inheritance laws or 4) right to visit a loved one in ICU and make medical decisions for them. Most first marriages don't involve children until after people are married. I don't understand what kids have to do with marriage or civil unions. You can certainly have a child without being married and you can be married and not have children.

[ThetaPrincess24]

They should have put these resources into lobbying and campaigning instead of protesting after the fact

That would have been the logical thing to do.


I support the ban, but I think civil unions should be allowed in every state.

[MysticCat]

Yep. But I ask, what interest does the state have in civil unions either, especially ones without kids?There are many legal rights that spouses have that simply do not exist without marriage/civil union, or that can be very complicated to replicate through other documents (powers of attorney, wills, etc.)

Many countries follow the pattern that has been suggested above -- a civil marriage (conducted by a civil official) is required; it can, if the couple want, be followed by a religious marriage ceremony/blessing. I know many members of the clergy who would love to see a similar pattern here.

[LightBulb]

Prop 8 is evolving... No on Shrimp (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=48340110900)

[Munchkin03]

They should have put these resources into lobbying and campaigning instead of protesting after the fact

I guess you're not familiar with the insane amount of lobbying, campaigning, and grassroot efforts that took place in California prior to the Prop 8 vote. Unlike Amendment 2 in Florida, which was obviously going to pass, polls taken about this were pretty much at a dead heat.

[KSig RC]

There's a fine line between "civil unions" and:

http://blog.thehumanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/jimcrowpic3.jpg

. . . and that's precisely because of the societal connotation. I'd love for the doctrine of separation of church and state to rule the day here, because obviously using a religious term for a social contract is a massive annoyance and pure silliness, but the fact is, we do. Why should the connotation and societal importance be legally denied (or, more precisely, hindered)?

There really has to be a better way.

[sigmadiva]

There's a fine line between "civil unions" and:

http://blog.thehumanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/jimcrowpic3.jpg

. . . and that's precisely because of the societal connotation. I'd love for the doctrine of separation of church and state to rule the day here, because obviously using a religious term for a social contract is a massive annoyance and pure silliness, but the fact is, we do. Why should the connotation and societal importance be legally denied (or, more precisely, hindered)?

There really has to be a better way.


What's your point here?:confused:

[UGAalum94]

I fail to see what kids have to do with 1) being able to provide health benefits to your spouse, 2) community property laws, 3) inheritance laws or 4) right to visit a loved one in ICU and make medical decisions for them. Most first marriages don't involve children until after people are married. I don't understand what kids have to do with marriage or civil unions. You can certainly have a child without being married and you can be married and not have children.

My point is marriage or civil union isn't really required to deliver any of the things you listed, other than providing the terminology of "spouse." We could just decide to let people develop their own contracts for these things if we wanted to.

With health care, why does it make more sense to offer health care benefits to a "spouse" than a roommate or best friend?

When children enter the picture, it changes things to me because instead of individuals with a responsibility only to themselves and each other, you have people connected with the obligation of providing for the children so it would make sense to me to have some default legal standards. But for the rest of us, why elect to privileged one relationship legally above all others?

What interest does the state have in regulating that at all?

[UGAalum94]

There are many legal rights that spouses have that simply do not exist without marriage/civil union, or that can be very complicated to replicate through other documents (powers of attorney, wills, etc.)

Many countries follow the pattern that has been suggested above -- a civil marriage (conducted by a civil official) is required; it can, if the couple want, be followed by a religious marriage ceremony/blessing. I know many members of the clergy who would love to see a similar pattern here.

But if no one had those legal rights by default though marriage, it might become easier and more common to create them with other documents.

I like the idea of civil unions for everyone and marriage through churches who want to offer it to those that want to seek it (and there would be plenty who offered same sex marriage), but I do think that a.e.B.O.T. brought up some interesting issues with that. Will other people still be allowed to "discriminate" for lack of a better word between people who are married and people who are merely joined through civil union?

[UGAalum94]

What's your point here?:confused:

Probably that offering "civil unions" is a way of having two classes of citizens. At least that's my guess.

[AGDee]

What's your point here?:confused:

I believe his point is that "Separate but Equal" was proven to be wrong a long time ago.

My point is marriage or civil union isn't really required to deliver any of the things you listed, other than providing the terminology of "spouse." We could just decide to let people develop their own contracts for these things if we wanted to.

With health care, why does it make more sense to offer health care benefits to a "spouse" than a roommate or best friend?

When children enter the picture, it changes things to me because instead of individuals with a responsibility only to themselves and each other, you have people connected with the obligation of providing for the children so it would make sense to me to have some default legal standards. But for the rest of us, why elect to privileged one relationship legally above all others?

What interest does the state have in regulating that at all?

Are you just playing devil's advocate here? You could just as easily argue that people with children don't need marriage to have default legal standards either (and actually, they don't, with regards to inheritance, child support requirements, etc). I am divorced but if I die, my ex-husband still gets custody of them by default, still has to pay for a certain portion of their upkeep and still has to provide medical insurance for them by default of being their father. This would be true if we had never married too. Those are parental rights and responsibilities, not marital rights and responsibilities.

So sure, let's just get rid of all unions from a legal standpoint. Then spouses can't be held accountable for each other's medical bills, debt, or anything. Likewise, they cannot be entitled to anything the other one owns should one of them die unless they have a will stating otherwise. It would eliminate all laws regarding adultery too. Toss laws against polygamy since there is no such thing as marriage or a legal union. No more divorce court.

But if no one had those legal rights by default though marriage, it might become easier and more common to create them with other documents.

I like the idea of civil unions for everyone and marriage through churches who want to offer it to those that want to seek it (and there would be plenty who offered same sex marriage), but I do think that a.e.B.O.T. brought up some interesting issues with that. Will other people still be allowed to "discriminate" for lack of a better word between people who are married and people who are merely joined through civil union?

As for discriminating between people who are married and people who are joined through civil union, government entities and EOEs could not discriminate between the two legally because marriage wouldn't be addressed by laws at all. It would be religious ceremony like baptism, communion, etc and those entities cannot discriminate based on religion. Nobody would even really know, other than your church. Churches are allowed to discriminate based on religion. Who knows whether you're baptized or not?

[sigmadiva]

I believe his point is that "Separate but Equal" was proven to be wrong a long time ago.



So what does it have to do with gay marriage?:confused:

[OtterXO]

So what does it have to do with gay marriage?:confused:

That creating a separate set of rights for a homosexual couple who wants to marry (i.e. labeling them civil unions, domestic partners, etc.) is not equal to the right for heterosexuals to legally marry.

And for the record, Munchkin, up above, is right. A lot of money and time was put into the No on Prop 8 campaign. The Yes on Prop 8 campaign had a lot of money to spend and it was effective, especially since most of it was spent on scare tactics saying that gay marriage would be taught in schools (despite the CA Superintendent of Schools saying just the opposite was true :rolleyes:.) Just because people are protesting now doesn't mean they weren't doing anything before and all of a sudden, post-election, have decided that they care about the issue.

[LightBulb]

There's a fine line between "civil unions" and:

http://blog.thehumanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/jimcrowpic3.jpg

. . . and that's precisely because of the societal connotation. I'd love for the doctrine of separation of church and state to rule the day here, because obviously using a religious term for a social contract is a massive annoyance and pure silliness, but the fact is, we do. Why should the connotation and societal importance be legally denied (or, more precisely, hindered)?

There really has to be a better way.Well said!

[sigmadiva]

That creating a separate set of rights for a homosexual couple who wants to marry (i.e. labeling them civil unions, domestic partners, etc.) is not equal to the right for heterosexuals to legally marry.


So are there gay water fountains and straight water fountains?:p

Separate but equal was created based on racial identity - something for which no one can choose.

I just don't agree with the idea that gays have 'separate but equal' issues when it comes to marriage. Besides, the only people who I've seen tried to push the separate but equal argument where the issue of gay marriage is "equal to" racial inequality are white gay people.

[MysticCat]

But if no one had those legal rights by default though marriage, it might become easier and more common to create them with other documents.Maybe, but if you want to basically do away with "marriage" as a civil status you're talking about a whole lot more than just doing that. You're talking about overhauling tax laws, pension laws, social security laws, insurance laws, inheritance laws, health care laws, and on and on.

While many may not see any valid state interest in the state's regulation of marriage, the reality, I think, is that we've operated this way for so long, and it's so engrained in the "system" in so many ways, that it's not very practicable to try and make that kind of change.

[Senusret I]

So are there gay water fountains and straight water fountains?:p

Separate but equal was created based on racial identity - something for which no one can choose.

I just don't agree with the idea that gays have 'separate but equal' issues when it comes to marriage. Besides, the only people who I've seen tried to push the separate but equal argument where the issue of gay marriage is "equal to" racial inequality are white gay people.


Plus me.

But something tells me you're not really checking for the black gay opinion in the first place.

[MysticCat]

Plus me.

But something tells me you're not really checking for the black gay opinion in the first place.LOL. You beat me to it. (And I could point to others besides you.)

But yeah, I have a feeling she's not interested in any opinions that don't match her own. Not saying anyone has to agree, but at least have enough respect to pay attention.

[AGDee]

So are there gay water fountains and straight water fountains?:p

Separate but equal was created based on racial identity - something for which no one can choose.

I just don't agree with the idea that gays have 'separate but equal' issues when it comes to marriage. Besides, the only people who I've seen tried to push the separate but equal argument where the issue of gay marriage is "equal to" racial inequality are white gay people.

I've never been able to choose who I'm attracted to. I'm either attracted to a man or I'm not. I've never been able to make that chemistry happen if it isn't there and I've not been able to turn off the attraction if it is. While in divorce court, when my first husband walked into the court room, I still felt that intense physical attraction even though he was abusive jerk and I had grown to hate him. Therefore, I don't believe that gay people have that ability either. I cannot believe that someone would choose a lifestyle that has such a stigma and puts such limitations on their lives. In fact, most gay people I know tried very hard to meet and fall in love with members of the opposite sex before realizing that it wasn't going to happen and accepting that they were in fact gay.

I'm a white heterosexual who agrees with the "separate but equal" argument. I don't understand why anybody would deny someone the opportunity to commit to their life soul mate in a public, spiritual and legal way.

[UGAalum94]

Maybe, but if you want to basically do away with "marriage" as a civil status you're talking about a whole lot more than just doing that. You're talking about overhauling tax laws, pension laws, social security laws, insurance laws, inheritance laws, health care laws, and on and on.

While many may not see any valid state interest in the state's regulation of marriage, the reality, I think, is that we've operated this way for so long, and it's so engrained in the "system" in so many ways, that it's not very practicable to try and make that kind of change.

It makes about as much sense to me to do away with it as it does to expand it. Once we move away from what's been traditional, for lack of a better word, in marriage it becomes a whole lot easier for me to question the value of state endorsement of the whole institution.

