Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

What's your point here?

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

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

What's your point here?

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

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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?

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

So what does it have to do with gay marriage?

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 .) 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]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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



. . . 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]

Originally Posted by OtterXO

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?

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]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

So are there gay water fountains and straight water fountains?

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]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

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]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

So are there gay water fountains and straight water fountains?

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]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

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

No, not really.

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?