It's not a question of wanting to exclude gay people because same sex marriage really doesn't bother me, but once you start to examine the whole institution and how it's practiced or not practiced, it's hard to figure out why it ought to be perpetuated.

It's not regarded as essential for having and raising children. It's not regarded as especially permanent. What's the point anymore really? (If you have a good marriage, it's not really the state endorsement that gives it meaning probably.)

I don't think anyone believes people should marry for health benefits or tax breaks, so why would they be a good reason to perpetuate the institution?

[sigmadiva]

But yeah, I have a feeling she's not interested in any opinions that don't match her own.

Don't most of us operate that way?


Not saying anyone has to agree, but at least have enough respect to pay attention.


As I've said on this topic before - one can be as gay as one wants to be. Live and let live. I just don't accept the argument that gay rights are the same / similar to civil rights with respect to racial equality.

If gay people want to support gay marriage - fine. Just because they support it does not mean I have to agree with it. Just don't usurp what Blacks have had to deal with as an equal comparison to gay rights. To me the two just don't carry the same weight.

[sigmadiva]

I cannot believe that someone would choose a lifestyle that has such a stigma and puts such limitations on their lives. In fact, most gay people I know tried very hard to meet and fall in love with members of the opposite sex before realizing that it wasn't going to happen and accepting that they were in fact gay.

Becuase there are people who feel very strongly that homosexuality is a choice. Is there a gay gene that some people are born with? I don't know.


I don't understand why anybody would deny someone the opportunity to commit to their life soul mate in a public, spiritual and legal way.

Because some people feel very strongly that homosexuality is immoral.

I feel that it is immoral, but I'm not going to try and stop someone from being gay. That is not for me to do. But, if given the opportunity to express my opinion on the matter of gay marriage by a vote, then I would not support gay marriage.

[sigmadiva]

But something tells me you're not really checking for the black gay opinion in the first place.

No, not really. :p

I just find it very insensitive that the Black experience in America can get so trivialized.

So, Sen, let me ask you - would you as a Black gay man find the issue of gay marriage more compelling if it is compared to the Holocaust that Jews experienced?

Gays, just as the Jews, were singled out for being 'different'.

Gays, just as Jews, were / have been persecuted for having practices and beliefs that were / are not accepted by the 'norm'.

Gays, just as the Jews, had property vandalized because they are not part of the 'majority'.

Gays, just as the Jews, are subject to ridicule just for being who they are.

So do you think the gay marriage argument would have more support if we compared it to the Jewish experience seeing as that both groups have been persecuted in the same way?:confused:

[KSig RC]

I just find it very insensitive that the Black experience in America can get so trivialized.


It's even more telling that you think I was "trivializing" the black experience by utilizing the historical and moral lessons that are directly drawn from the mistreatment of blacks in the United States to further human rights.

It's not "trivializing" the black experience - it's hoping that we never repeat the same horrific mistakes ever again. But hey - take it how you will.

Also, that's fine if you feel homosexuality is a choice, or that it's immoral. However, even if you want to dodge the church/state separation issue (I presume you do), I'm sure you'll agree that even immoral people (who do not break a law) deserve proper and equal treatment under the law.

Because of the positive connotation (and stigma) associated with the term "marriage," we walk a difficult path when we even begin to introduce terms such as "civil union" - it's eerily similar to how "separate-but-equal" was really anything but, even when we acknowledge the scale is dissimilar. We should be more enlightened than to simply pretend terms or institutions have no meaning or can be used interchangeably - they can't.

[Senusret I]

No, not really. :p

I just find it very insensitive that the Black experience in America can get so trivialized.

So, Sen, let me ask you - would you as a Black gay man find the issue of gay marriage more compelling if it is compared to the Holocaust that Jews experienced?

It's sad that you feel that by viewing the issue of gay marriage as a civil rights issue that it somehow trivializes the black experience. MY black experience is enhanced by being able to acknowledge that it's all part of the same movement.

I don't need to find the issue of gay marriage any more compelling for me than it already is -- it's my life.

I feel very strongly about this issue, enough to end friendships with people just like you who do not believe in my equality. I WILL NOT respect any person, religion, or opinion that does not stand with me for equal rights.

[sigmadiva]

It's even more telling that you think I was "trivializing" the black experience by utilizing the historical and moral lessons that are directly drawn from the mistreatment of blacks in the United States to further human rights.

So point out to me where gays have experienced the exact same mistreatment as Blacks? As I asked earlier, were there or are there separate water fountains for gays?



It's not "trivializing" the black experience - it's hoping that we never repeat the same horrific mistakes ever again. But hey - take it how you will.

It is trivializing the Black experience. Have gays in this country been forced into slave labor? Were gay families broken up and sold as property? Have gays been denied the right to vote soley because they were gay?




Also, that's fine if you feel homosexuality is a choice, or that it's immoral. However, even if you want to dodge the church/state separation issue (I presume you do), I'm sure you'll agree that even immoral people (who do not break a law) deserve proper and equal treatment under the law.


I feel that homosexuality is a choice because it has not been proven otherwise, i.e. a gay gene.

I dodge the church/state issue because for me it is an impass. I don't think one side will ever convince the other, so why discuss it.

Again, gay people have not been mistreated under the law. Gay people don't get longer jail time or have to pay higher taxes just because they are gay.


Because of the positive connotation (and stigma) associated with the term "marriage," we walk a difficult path when we even begin to introduce terms such as "civil union" - it's eerily similar to how "separate-but-equal" was really anything but, even when we acknowledge the scale is dissimilar. We should be more enlightened than to simply pretend terms or institutions have no meaning or can be used interchangeably - they can't.

I agree with this and I bolded the part of the point I'm trying to make.

If you want to make the argument for gay marriage do so - just find a different basis than 'separate but equal'. Separate but equal sought to restore and give rights to Blacks where those rights were taken away. Nothing has been taken away from gays.

[kstar]

So point out to me where gays have experienced the exact same mistreatment as Blacks? As I asked earlier, were there or are there separate water fountains for gays?

It is trivializing the Black experience. Have gays in this country been forced into slave labor? Were gay families broken up and sold as property? Have gays been denied the right to vote soley because they were gay?

I feel that homosexuality is a choice because it has not been proven otherwise, i.e. a gay gene.

I dodge the church/state issue because for me it is an impass. I don't think one side will ever convince the other, so why discuss it.

Again, gay people have not been mistreated under the law. Gay people don't get longer jail time or have to pay higher taxes just because they are gay.

I agree with this and I bolded the part of the point I'm trying to make.

If you want to make the argument for gay marriage do so - just find a different basis than 'separate but equal'. Separate but equal sought to restore and give rights to Blacks where those rights were taken away. Nothing has been taken away from gays.

What planet are you on? The right to marry has been taken away, the very same right that Loving -v- Virginia stated was a basic human right.

And gay people have been mistreated under the law, until very recently in some states it was a crime punishable by jail time for a gay couple to make love.

You need for there to be a "gay" gene for it to be proven that being gay isn't a choice? Well, there is no "black" gene, so being black must be a choice, right?

[sigmadiva]

It's sad that you feel that by viewing the issue of gay marriage as a civil rights issue that it somehow trivializes the black experience. MY black experience is enhanced by being able to acknowledge that it's all part of the same movement.

My point is why do gays always have to point to the Black experience as a justification to gain their rights - what ever they may be. Why can't gay people just say that many groups have been persecuted for one reason or another based on some aspect of their being, so why should they (gays) be persucuted for how they are.



I don't need to find the issue of gay marriage any more compelling for me than it already is -- it's my life.

For you personally, I'm sure that is true. I think if more people had a more visceral feeling towards the Black experience then they would be a bit more sensitive (understanding?) to wanting to compare their experience to ours.

I have parents and family members as I am sure you do, who lived through the experience of the civil rights movement. Who did truly live a 'separate but equal' life under segregation. When my parents and older family members relate their experiences to me I just don't see the comparison to gay rights.


I feel very strongly about this issue, enough to end friendships with people just like you who do not believe in my equality. I WILL NOT respect any person, religion, or opinion that does not stand with me for equal rights.

Wow, you're a real love me or leave kind of person, eh?

[sigmadiva]

What planet are you on? The right to marry has been taken away, the very same right that Loving -v- Virginia stated was a basic human right.

I don't agree. How can something get taken away if you never had it in the first place?
If at some point gays did have the right to marry, then it was taken away, okay, I see your point. But, like I said, gays never had the right in the first place.



And gay people have been mistreated under the law, until very recently in some states it was a crime punishable by jail time for a gay couple to make love.

Yeah, and those states took that law of the books too.



You need for there to be a "gay" gene for it to be proven that being gay isn't a choice? Well, there is no "black" gene, so being black must be a choice, right?

I think you are making an assumption that is not true. Being black in terms of skin pigmentation is very different than being Black by culture.

And no, being black is not a choice (unless you are Michael Jackson :p). I was born with a good deal of pigmentation in my skin as I was born to parents who have a good deal of pigmentation in their skin.

Now, by culture, I do identify with the Black race. But, as we know, you really don't have to be born Black to be Black. Just ask Eminem (?sp).

And btw kstar, whose sock puppet are you?

[KSig RC]

So point out to me where gays have experienced the exact same mistreatment as Blacks? As I asked earlier, were there or are there separate water fountains for gays?

No one claimed that these were true - however, these things are neither necessary nor sufficient for a comparison to be made.

Maybe our impasse is one of being far too literal. To use the phrase "separate but equal" is simply to reference the fact that, in practice and in theory, any sort of bifurcation or double standard has been shown to be unlawful and discriminatory. Does that make more sense?

It is trivializing the Black experience. Have gays in this country been forced into slave labor? Were gay families broken up and sold as property? Have gays been denied the right to vote soley because they were gay?

No one is claiming any of these things - we're only claiming that, for years, the court system in the United States has determined that the right to marry is, indeed, a constitutionally-given right - as is the right to vote, the right to liberty and property, and a host of others.

I believe someone smarter than me once said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - this is the part you're missing when you view my comparison, to my mind.

Again, gay people have not been mistreated under the law. Gay people don't get longer jail time or have to pay higher taxes just because they are gay.

Nope, they just earn less, get fired more, get targeted for crimes based on their minority status, and lack fundamental rights under the law. So yeah - if you're comfortable with that, there's no discussion to be had.

If you want to make the argument for gay marriage do so - just find a different basis than 'separate but equal'. Separate but equal sought to restore and give rights to Blacks where those rights were taken away. Nothing has been taken away from gays.

This is the same logic that was used to prevent blacks from voting decades ago.

Actually, you've validated the comparison implicitly - banning gay marriage is "restoring" a right to gays that has been unilaterally denied under false pretense. I've never owned a gun, but that doesn't mean I forfeit my Constitutional right to do so.

[sigmadiva]

No one claimed that these were true - however, these things are neither necessary nor sufficient for a comparison to be made.

That is because to claim that gays have suffered the exact same as Blacks in this country is a weak argument, at best.



Maybe our impasse is one of being far too literal. To use the phrase "separate but equal" is simply to reference the fact that, in practice and in theory, any sort of bifurcation or double standard has been shown to be unlawful and discriminatory. Does that make more sense?

You're the one who's trying to make it literal by posting the picture that you did. And again, I disagree. I don't see where there is any double standard here.



No one is claiming any of these things - we're only claiming that, for years, the court system in the United States has determined that the right to marry is, indeed, a constitutionally-given right - as is the right to vote, the right to liberty and property, and a host of others.

Again, you're not going to convince me that this is a valid argument.



I believe someone smarter than me once said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - this is the part you're missing when you view my comparison, to my mind.


I don't see the injustice. I just don't.


Nope, they just earn less, get fired more, get targeted for crimes based on their minority status, and lack fundamental rights under the law. So yeah - if you're comfortable with that, there's no discussion to be had.

Not from my perspective. The gays I know seem to earn more and get fired less. Where do you live? Maybe you should move. ;)



This is the same logic that was used to prevent blacks from voting decades ago.

Actually, you've validated the comparison implicitly - banning gay marriage is "restoring" a right to gays that has been unilaterally denied under false pretense. I've never owned a gun, but that doesn't mean I forfeit my Constitutional right to do so.

Blacks were denied the right to vote because in part we were seen as 'less than human, lacking the mental capacity to make important decisions'. I've never gotten the feeling that gays have had to suffer that type of injustice.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

This isn't about scorecards... the group that gets the most discrimination will receive their rights first... The only comparison to the black struggle that was trying to be made is, that this country has a history of LEGALLY suppressing the rights of individuals based on race, gender, religion and sexuality, with the African American struggle being the most prevalent by means of recency and severity. Now, in every national battle, both sides of the argument will say things they shouldn't say, things that cross the line. You shouldn't hold that against the other side as a whole. There are ignorant people on both side of the issue.

Gays are being told that they couldn't vote because they are immoral, confusing to children, and will upset church practice. No, that is not as severe as "less than human, lacking the mental capacity to make important decisions" as Sigmadiva put it. No, gays probably aren't being treated bad as African Americans. There were 3 times as many race-related crimes to sexual orientation related crimes. However, gays are being told they do not deserve the rights of everyone else. They are being told that they can not marry the one that they love. They are being told that they are not capable of raising healthy children. ETC... There is a difference between the way the government is benefiting straight people and gay people. That IS discrimination, even if it is not as bad as slavery or the right to vote, it still is discrimination.

Two days ago Moses Cannon (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/syracuse_man_was_killed_for_be.html) was shot for being gay in Syracuse, New York. Again, I am not saying the gay struggle compares, but the struggle is definitely there and relevant... and tolerance will not come until our government fully accepts us.

[sigmadiva]

This isn't about scorecards... the group that gets the most discrimination will receive their rights first... The only comparison to the black struggle that was trying to be made is, that this country has a history of LEGALLY suppressing the rights of individuals based on race, gender, religion and sexuality, with the African American struggle being the most prevalent by means of recency and severity. Now, in every national battle, both sides of the argument will say things they shouldn't say, things that cross the line. You shouldn't hold that against the other side as a whole. There are ignorant people on both side of the issue.

Gays are being told that they couldn't vote because they are immoral, confusing to children, and will upset church practice. No, that is not as severe as "less than human, lacking the mental capacity to make important decisions" as Sigmadiva put it. No, gays probably aren't being treated bad as African Americans. There were 3 times as many race-related crimes to sexual orientation related crimes. However, gays are being told they do not deserve the rights of everyone else. They are being told that they can not marry the one that they love. They are being told that they are not capable of raising healthy children. ETC... There is a difference between the way the government is benefiting straight people and gay people. That IS discrimination, even if it is not as bad as slavery or the right to vote, it still is discrimination.

Two days ago Moses Cannon (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/syracuse_man_was_killed_for_be.html) was shot for being gay in Syracuse, New York. Again, I am not saying the gay struggle compares, but the struggle is definitely there and relevant... and tolerance will not come until our government fully accepts us.

1. Good, then stop trying to make implicit comparisons to the struggle of Blacks in this country to gay rights. I'm glad that you have recognized that the weight of the two are not the same.

2. I personally in no way condone violence against anyone based on how they are.

3. People (the government) will have a hard time accepting you because to do that would be to support a lifestyle that they may find immoral.

[MysticCat]

I don't think anyone believes people should marry for health benefits or tax breaks, so why would they be a good reason to perpetuate the institution?My experience tells me that some (certainly not all) couples do indeed chose to marry rather than simply live together precisely for reasons such as these.

Don't most of us operate that way? [Not being interested in any opinions that don't match our own]The close-minded certainly do. I try not to.

So, Sen, let me ask you - would you as a Black gay man find the issue of gay marriage more compelling if it is compared to the Holocaust that Jews experienced?You do know, don't you, that thousands of German homosexuals were also sent to the concentration camps and to German jails? Many were forcibly castrated, used for hormone experiments and/or killed. They had to wear pink triangles instead of (or in addition to) the yellow Star of David as a badge.

After the liberation of the concentration camps, the German goverment often re-imprisoned those gay prisoners; some remained imprisoned for years after being "liberated," all because they had been convicted of being gay, which the Nazi government had made a felony.

[kstar]

I don't agree. How can something get taken away if you never had it in the first place?
If at some point gays did have the right to marry, then it was taken away, okay, I see your point. But, like I said, gays never had the right in the first place.

Yeah, and those states took that law of the books too.

I think you are making an assumption that is not true. Being black in terms of skin pigmentation is very different than being Black by culture.

And no, being black is not a choice (unless you are Michael Jackson :p). I was born with a good deal of pigmentation in my skin as I was born to parents who have a good deal of pigmentation in their skin.

Now, by culture, I do identify with the Black race. But, as we know, you really don't have to be born Black to be Black. Just ask Eminem (?sp).

And btw kstar, whose sock puppet are you?

Sock puppet? I've been on GC for longer than you. (by 10 days, but regardless...)

You say being black is not a choice, then you say that it is? That doesn't even make sense. Being gay is not a choice, in fact, if you ask most homosexuals, they will tell you that they tried to be straight, but couldn't. The heart loves who it loves.

It doesn't matter if homosexuals had the had the right taken away or denied the right from the beginning, it is their right. Blacks didn't have the right to vote taken away from them, they didn't have it from the beginning, so they shouldn't have been all up in arms about not having the right? I don't think so. Nor did they have the right to marry who they chose, but a black woman fought and had her innate right recognized. From the decision of Loving -v- Virginia, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," .... To deny this fundamental freedom ..., is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person ... resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Yes, this decision was about interracial marriage, but I don't see how you can argue that interracial marriage is okay, because those people loved each other, and homosexual marriage is not. It is an innate right to marry who you want, and to deny that seriously makes you seem like a bigot.

Even if the laws were struck down, these people are NOT getting equal protection under the law. They cannot see their partner when they are in the hospital or make medical decisions for them, they cannot see their children if they are not the ones on the adoption papers or the biological parent, they can't adopt in some states. Hate crimes against homosexuals aren't even declared hate crimes in some states, since the laws only cover gender or racially motivated crimes. How is that equal protection?

Now, I have to ask, why can you not see that the struggle for civil rights and equal rights for one group is the same as any other struggle for civil rights? It doesn't matter if the crimes perpetrated against one group were better or worse, they were still crimes. You want to compare gay rights to the Holocaust struggle, I could say that is ridiculous since the Holocaust was about depriving people (including homosexuals, not only jews) of their life, not their rights, and the black rights movement of the mid-twentieth century was about rights.

Separate but equal was used to justify segregation, in this case people are calling for civil unions as opposed to marriage, saying that it is the same thing (equal) but different terminology (separate). You are really saying that you don't see how separate but equal is the same type of struggle as separate but equal?

[a.e.B.O.T.]

1. Good, then stop trying to make implicit comparisons to the struggle of Blacks in this country to gay rights. I'm glad that you have recognized that the weight of the two are not the same.

2. I personally in no way condone violence against anyone based on how they are.

3. People (the government) will have a hard time accepting you because to do that would be to support a lifestyle that they may find immoral.

Ok, like I said before... there are going to be things said on both sides of the argument that are unjust and ignorant. That will not change. I can't change that. There however, is a difference between the struggle... i.e. saying that gays have had it as bad as blacks... and the arguments for the suppression... such as the Loving v. Virginia case mentioned here earlier... people found it immoral, and at that time, even after the case, a majority found it immoral. People find this immoral, but government isn't about morals. The government is about fairness, or at least should be. You want morals, go to church, believe that God doesn't approve of gays... that is all fine and dandy, and you have every right to do so. However, the government is about fairness... so the question is, is gay marriage fair? Loving V. Virginia is totally just in the argument for gay marriage as the grounds of the victory was based on the fourteenth amendment, which re-affirms the equal protection clause. The basis for that case were that Loving was protect under that clause as a citizen of the U.S... well, gays are protected under that clause as well. So there is grounds for bringing up that case as well as grounds for arguing discrimination.

[RU OX Alum]

Prop 8 is evolving... No on Shrimp (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=48340110900)

hahahahaha

[sigmadiva]

My experience tells me that some (certainly not all) couples do indeed chose to marry rather than simply live together precisely for reasons such as these.

The close-minded certainly do. I try not to.
;)



You do know, don't you, that thousands of German homosexuals were also sent to the concentration camps and to German jails? Many were forcibly castrated, used for hormone experiments and/or killed. They had to wear pink triangles instead of (or in addition to) the yellow Star of David as a badge.

After the liberation of the concentration camps, the German goverment often re-imprisoned those gay prisoners; some remained imprisoned for years after being "liberated," all because they had been convicted of being gay, which the Nazi government had made a felony.


Yes, I do. My point was to illustrate that not only have Black Americans been ostracized, others have also. So, why do gays choose to compare their struggle to Blacks only? Why not compare their struggles to other groups.

[MysticCat]

Yes, I do. My point was to illustrate that not only have Black Americans been ostracized, others have also. So, why do gays choose to compare their struggle to Blacks only? Why not compare their struggles to other groups.Who said they are comparing their struggles only to those of Blacks?

[sigmadiva]

Sock puppet? I've been on GC for longer than you. (by 10 days, but regardless...)

okay.....



You say being black is not a choice, then you say that it is?

No, you said that being Black is a choice. I said that being Black by pigmentation is not a choice. I inherited genes from my parents that cause me to produce more melanin than what we consider white.

Being Black by cultural identification is a choice. Yes, one can be Black by "color", but one can choose to identify with a particular culture.

Your argument assumed that Black skin automatically equals Black culture. Or that is how I interpreted what you said.



It doesn't matter if homosexuals had the had the right taken away or denied the right from the beginning, it is their right. Blacks didn't have the right to vote taken away from them, they didn't have it from the beginning, so they shouldn't have been all up in arms about not having the right? I don't think so. Nor did they have the right to marry who they chose, but a black woman fought and had her innate right recognized. From the decision of Loving -v- Virginia, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," .... To deny this fundamental freedom ..., is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person ... resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Yes, this decision was about interracial marriage, but I don't see how you can argue that interracial marriage is okay, because those people loved each other, and homosexual marriage is not. It is an innate right to marry who you want, and to deny that seriously makes you seem like a bigot.

Blacks had the right taken from them when they entered this country as slaves. They were not given the same and equal constitutional rights as a free (white) person. Blacks were being denied the right to be seen and treated as a human being in all aspects of living. Gays have not had the same treatment. Again, some people see homosexuality as a moral issue, not really a human / civil rights issue.

And, people can love who they want to. I just personally won't vote to allow gays to marry.


Even if the laws were struck down, these people are NOT getting equal protection under the law. They cannot see their partner when they are in the hospital or make medical decisions for them, they cannot see their children if they are not the ones on the adoption papers or the biological parent, they can't adopt in some states. Hate crimes against homosexuals aren't even declared hate crimes in some states, since the laws only cover gender or racially motivated crimes. How is that equal protection?

Same is true for everyone else. Just because a heterosexual couple lives together, they too are not treated as a married couple.

And, with racial hate crimes, it has become harder to prove. I mean, just look at the Jena-6.


Now, I have to ask, why can you not see that the struggle for civil rights and equal rights for one group is the same as any other struggle for civil rights? It doesn't matter if the crimes perpetrated against one group were better or worse, they were still crimes. You want to compare gay rights to the Holocaust struggle, I could say that is ridiculous since the Holocaust was about depriving people (including homosexuals, not only jews) of their life, not their rights, and the black rights movement of the mid-twentieth century was about rights.

Because as I've said, for me it is a moral issue, not a human rights issue. And, just as you think it is ridiculous to make a comparison to the Holocaust, I think it is ridiculous to make a comparison to the civil rights struggle of Blacks in this country.


Separate but equal was used to justify segregation, in this case people are calling for civil unions as opposed to marriage, saying that it is the same thing (equal) but different terminology (separate). You are really saying that you don't see how separate but equal is the same type of struggle as separate but equal?

Again, for me it is a moral issue, not a rights issue. But that is how I see it.

[sigmadiva]

Who said they are comparing their struggles only to those of Blacks?


They are. That is the comaprison they keep bringing up as a justification for their cause. I'm just responding to what has been said / posted. Did you not see the picture KSigRC posted?

[sigmadiva]

Ok, like I said before... there are going to be things said on both sides of the argument that are unjust and ignorant. That will not change. I can't change that. There however, is a difference between the struggle... i.e. saying that gays have had it as bad as blacks... and the arguments for the suppression... such as the Loving v. Virginia case mentioned here earlier... people found it immoral, and at that time, even after the case, a majority found it immoral. People find this immoral, but government isn't about morals. The government is about fairness, or at least should be. You want morals, go to church, believe that God doesn't approve of gays... that is all fine and dandy, and you have every right to do so. However, the government is about fairness... so the question is, is gay marriage fair? Loving V. Virginia is totally just in the argument for gay marriage as the grounds of the victory was based on the fourteenth amendment, which re-affirms the equal protection clause. The basis for that case were that Loving was protect under that clause as a citizen of the U.S... well, gays are protected under that clause as well. So there is grounds for bringing up that case as well as grounds for arguing discrimination.

Because people have a funny way of letting their morals seep into laws. ;)

[MysticCat]

They are. That is the comaprison they keep bringing up as a justification for their cause. I'm just responding to what has been said / posted. Did you not see the picture KSigRC posted?Of course I did. The fact that Separate-but-Equal is brought up indicates two things:

-- that the Civil Rights Movement is the most recent example of an American movement seeking equality for citizens, and

-- that the court decisions in cases such as legalized gay marriage and said that providing for civil unions was not sufficient relied heavily on the reasoning of cases that struck down the Separate-but-Equal.

But your question was:
So, why do gays choose to compare their struggle to Blacks only? Why not compare their struggles to other groups.So my question wasn't "who said they were comparing their struggle to the struggle of Blacks?"; it was "who said that they were comparing their struggle only to the struggle of Blacks?" The picture that KSigKid posted =/= the entirity of the discussions being had and comparisons being made on this issue.

[christiangirl]

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently. This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are. The only thing is, I don't like the term civil union itself because I'm not sure what you would say "We're getting unionized" doesn't seem like a logical term to me. "We're getting civilized" doesn't work either. "We're being civil unionized"? "We're being partnered" ??? I just don't know what to really call it so that it makes sense. Take the religion completely out of the legal aspect of the whole thing. Then the government is allowing the same thing for any consenting adult and the churches can do what they want. The more I think about this, the more I think this is the way to go. It seems ridiculous to have to spend the kind of money it would take to do this when there is already a legal institution in place, but the term "marriage" has too many religious connotations to too many people at this point. This would better solidify a separation of church and state.
Hands down, one of the best posts of the entire year. I love you, AGDee. :D

Honestly, I think part of it is the romanticism of the thing. Even if all the rights were exactly equal, it still wouldn't be enough. No one (of any orientation) wants to dream of that one day in the future that their little girl will grow up, put on a pretty white dress, and go get "partnered." It's the societal connotation that KSig mentioned (though I won't even touch the other stuff in that post :rolleyes:).

[KSig RC]

They are. That is the comaprison they keep bringing up as a justification for their cause. I'm just responding to what has been said / posted. Did you not see the picture KSigRC posted?

FYI, I'm neither gay nor a spokesperson for gay rights.

Gays are free to compare their plight to whomever they want - but in a situation where some are pretending that a "civil union" is the same thing as "marriage," I'm going to compare that to pretending that "separate facilities" is the same thing as "equal facilities" . . . since, in a literal sense, they're identical.

Oh - by the way . . . no one can convince you that marriage is a right? Look up the Supreme Court decisions that say just that, maybe? This isn't a religion or "me" thing - it's a legal thing. Obviously, you're free to disagree with the Court's decisions, and if that's the case then we'll just have to agree to disagree on some level - but I think that would help you understand where I'm coming from, and it would fully explain the connection to past events that have paved the way for others to gain rights as well.

It's a good thing.

[sigmadiva]

Of course I did. The fact that Separate-but-Equal is brought up indicates two things:

-- that the Civil Rights Movement is the most recent example of an American movement seeking equality for citizens, and

-- that the court decisions in cases such as legalized gay marriage and said that providing for civil unions was not sufficient relied heavily on the reasoning of cases that struck down the Separate-but-Equal.

ehh...I still think the connection is weak.


But your question was:
So my question wasn't "who said they were comparing their struggle to the struggle of Blacks?"; it was "who said that they were comparing their struggle only to the struggle of Blacks?" The picture that KSigKid posted =/= the entirity of the discussions being had and comparisons being made on this issue.

Because that is the reference that is continually brought up by their side.

[Senusret I]

Because that is the reference that is continually brought up by their side.

It's really not. It's all you see because you're prejudiced.

[sigmadiva]

...then we'll just have to agree to disagree on some level....
It's a good thing.

I agree and agree;)

[sigmadiva]

It's really not. It's all you see because you're prejudiced.

It's not being prejudiced, it's all I "see" because it is a historical aspect of me - where I come from. I see prejudices in a lot of places. I'm just more likely to speak up about Black history / culture because that is what I am a part of.

[agzg]

That Holocaust argument is really bothering me.

The Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals, Gypsies, etc., were all rounded up and persecuted. Not only them, but people who helped them, or liked them, sometimes people that were really only neighbors. Poles were persecuted, just by nature of being from Poland. Why does everyone forget this stuff?

Just because there are some logical fallacies involved in comparing separate but equal for Blacks/Whites, does not mean that it is not the most appropriate comparison to the Gay Marriage issue.

Unless the next step is not only to deny marriage rights, but then to round up all the Gays, friends of Gays, neighbors of Gays, people that know Gays, people that employ Gays, etc, then just to make a topper on it, people with red hair, and throw them in the gas chamber.

The two are not really comparable. Add on top of that that the Holocaust was a European experience (yes I know that many Americans were affected by it, but after the fact or they left before it happened), while the Black/White issue, as it's being discussed here, was an American experience.

Perhaps a closer comparison might lie in the Japanese internment camps. Except we're not rounding up every homosexual and making them live in camps because we're afraid of espionage.

[XOMichelle]

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently. This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are.

This would better solidify a separation of church and state.
I agree, this makes the most sense!

I think it's kind of funny that the pro-marriage camp feels that having MORE people getting married will ruin the institution. If you were really interested in making lifelong commitment a more well-adhered to cultural practice, wouldn't you be excited that more people were interested in monogamy? It's like having a bunch of people agree with you!

[agzg]

I agree, this makes the most sense!

I think it's kind of funny that the pro-marriage camp feels that having MORE people getting married will ruin the institution. If you were really interested in making lifelong commitment a more well-adhered to cultural practice, wouldn't you be excited that more people were interested in monogamy? It's like having a bunch of people agree with you!

Not to mention the benefits of disease control that come from the encouragement of long-term monogamous relationships.

[XOMichelle]

Not to mention the benefits of disease control that come from the encouragement of long-term monogamous relationships.

I had not thought about that, but now that you bring it up the public health interest in encouraging monogamy as a safe sex practice is fairly large.

[MysticCat]

It's not being prejudiced, it's all I "see" because it is a historical aspect of me - where I come from. I see prejudices in a lot of places. I'm just more likely to speak up about Black history / culture because that is what I am a part of.All of which is irrelevant to your unfounded (and unsupportable) claim that the Civil Rights Movement is the only reference or connection being made by "their" side.That Holocaust argument is really bothering me.I agree with much of what you said. But since it did get brought up, I think it is useful for illustrating that there isn't any group that has a monopoly on being discriminated against, and there are lessons to be learned from all instances of discrimination.
I think it's kind of funny that the pro-marriage camp feels that having MORE people getting married will ruin the institution. If you were really interested in making lifelong commitment a more well-adhered to cultural practice, wouldn't you be excited that more people were interested in monogamy? It's like having a bunch of people agree with you!Not really, because from the "pro-marriage" side, those advocating for gay marriages are not agreeing with you. The two sides are operating from a fundamental disagreement about what the word "marriage" means, with the "pro-marriage" side believing that a same-sex union cannot, by definition, be a marriage. Whether others disagree with them doesn't make their opinion go away. Hence, the impasse. But I think this explains why polls show that many people who are not comfortable with gay marriages (because they are convinced that a marriage, by definition, can only exist between a man and a woman) are willing to support civil unions.

[sigmadiva]

That Holocaust argument is really bothering me.


Good. Now you know how I feel when people try to make comparisons of gay rights with Black American struggle for civil rights - there is no comparison.

But, if the gay rights issue wants to align themselves with other people who have been persecuted, then why not the Jews too? Why not American Indians? Why not the Japanese in the US during WWII?

If gays feel that they are being maligned for what ever reason, then I don't think they should just base their argument on one group. There are plenty other groups out there too.

So, instead of just showing a White only / Black only water fountain, why not depict Jews being rounded up a forced to live in one area, and the same for American Indians.

[agzg]

I think you're missing my point, which was at least they're drawing on an AMERICAN experience.

What help would it be to compare themselves to European Jews, when we are not European? Furthermore, IT WAS NOT JUST THE JEWISH POPULATION THAT WAS AFFECTED BY THE HOLOCAUST.

I'll give it to ya, the African American experience in the United States has been bad, very bad. Yes, it was worse than homosexuals have been treated.

But when fighting an American fight, doesn't it stand to reason to draw from the American experience? I'm not black, nor am I gay, but the experiences of both of these groups have become part of the general American conscience, as well, myself included.

The Holocaust? Sad, sad occurrence. I'm sure people that were distant distant relatives were affected. But it doesn't affect my daily conscience.

[MysticCat]

If gays feel that they are being maligned for what ever reason, then I don't think they should just base their argument on one group. Since you seem to keep refusing read the memo, I'll say it one more time. They aren't.

And to be clear, they're not basing any arguments on any "groups." They are comparing what they see as current injustices and discriminations to past injustices and discriminations.

So, instead of just showing a White only / Black only water fountain, why not depict Jews being rounded up a forced to live in one area, and the same for American Indians.Because the separate-but-equal accomodations reference (made by a straight poster) is much more analogous to the issue at hand than is forcing people to live in ghettos or reservations.

[XOMichelle]

The two sides are operating from a fundamental disagreement about what the word "marriage" means, with the "pro-marriage" side believing that a same-sex union cannot, by definition, be a marriage.

I feel like this is an argument that just doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider the institution in the abstract. It also proves to an extent that a lot of this debate is centered in prejudice.

[OtterXO]

Good. Now you know how I feel when people try to make comparisons of gay rights with Black American struggle for civil rights - there is no comparison.

But, if the gay rights issue wants to align themselves with other people who have been persecuted, then why not the Jews too? Why not American Indians? Why not the Japanese in the US during WWII?

If gays feel that they are being maligned for what ever reason, then I don't think they should just base their argument on one group. There are plenty other groups out there too.

So, instead of just showing a White only / Black only water fountain, why not depict Jews being rounded up a forced to live in one area, and the same for American Indians.

This is just driving me nuts reading some of these posts. The gay community and the people in this thread are not "aligning" themselves with anyone. We were having a discussion comparing past situations where one group was discriminated against to the current situation regarding gay marriage. No one is saying that the gay marriage issue is more horrible or less horrible than any past injustice to ANY group of people. You can't jump in and say "well it's not as bad as _____ so don't compare the two." Comparing doesn't mean equalizing the situations, it's about having a discussion about mistakes in history and learning what we can from them. But then again, this has been said NUMEROUS times in the past several pages of this thread but none of it seemed to make an impact.

[sigmadiva]

Well then maybe KSigRC should have selected a different / "better" image than he did to make his point.

[OtterXO]

Well then maybe KSigRC should have selected a different / "better" image than he did to make his point.

But that's just the point, he didn't have to select a "better" image. He used it as an example of what he thinks the logic is behind the civil union vs. marriage debate. It's the same logic, NOT the same issue.

[kstar]

Good. Now you know how I feel when people try to make comparisons of gay rights with Black American struggle for civil rights - there is no comparison.

But there is a comparison, a DIRECT comparison- they both fought/are fighting for a basic human RIGHT.

[KSig RC]

Well then maybe KSigRC should have selected a different / "better" image than he did to make his point.

You're seriously ignoring every subsequent post?

Tell you what - you come up with a substantive rejoinder to anything I've posted (instead of simply quoting "agree to disagree"), complete with an analysis of how the following analogy is suspect:

The term "civil union" : the status of "married" :: the concept of "separate" : the reality of "equal"

. . . and I'll reconsider. Remember - the argument has nothing to do with scale, only with logic and the lessons we all should have learned from mistreatment of blacks for centuries.

Again, this isn't about "worse" - this is about human rights. You'd think those who consider themselves the "worst" off would be interested in helping others who are suffering, but apparently my ideas of empathy are awkwardly wrong. I guess I learned something today.

[RaggedyAnn]

The Holocaust? Sad, sad occurrence. I'm sure people that were distant distant relatives were affected. But it doesn't affect my daily conscience.

Hijack/ Not really distant. My grandmother was in a German labor camp in the war. My mother was affected in how she was raised and that affected how she raised me. /end Hijack

Back on topic-it has been less than 30 years that the first gay couple went to prom-or were allowed to go to prom because they won a court case.

[AGDee]

Because as I've said, for me it is a moral issue, not a human rights issue.
Again, for me it is a moral issue, not a rights issue. But that is how I see it.

So, if the majority of people in this country decided that it was immoral for a blond to marry a brunette, they should be able to make it illegal because they think it's immoral? Is that really what our country is all about? Or ,make second marriages illegal because some churches don't believe second marriages are valid in the eyes of God? MORAL issues are not legal issues. This *is* a rights issue whether you want to believe it or not.

[agzg]

Hijack/ Not really distant. My grandmother was in a German labor camp in the war. My mother was affected in how she was raised and that affected how she raised me. /end Hijack


I meant distant relatives of mine, in the fact that the holocaust has not become part of my conscience as an American, versus the civil rights movement, which has.

[SWTXBelle]

http://www.slate.com/id/2204661/

I feel like I'm on "Coffee Talk". Discuss.

[agzg]

The only thing is, I don't like the term civil union itself because I'm not sure what you would say "We're getting unionized" doesn't seem like a logical term to me. "We're getting civilized" doesn't work either. "We're being civil unionized"? "We're being partnered" ??? I just don't know what to really call it so that it makes sense.

Maybe "espouse" or some such?

[MysticCat]

I feel like this is an argument that just doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider the institution in the abstract. It also proves to an extent that a lot of this debate is centered in prejudice.To you. To others, it's your argument that doesn't make sense. And for some, it may be prejudice. For others, it is deeply held belief that is not based on prejudice.

[idealistic soapbox] We get nowhere by dismissing the sincerely held beliefs or opinions of others as not making sense, nor do we get anywhere by imputing motives like prejudice (or homophobia) to them unless it clearly is prejudice at play. All that does is short-circuit the possibility (however small that possibility might be) of actually having a productive discussion.

A friend once said to me, quite sincerely, that she just didn't see how anyone could be against the marriage of gays. She was quite taken aback when I answered "And that's part of the problem."

Seriously, whatever side of the issue we're on, it's only when we can try to respectfully understand what those on the other side believe and why they believe it that we can ever hope to engage in productive dialogue and actually get anywhere. Otherwise, we're just yelling at each other. [/soapbox]

Well then maybe KSigRC should have selected a different / "better" image than he did to make his point.http://www.smilieshq.com/smilies/mad0250.gif (http://www.smilieshq.com)

He only selected an image that reflected the legal basis upon which the Connecticut and California courts have said civil unions are not the equivalent of marriage and that it was a violation of state equal protection guarantees to deny gay people the right to marry.

[DrPhil]

I agree with sigmadiva and I think some are misinterpreting her point and taking her too literally.

This debate has been going on for decades in the literature and among everyday citizens. Some people literally mean that these struggles are the exact same and others mean that they are similar and there should be an understanding of all minority groups' struggles. I believe in the latter.

KSig made the leap with the "separate but equal." It is similar but not the same. Different implications and different outcomes that are clouded because most people are looking for easy analogies and sound bites. It's as ridiculous as when white females say that their struggle for gender rights was the exact same as black females' struggles for gender rights and black people's struggles for civil rights. "We're just as oppressed as you all were." A look at history can tell us that's not accurate.

Yes, every group's struggle for civil rights is similar in that these are minority groups. Yes, this is about American rights and not just these groups. That all goes without saying. It should also go without saying that people can support or not support whatever proposition that they choose. They are not obligated to support something based on some imaginary Minority Coalition. I happen to support gay marriage but that is because I see no reason why gay people should not be able to be married. However, it turns me off when some homosexuals try to ride on the coattails of the black struggle for civil rights. That is completely unnecessary because the struggle for gay civil rights is powerful and prominent enough to be able to let go of others' coattails.

Despite the generalizations being made in the thread, there are a lot of homosexuals who try to appeal to the loyalities of blacks by saying "we're just like you." No, you aren't, and particularly white homosexuals should know in their heart of hearts that they have a privilege that has buffered the effects of heterocentrism in many contexts. This also makes riding the coattails convenient because there are quite a few instances where homosexuals haven't championed the rights of blacks. In fact, many of these homosexuals were busy benefiting from the overt and covert racism, even against homosexual racial and ethnic minorities. Where's the loyalty there? Sometimes it only appears when it is convenient.

Oh well, similar but not the same. I think that's a simple concession. It doesn't have to be the same for it to be valid, does it?

[KSig RC]

Oh well, similar but not the same. I think that's a simple concession. It doesn't have to be the same for it to valid, does it?

Yep, this is exactly what I'm getting at.

[sigmadiva]

He only selected an image that reflected the legal basis upon which the Connecticut and California courts have said civil unions are not the equivalent of marriage and that it was a violation of state equal protection guarantees to deny gay people the right to marry.


And I feel that the stigma and meaning depicted in the image does not have any direct weight to the issue of gay marriage.

He used the image as a means of propaganda - to illicit a deep feeling response for the issue he is supporting. Because really, as we've said, there is, if at all, a loose connection between the two.

[sigmadiva]

I agree with sigmadiva and I think some are misinterpreting her point and taking her too literally.

This debate has been going on for decades in the literature and among everyday citizens. Some people literally mean that these struggles are the exact same and others mean that they are similar and there should be an understanding of all minority groups' struggles. I believe in the latter.

KSig made the leap with the "separate but equal." It is similar but not the same. Different implications and different outcomes that are clouded because most people are looking for easy analogies and sound bites. It's as ridiculous as when white females say that their struggle for gender rights was the exact same as black females' struggles for gender rights and black people's struggles for civil rights. "We're just as oppressed as you all were." A look at history can tell us that's not accurate.

Yes, every group's struggle for civil rights is similar in that these are minority groups. Yes, this is about American rights and not just these groups. That all goes without saying. It should also go without saying that people can support or not support whatever proposition that they choose. They are not obligated to support something based on some imaginary Minority Coalition. I happen to support gay marriage but that is because I see no reason why gay people should not be able to be married. However, it turns me off when some homosexuals try to ride on the coattails of the black struggle for civil rights. That is completely unnecessary because the struggle for gay civil rights is powerful and prominent enough to be able to let go of others' coattails.

Despite the generalizations being made in the thread, there are a lot of homosexuals who try to appeal to the loyalities of blacks by saying "we're just like you." No, you aren't, and particularly white homosexuals should know in their heart of hearts that they have a privilege that has buffered the effects of heterocentrism in many contexts. This also makes riding the coattails convenient because there are quite a few instances where homosexuals haven't championed the rights of blacks. In fact, many of these homosexuals were busy benefiting from the overt and covert racism, even against homosexual racial and ethnic minorities. Where's the loyalty there? Sometimes it only appears when it is convenient.

Oh well, similar but not the same. I think that's a simple concession. It doesn't have to be the same for it to valid, does it?


You summarized my point perfectly. ;)

[DrPhil]

http://www.smilieshq.com/smilies/mad0250.gif (http://www.smilieshq.com)

He only selected an image that reflected the legal basis upon which the Connecticut and California courts have said civil unions are not the equivalent of marriage and that it was a violation of state equal protection guarantees to deny gay people the right to marry.

In that case, okay. Only on the legal basis.

But a lot of people aren't talking about the legal basis when they discuss this issue or discuss that image posted. They are talking about the interaction between the legal and the social realms. For example, how "separate but equal" clauses keep people from not only being married but from being treated as human beings who are equally protected under the law in other aspects.

[DrPhil]

You summarized my point perfectly. ;)

;) I didn't read all of your posts so I don't know what you've said about the actual issue of gay marriage.

So, I repeat, I support gay marriage. I don't want a skimmer responding to my post and missing the point because they imagined that I don't like homosexuals or don't support gay marriage. :p

[OtterXO]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GAY_MARRIAGE_LAWSUITS?SITE=RIPRJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The CA Supreme Court agreed to hear three cases challenging Prop 8. Should be interesting...

[sigmadiva]

;) I didn't read all of your posts so I don't know what you've said about the actual issue of gay marriage.

So, I repeat, I support gay marriage. I don't want a skimmer responding to my post and missing the point because they imagined that I don't like homosexuals or don't support gay marriage. :p


I know;) I meant in terms of trying to make a direct connection to gay marriage and Black history in America. Also, the fact that you aptly pointed out that many gays, especially white gays, want to ride the coat tails of the Black Civil Rights movement without really understanding the emotions involved.

[DrPhil]

Also, the fact that you aptly pointed out that many gays, especially white gays, want to ride the coat tails of the Black Civil Rights movement without really understanding the emotions involved.

They don't have to understand the emotions involved, though. :)

[KSig RC]

In that case, okay. Only on the legal basis.

But a lot of people aren't talking about the legal basis when they discuss this issue or discuss that image posted. They are talking about the interaction between the legal and the social realms. For example, how "separate but equal" clauses keep people from not only being married but from being treated as human beings who are equally protected under the law in other aspects.

These two things aren't wholly separate, at least in the CA and CT decisions. I don't have a large problem with that (in this instance) - others are free to disagree.

That does not change the fact that there is a massive difference in scale, nor that there is still a potential for comparison.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

These two things aren't wholly separate, at least in the CA and CT decisions. I don't have a large problem with that (in this instance) - others are free to disagree.

That does not change the fact that there is a massive difference in scale, nor that there is still a potential for comparison.

well, there are definitely incidents and law cases from the Civil Rights movement that apply to the Gay Rights movement. I mean, it is coined the civil rights movement after all... I think we need to differentiate the general struggle from specific incidents, speeches and movements that apply...

It is out of mere interest to note that Mildred Loving recently spoke out pro-gay marriage... f.y.i.

[MysticCat]

In that case, okay. Only on the legal basis.

But a lot of people aren't talking about the legal basis when they discuss this issue or discuss that image posted. They are talking about the interaction between the legal and the social realms. For example, how "separate but equal" clauses keep people from not only being married but from being treated as human beings who are equally protected under the law in other aspects.Given KSigKid's background, I felt quite confident that he was approaching this from a legal standpoint.

And I'm still glad you're back. :D

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GAY_MARRIAGE_LAWSUITS?SITE=RIPRJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The CA Supreme Court agreed to hear three cases challenging Prop 8. Should be interesting...I just don't understand how California works. How can the Supreme Court hear anything until a lower court has heard and decided it first and someone has appealed?

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Given KSigKid's background, I felt quite confident that he was approaching this from a legal standpoint.

And I'm still glad you're back. :D

I just don't understand how California works. How can the Supreme Court hear anything until a lower court has heard and decided it first and someone has appealed?

The court can accept original cases that they believe is important for the state as a whole... it requires a majority vote of the court, in this case, 6 out of 7 of the justices accepted the case...

[KSig RC]

Given KSigKid's background, I felt quite confident that he was approaching this from a legal standpoint.

Well, technically, Ksigkid hasn't touched this with a 30-foot pole - it was me . . . however, your point (perhaps without irony) still holds. Definitely legal.

I just don't understand how California works. How can the Supreme Court hear anything until a lower court has heard and decided it first and someone has appealed?

To be honest . . . I don't understand how CA works, period. Not just the Court.

[christiangirl]

I know;) I meant in terms of trying to make a direct connection to gay marriage and Black history in America. Also, the fact that you aptly pointed out that many gays, especially white gays, want to ride the coat tails of the Black Civil Rights movement without really understanding the emotions involved.

Hey sigma...I kinda get what you mean about not really seeing other instances of discrimination being proposed for similarities. But, what I find on this issue is that a lot of people (of both orientations) propose to me that the gay rights issue is like the civil rights issue because I'm black. It's their way of trying to establish a common ground with me, connect with me on an emotional level, etc. I imagine there's lots of examples of other groups they could use and probably do with those other groups. I think, as it's the "most recent American experience" it is presented a lot to Americans in general (more than Native Americans and Jews anyway), but moreso with us in particular. Do you think there might be a possibility that this issue seems to crop up way more with you for the same reason as it does for me?

[sigmadiva]

Hey sigma...I kinda get what you mean about not really seeing other instances of discrimination being proposed for similarities. But, what I find on this issue is that a lot of people (of both orientations) propose to me that the gay rights issue is like the civil rights issue because I'm black. It's their way of trying to establish a common ground with me, connect with me on an emotional level, etc. I imagine there's lots of examples of other groups they could use and probably do with those other groups. I think, as it's the "most recent American experience" it is presented a lot to Americans in general (more than Native Americans and Jews anyway), but moreso with us in particular. Do you think there might be a possibility that this issue seems to crop up way more with you for the same reason as it does for me?


I don't know what your reasons are.

The only reason this issue cropped up for me was because I took offense at the picture KSig RC used. Like I said above, it was just propaganda to illicit a response.

If people want to be gay - fine. I will not ever try to stop them. I just draw the line at gay marriage. I will not support that based on a moral issue.

If they want civil unions / domestic partnerships, I'm actually okay with that.

But, don't claim, or imply, that they have been discriminated against in a manner in which they have not. Like I said, my parents and older relatives truly lived separate but equal lives. I grew up in Texas, I understand what that means. Gays have not been treated in the same type of separate but equal way as American Blacks were, which we have already established.

[MysticCat]

Well, technically, Ksigkid hasn't touched this with a 30-foot pole - it was me . . . however, your point (perhaps without irony) still holds. Definitely legal.Ooops. Sorry. I'm usually pretty good about keeping you two fraternal twins straight, but every now and then . . . . :o

To be honest . . . I don't understand how CA works, period. Not just the Court.LOL. Me either. And thanks, a.e.B.O.T. Sounds like a very odd system to me for an appellate court to take original jusrisdiction in a case like this, with no record developed below, but hey -- if it works for them, who am I to argue?

[RaggedyAnn]

But, don't claim, or imply, that they have been discriminated against in a manner in which they have not. Like I said, my parents and older relatives truly lived separate but equal lives. I grew up in Texas, I understand what that means. Gays have not been treated in the same type of separate but equal way as American Blacks were, which we have already established.

I understand your argument now. Thanks for the clarification.

[DrPhil]

Like I said above, it was just propaganda to illicit a response.

But, don't claim, or imply, that they have been discriminated against in a manner in which they have not. Like I said, my parents and older relatives truly lived separate but equal lives. I grew up in Texas, I understand what that means. Gays have not been treated in the same type of separate but equal way as American Blacks were, which we have already established.

I agree with this part.

However, I do acknowledge that being denied an ability to live your life without fear of mistreatment based on sexual orientation is salient in some contexts. As heterosexuals, we take for granted the ability to be able to hold hands in public without people staring or threatening bodily harm. We take for granted the right to marry and receive whatever economic, political, and social benefits from that. We take for granted the ability to have everything catered to a two-sex couple. We take these things for granted for the same reason any other majority group takes things for granted. We don't have to think about it because our existences are dominated by majority ideals. That still doesn't make this stuff all the same.

[agzg]

Remember when that girl and her girlfriend were thrown out of a baseball game for "making out inappropriately?"

Granted, the girl had been on Shot at Love so there's a possibility for some lewdness... but I've never heard of a heterosexual couple being thrown out of a sporting event for making out.

[DrPhil]

Granted, the girl had been on Shot at Love so there's a possibility for some lewdness... but I've never heard of a heterosexual couple being thrown out of a sporting event for making out.

Without knowing the full context, hetero couples have been admonished for doing things that shock others' sensibilities. A lot of us don't want to see heteros tonguing(?) each other down.

I agree with your general point, though. I'm also glad to see this turn to being about heterosexual (majority) and homosexual (minority) rather than being a "whose oppression is it, anyway" gameshow. :)

[christiangirl]

I don't know what your reasons are.

The only reason this issue cropped up for me was because I took offense at the picture KSig RC used. Like I said above, it was just propaganda to illicit a response.

Oh no, I get that. I was responding to your statement (probably some pages ago by now) that people constantly compare gay rights to Blacks/civil rights and not to American Indians, Jews, etc. (BTW, "Dr. Phil", I loved the way you summed up the "similar but not same" post, very well-written!) That's why I said that people do that all the time with me because I'm black and that's their attempt to make the issue more personal with me (i.e., eliciting emotion from me as part of their persuasion). It's not that I'm only hearing it frequently because of bias or whatever, people have actually admitted to doing so for that reason. I wanted your thoughts on the possibility that you might be experiencing the same thing when you say that the civil rights comparison is the one that you seem to hear all the time. Did I say that a little better? I know sometimes I talk in circles so I hope that wasn't too confusing. :o

ETA: I'm not sure who posted this, but someone mentioned a gay couple being legally allowed to attend prom some 30 years ago. Did I read that right? Did that apply solely to public (government controlled) schools or to all schools? Because I know there was a big ruckus at my high school around prom time because it was a CLEAR rule that same-sex couples wouldn't be allowed to attend. They wouldn't even be sold tickets. If you came to prom, it had to be with a date of the opposite sex. A friend of mine burst into tears hearing that because she couldn't find a date so she'd planned to go with her best friend who hadn't been asked either. (Sidenote: at first, singles weren't allowed either. Anyone going to prom had to have a date but, with the boy/girl ratio being what it was, there were so many girls left dateless that they had to change it. Yeah, my school was awesome, right? :rolleyes:). But it was a private school, so was that what made the difference? Back then, it never occurred to me that something like that could possibly be illegal.

[sigmadiva]

I understand your argument now. Thanks for the clarification.

cool....;)

[agzg]

Without knowing the full context, hetero couples have been admonished for doing things that shock others' sensibitilies. A lot of us don't want to see heteros tonguing(?) each other down.

I agree with your general point, though. I'm also glad to see this turn to being about heterosexual (majority) and homosexual (minority) rather than being a "whose oppression is it, anyway" gameshow. :)

There's a possibility it has happened, but a hetero couple being thrown out wouldn't make national news. I've never seen people (hetero or homo) making out at a baseball game, anyway, though. And I know I would, because I hate baseball, so there's no way I'm not using my binoculars to people watch.

"No! Let's go to a baseball game!"
"But I hate baseball."
"Come on, let's go, the Pirates are playing the _______!"
"But I hate baseball."
"Let's go!"
"But I'll get a sun burn!"
"I'll give you sunscreen, let's go!"
"You're buying me a hot dog."

Stupid baseball nut friends.:mad:

[sigmadiva]

Oh no, I get that. I was responding to your statement (probably some pages ago by now) that people constantly compare gay rights to Blacks/civil rights and not to American Indians, Jews, etc. (BTW, "Dr. Phil", I loved the way you summed up the "similar but not same" post, very well-written!) That's why I said that people do that all the time with me because I'm black and that's their attempt to make the issue more personal with me (i.e., eliciting emotion from me as part of their persuasion). It's not that I'm only hearing it frequently because of bias or whatever, people have actually admitted to doing so for that reason. I wanted your thoughts on the possibility that you might be experiencing the same thing. Did I say that a little better? I know sometimes I talk in circles so I hope that wasn't too confusing. :o


Oh, okay, I got ya! ;)

Well, no not really. I don't hear it in the context that people are trying to relate it to me because I'm Black. I think using images and relating it to the Civil Rights movement is just their way to tie into an already known event, as opposed to creating their own.

If the issue of gay marriage is so compelling, then it is an issue that can stand on it's own. It does not need 'help' from another major issue. Does that make sense?

[DrPhil]

There's a possibility it has happened, but a hetero couple being thrown out wouldn't make national news.

That depends. I'm sure it made national news for reasons beyond sexual orientation.

And I'm glad I missed the national news blurb on this one.

[christiangirl]

Oh, okay, I got ya! ;)

Well, no not really. I don't hear it in the context that people are trying to relate it to me because I'm Black. I think using images and relating it to the Civil Rights movement is just their way to tie into an already known event, as opposed to creating their own.

If the issue of gay marriage is so compelling, then it is an issue that can stand on it's own. It does not need 'help' from another major issue. Does that make sense?

Definitely. I do agree that it's a issue compelling enough to "stand on its own" but I also know that people will always try to make their argument stronger by attempting to back it up with precedents (even if the association is "loose" at best). This applies no matter who the people or the argument.

[agzg]

That depends. I'm sure it made national news for reasons beyond sexual orientation.

And I'm glad I missed the national news blurb on this one.

I wish I could find it again, but Googlenews isn't working for me like it usually does.

I think it was out west somewhere. They talked about it on the Shot at Love reunion show.

Which I only watched because... because... no I don't really have an excuse for that one.

[MysticCat]

If the issue of gay marriage is so compelling, then it is an issue that can stand on it's own. It does not need 'help' from another major issue. Does that make sense?It does, and I'm understanding your point much better now too. Thanks.

I think there are two frameworks at play here simultaneously. One is a (for lack of a better word) "societal" framework -- the gay rights movement as a whole, whether it be about gay marriage, gay couples at the prom, violence against gays, equal employment opportunities, etc. I think if you look back to Stonewall (and before), you find a movement that, while some parallels with the Civil Rights Movement as well as other historical movements are indeed drawn, is a movement that stands on its own and that makes its own arguments. It was from this framework, I suppose, that I kept insisting that the gay rights movement doesn't compare the struggle of gays to the struggle of Blacks only.

There is also the legal framework, and that is how the gay marriage issue is framed in California and elsewhere that legal challenges have been brought. In the legal framework, it is to be expected that those who claim that constitutional equal protection guarantees include a right to same-sex marriage will cite and rely on the "separate-but-equal" cases and cases like Loving v. Virginia that interpreted and applied the same or similar constitutional provisions, while opponents will seek to distinguish those cases. That's how the courts work, by looking to precedent.

Sometimes the "societal" and legal frameworks overlap. Sometime the legal framework is used to force changes in the societal framework.

I hope this makes how I've been looking at this make more sense as well.

[sigmadiva]

Sometimes the "societal" and legal frameworks overlap. Sometime the legal framework is used to force changes in the societal framework.

I hope this makes how I've been looking at this make more sense as well.


It does!:)

[DrPhil]

It was just a matter of communication. :)

[KSig RC]

The only reason this issue cropped up for me was because I took offense at the picture KSig RC used. Like I said above, it was just propaganda to illicit a response.

Fair enough, if you feel that way - but I think the response I intended to elicit ("civil union" is a massive cop out to make people feel better, and doesn't actually solve anything) is well worth drawing into the conversation. Whether you feel that is 'propaganda' is solely discretionary on you.

If people want to be gay - fine. I will not ever try to stop them. I just draw the line at gay marriage. I will not support that based on a moral issue.

This is completely fair (and should have comprised most of your first posts), as well, although I feel you're coming from the wrong angle solely because I don't want this specific type of morality to govern law. You do. There's room for reasonable people to disagree on that front.

You have taken the comparison much further than I ever did, though, which seems like a classic "YMMV" scenario.

If the issue of gay marriage is so compelling, then it is an issue that can stand on it's own. It does not need 'help' from another major issue. Does that make sense?

This makes perfect sense, and I'm totally fine with this - actually, this completely clarifies where you're coming from, and I'm much more clear on your previous posts. I think it's a strawman argument, but that's certainly up for debate - again, I find that comparison has utility for certain (humongous) segments of the population who are willing to make a "false dilemma" compromise on an issue they have very little perspective to deal with, as most people think in comparative terms rather than absolute terms. YMMV.

[kstar]

I just draw the line at gay marriage. I will not support that based on a moral issue.

If they want civil unions / domestic partnerships, I'm actually okay with that.

So you're saying that separate but equal is okay?

[preciousjeni]

Can someone explain to me why heterosexual couples have the right to be married?

[preciousjeni]

If people want to be gay - fine. I will not ever try to stop them. I just draw the line at gay marriage. I will not support that based on a moral issue.
Providing rights for citizens, both gay and straight, is not the same as supporting gay marriage or condoning it.

[Kevin]

Can someone explain to me why heterosexual couples have the right to be married?

Because our states allow it.

[sigmadiva]

So you're saying that separate but equal is okay?

Only if you assume civil unions = marriage, which I don't.

[DrPhil]

Can someone explain to me why heterosexual couples have the right to be married?

Kevin answered it based on the legal right. And that legal right is mostly based on the perceived moral and religious rights. The dependents and economic stuff are mixed up in there, too.

Sidebars:

It annoys me when people say "if gays can be married, what's stopping someone from marrying their dog or their toaster?" Uh...equating humans marrying each other to marrying an animal or an inanimate object is just...insulting and dumb. It is exaggerated moral outrage used to invoke fear of the "unknown" and perceived moral decline.

However, I have seen people begin to wonder if other types of marriages will be re-introduced to the mainstream. I watched the special on polygamy the other day and the people were like "we're not saying everyone else should do this...just don't try to stop us from doing it." Some of them were doing it for religious reasons and their kids were also home schooled. For whatever the reason, should these people have a legal right to marry more than one person, since their inability to do was initially based on a moral argument? What would be the social, political, and economic implications if this was to become a big case? Some people argue that this stuff is similar to the gay marriage issues, obviously not the same. I can only see the similarity at the abstract "what constitutes 'rights'" level. Polygamists are certainly not an oppressed minority group in the strict definition of the phrase.

[sigmadiva]

Providing rights for citizens, both gay and straight, is not the same as supporting gay marriage or condoning it.

I agree.

[sigmadiva]

Can someone explain to me why heterosexual couples have the right to be married?


Kevin gave one answer. The other is that the Bible supports a heterosexual marriage.

Yes PJ, there are those people who live to the letter of the Bible. I go to church with some of them. ;)

[DrPhil]

The other is that the Bible supports a heterosexual marriage.

A good Christian such as myself gets confused by all the things the Bible is claimed as supporting. Racism, gay bashing (that's not what you're talking about, I know), patriarchy and male dominance...the list goes on.....

[preciousjeni]

A general comment...I often imagine what would happen if the Apostle Paul showed up (with his bad temper and all) and saw what the "church" has done with the gospel. He'd be sending some pretty nasty letters...or e-mails.

[MysticCat]

However, I have seen people begin to wonder if other types of marriages will be re-introduced to the mainstream. I watched the special on polygamy the other day and the people were like "we're not saying everyone else should do this...just don't try to stop us from doing it." Some of them were doing it for religious reasons and their kids were also home schooled. For whatever the reason, should these people have a legal right to marry more than one person, since their inability to do was initially based on a moral argument? What would be the social, political, and economic implications if this was to become a big case? Some people argue that this stuff is similar to the gay marriage issues, obviously not the same. I can only see the similarity at the abstract "what constitutes 'rights'" level. Polygamists are certainly not an oppressed minority group in the strict definition of the phrase.Looking at it just from a legal standpoint, I think that this is a very valid question to raise. Generally speaking, the legal analysis doesn't turn on whether a group is oppresed or not; it's been turning on how the equal protection clauses of state constitutions have been interpreted and applied.

Under equal protection clauses, generally speaking, all citizens are entitled to have the law applied to them in an equal manner. The state cannot apply the law differently to different people (or classes of people) unless it has a sufficient reason (based on neutral rather than discriminatory intent) for treating people differently. In the case of certain groups ("suspect classes" is the term of art), such as racial or religious minorities, the state has a much higher burden -- it has to show not only that it has a very important interest at stake, but also that it has chosen the least-restrictive means it could to meet that interest.

So, for gay marriage, the argument goes like this: the state issues marriage licenses and recognizes the marriages of heterosexual couples. The state does not have a sufficiently important interest in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Because the state does not have a sufficiently important reason for so doing, the equal protection provision of the state constitution forbids the state from limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and requires the state to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.

If a state court agrees with that argument, it is not a long trip to the next lawsuit: the state issues marriage licenses and recognizes the marriages of two people. The state does not have a sufficiently important interest in limiting marriage to only couples. Because the state does not have a sufficiently important reason for so doing, the equal protection provision of the state constitution forbids the state from limiting marriage to couples and requires the state to recognize marriages between three (or more) people.

The last argument might not win. But I have no doubt it will be brought in a court somewhere.

[DrPhil]

Looking at it just from a legal standpoint, I think that this is a very valid question to raise. Generally speaking, the legal analysis doesn't turn on whether a group is oppresed or not; it's been turning on how the equal protection clauses of state constitutions have been interpreted and applied.

Under equal protection clauses, generally speaking, all citizens are entitled to have the law applied to them in an equal manner. The state cannot apply the law differently to different people (or classes of people) unless it has a sufficient reason (based on neutral rather than discriminatory intent) for treating people differently. In the case of certain groups ("suspect classes" is the term of art), such as racial or religious minorities, the state has a much higher burden -- it has to show not only that it has a very important interest at stake, but also that it has chosen the least-restrictive means it could to meet that interest.

So, for gay marriage, the argument goes like this: the state issues marriage licenses and recognizes the marriages of heterosexual couples. The state does not have a sufficiently important interest in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Because the state does not have a sufficiently important reason for so doing, the equal protection provision of the state constitution forbids the state from limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and requires the state to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.

If a state court agrees with that argument, it is not a long trip to the next lawsuit: the state issues marriage licenses and recognizes the marriages of two people. The state does not have a sufficiently important interest in limiting marriage to only couples. Because the state does not have a sufficiently important reason for so doing, the equal protection provision of the state constitution forbids the state from limiting marriage to couples and requires the state to recognize marriages between three (or more) people.

The last argument might not win. But I have no doubt it will be brought in a court somewhere.

Thanks for clarifying. The legal standpoint is what I meant by the abstract "what constitutes 'rights'" level.

[MysticCat]

Thanks for clarifying. The legal standpoint is what I meant by the abstract "what constitutes 'rights'" level.I need to clarify a little more. I've been reading some of the reports on the cases in California, and it seems that the argument is being made, in the equal protection context, that gays and lesbians are a group that has historically faced discrimination (that is, it appears, members of a "suspect class" or something similar) and that, as I understand it, the voters cannot keep the courts from protecting the equal rights of this group that has historically faced discrimination.

[KSig RC]

So, for gay marriage, the argument goes like this: the state issues marriage licenses and recognizes the marriages of heterosexual couples. The state does not have a sufficiently important interest in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Because the state does not have a sufficiently important reason for so doing, the equal protection provision of the state constitution forbids the state from limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and requires the state to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.

If a state court agrees with that argument, it is not a long trip to the next lawsuit: the state issues marriage licenses and recognizes the marriages of two people. The state does not have a sufficiently important interest in limiting marriage to only couples. Because the state does not have a sufficiently important reason for so doing, the equal protection provision of the state constitution forbids the state from limiting marriage to couples and requires the state to recognize marriages between three (or more) people.

The last argument might not win. But I have no doubt it will be brought in a court somewhere.

Meh, it seems like the argument is a non-starter from any aspect other than the technical (i.e. "the only one that matters" but hey - message board!) . . . I'd run it something like this:

The state's interest in limiting marriage to two people can be proven "sufficiently important" for any number of qualifying reasons, including the difficulty of parsing out or setting up multi-party contracts for the layperson, and the amount of work it would take to integrate such contracts (or the resultant work for public administration in dealing with the aftermath - for instance, do you have a primary wife and a secondary for legal purposes, like estates? If so, that's not really one "communal" marriage, it's essentially two separate, and precedent shows that the state has an interest in not allowing two separate marriages where the secondary parties are not interactive). This is in addition to the historical precedent for polygamy's connection with detrimental acts (such as underage marriage or forced marriages). The change of an institution to support the desires of a non-protected class of people would require support through an inordinate amount of work, oversight and negative historical precedent - and the end result likely would violate already-upheld rules.

Probably enough of a hijack, but I think one could adequately reverse "no compelling reason to do so" to meet a "sufficiently important" burden . . .

[a.e.B.O.T.]

If a state court agrees with that argument, it is not a long trip to the next lawsuit: the state issues marriage licenses and recognizes the marriages of two people. The state does not have a sufficiently important interest in limiting marriage to only couples. Because the state does not have a sufficiently important reason for so doing, the equal protection provision of the state constitution forbids the state from limiting marriage to couples and requires the state to recognize marriages between three (or more) people.

The last argument might not win. But I have no doubt it will be brought in a court somewhere.

Yes, there is always going to be a line in the sand... but I think the key difference that strikes it apart is monogamy.

[MysticCat]

Meh, it seems like the argument is a non-starter from any aspect other than the technical (i.e. "the only one that matters" but hey - message board!) . . . I'd run it something like this:

The state's interest in limiting marriage to two people can be proven "sufficiently important" for any number of qualifying reasons, including . . .Oh, I'd counter it that way, too. I think those are the sorts of arguments that would be made. But just because those arguments would be made doesn't mean that the suit wouldn't be brought, and that was my point: a suit along those lines will be brought. Whether it will be successful is a whole 'nother question. Typically, good judges have thought about the cases that could follow and have carefully tailored their opinions to the issues before them accordingly. (But judges have been known to do surprising things.)

And for what it's worth, I wouldn't be surprised if such a suit included a free exercise of religion aspect. Again, not saying it would carry the day, but I won't be surprised to see someone try it.

[KSig RC]

Oh, I'd counter it that way, too. I think those are the sorts of arguments that would be made. But just because those arguments would be made doesn't mean that the suit wouldn't be brought, and that was my point: a suit along those lines will be brought. Whether it will be successful is a whole 'nother question. Typically, good judges have thought about the cases that could follow and have carefully tailored their opinions to the issues before them accordingly. (But judges have been known to do surprising things.)

And for what it's worth, I wouldn't be surprised if such a suit included a free exercise of religion aspect. Again, not saying it would carry the day, but I won't be surprised to see someone try it.

All good points . . . which plays right back to the "CA is bizarre" issue, too.

[DrPhil]

I need to clarify a little more. I've been reading some of the reports on the cases in California, and it seems that the argument is being made, in the equal protection context, that gays and lesbians are a group that has historically faced discrimination (that is, it appears, members of a "suspect class" or something similar) and that, as I understand it, the voters cannot keep the courts from protecting the equal rights of this group that has historically faced discrimination.

So being discriminated against is a factor, afterall.

[MysticCat]

So being discriminated against is a factor, afterall.Apparently, at least in the sense of arguing that gays are a protected class under the California Constitution.
. . . which plays right back to the "CA is bizarre" issue, too.Res ipsa loquitur.

[sigmadiva]

A general comment...I often imagine what would happen if the Apostle Paul showed up (with his bad temper and all) and saw what the "church" has done with the gospel. He'd be sending some pretty nasty letters...or e-mails.


Oh no!!!! He'd be texting you on his BlackBerry Curve!!!

Of course, since I don't usually text, I'd never get the message!:p

[LightBulb]

Can someone explain to me why heterosexual couples have the right to be married?

Because our states allow it.

Kevin gave one answer. The other is that the Bible supports a heterosexual marriage.The United States is not a theocracy. Rights should not be recognized based on morality teachings of one religion.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

[DrPhil]

The United States is not a theocracy. Rights should not be recognized based on morality teachings of one religion.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

And...regardless of what America is supposed to theoretically be, it is a theocracy with rights that are based on the morality teachings of the dominant religion and of the sensibilities of the majority. Most societies are. The difference is that our country is supposed to be this capitalist democracy melting pot.

If people have a problem with that reality, we would have to take a critical look at almost all of our laws and practices. Starting...now....

[LightBulb]

America is defined by its Constitution. It is not designed to be a theocracy. However, people do take advantage of power to push religious (or allegedly religious) agendas.

[DrPhil]

America is defined by its Constitution. It is not designed to be a theocracy.

However, people do take advantage of power to push religious (or allegedly religious) agendas.


@1st line: Maybe. Maybe not. I argue that it isn't overtly designed to be a theocracy, since the founding fathers were allegedly deists. But it covertly may have been designed to be a theocracy or at least a dominant ideologracy (:p) to be applied wherever possible. And the full intent of the framers of the Constitution is always up for discussion.

ETA: The Constitution was written within an historical context so it definitely was influenced by some of the dominant ideologies of that time, just as it contributed to a dominant ideology after it was written. Religious or not. Amendments such as the Thirteenth Amendment represented a shift in a particular dominant ideology (arguably for economic purposes rather than moral purposes).

@2nd line: Definitely.

[MysticCat]

The United States is not a theocracy. Rights should not be recognized based on morality teachings of one religion.A nation needn't be a theocracy in order to base its legal framework on the moral teachings of a relgion -- many if not most nations have done the latter without being theocracies.

[LightBulb]

A nation needn't be a theocracy in order to base its legal framework on the moral teachings of a relgion -- many if not most nations have done the latter without being theocracies.A nation needn't disfranchise citizens for the sake of the "morals" of one (or more) constituency(ies).

[DrPhil]

A nation needn't disfranchise citizens for the sake of the "morals" of one (or more) constituency(ies).

MysticCat and I agree.

We are just responding to your assertions about what the United States is and what it was designed to be. That's a different discussion.

[Munchkin03]

BUMP!

NY Op-Ed writer (this is old, I know) lays the blame of Proposition 8 on the feet of bitter black women in California!!!! OH THE INHUMANITY:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/opinion/29blow.html?scp=1&sq=blow&st=cse

[sigmadiva]

BUMP!

NY Op-Ed writer (this is old, I know) lays the blame of Proposition 8 on the feet of bitter black women in California!!!! OH THE INHUMANITY:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/opinion/29blow.html?scp=1&sq=blow&st=cse

Most of what he says in the article is true, but I think it is a lame cop out to blame it solely on Black women. I also don't think he considered the number of Black women who are lesbians who would have voted differently.

[BabyPiNK_FL]

Why, oh why did I read that article? It was mostly a statistical bash fest than a real analysis. I mean, I get his point, but he barely made it. :rolleyes: