Should the Dem Party Push for Civil Unions Now?

[Xipe Totec]

Or should the Democrats oppose civil unions and stand firm on gay marriage as the next forward step?

What are the political implications?

I think this is the question that's floating around the forums. I have no personal opinion on this mater. I think it's up to the Gay community to form a consensus and guide the rest of us on this issue.

Either way, I got your back.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Shameless Kick

:kick:

[MsTryska]

2. Neither.

I want domestic partnership the law of the land.

FOR EVERYONE.

anyone who gets married has to get a "marriage" license first. This is what gives them the legal benefits in the eyes of the law.


Change the name of it to "domestic partnership" license, open it to all people that want to embark on a domestic union together, and if they wanna get "married" take that to the religious body of your choice. or not.


it's time to get the church out of the state, and the state out of the church.

it's proving to be an unholy alliance.

[Xipe Totec]

4. That's what I have, strangely enough

I was baptized Catholic, but I had a civil wedding. As far as the Church is concerned I am living in sin and my children are bastards.

I was raised in Mexico where the faithful have two weddings, a civil and a Church ceremony because the State does not recognize the Church's ceremony, and the Church does not recognize the State's. I think that would be a reasonable compromise consistent with the Constitutional separation of Church and State.

[Tweed]

3. I don't think it's up to the gay community

I think it's up to the Constitution.

Read Dick Durbin's address to the Senate on July 13th, 2004 regarding the issue:

http://durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/FMA.htm

He makes some beautiful points.

[Xipe Totec]

14. Opposing a Constitutional Amendment, no problem

I wholeheartedly agree. We should ferociously oppose any amendment that proscribes freedoms.

My question is more about how we should proceed, strategically, to protect the civil rights of the Gay community. Is a push for Civil Unions a good next step, or a blind alley?

[FreeState]

16. Both

I think both will work in the long run.

If we push for Civil Unions eventualy the courts will rule seperate is not equil.

If we fight for marriage equality in the courts eventually we will get equality that way.

Which one is the best way? In this society there is not telling. But Im up for pushing both ways.

[AnnInLa]

5. here's the answer: www.juancole.com

reported in today's Kos, reprinted from Juan Cole:

For instance, a lot of Democrats would like to see gay marriage or at least civil gay unions passed into law. This is a matter of equity, since gay partners can't even get into a hospital to see an ill partner because hospitals limit visits to close family.

This issue scares the bejesus out of the red states.

But if Democrats were sly, there is a way out. The Baptist southern presidential candidate should start a campaign to get the goddamn Federal government out of the marriage business. It has to be framed that way. Marriage should be a faith-based institution and we should turn it over to the churches. If someone doesn't want to be married in a church, then the Federal government can offer them a legal civil contract (this is a better name for it than civil union). That's not a marriage and the candidate could solemnly observe that they are taking their salvation in their own hands if they go that route, but that is their business. But marriage is sacred and the churches should be in charge of it.

If you succeeded in getting the Federal government out of the marriage business, then the whole issue would collapse on the Republicans. You appeal to populist sentiments against the Feds and to the long Baptist tradition of support for the US first amendment enshrining separation of religion and state.

But the final result would be to depoliticize gay marriage, because the Federal government wouldn't be the arena for arguing about it. The Federal government could offer gays the same civil contract status as it offers straight people who want to shack up legally but without the sanction of a church. As for gays who wanted a church marriage, that would be between them and their church (remember, the Federal government is not in the business, but would go on recognizing church-performed marriages as equivalent legally to the Federal civil contract).
Simple, and common sensical.

[Xipe Totec]

19. If Even One Church Recognizes Marriage Equality

That is, a marriage between two men or two women, then The state must recognize the marriage or run afoul of the 1st amendment's separation of Church and State.

How hard would it be for religious gay people to form their own church and perform their own marriages? Would that strategy work?

[FreeState]

6. First step stop using repug language

Stop using 'Gay Marriage" there is no such thing.

Its called:

MARRIAGE EQUALITY

We must stop republicans for defing the terms and using terms that scare people.

IMO Dems must support full marriage equality or Im changing my vote.

[DaveinMD]

7. I hate to tell you

Dems didn't support marriage equality in this election. We did oppose the hate amendment.

[FreeState]

9. Oh I agree

we didnt support marriage equality as a party. But I feel that needs to change.

In the primaries it was interesting to see that there were 3 candidates that stated they supported mariage equality. Im hoping that is a sign that in the next 4 years that will change to a majority of Democrats.

[Xipe Totec]

8. Marriage Equality it is. Thanks for the Correction

Do we achieve Marriage Equality by extending it to gay couples, or do we do it by some other means?

[FreeState]

13. Well as I see it

Equality is only available if all parties are given the exact same thing, including the name.

I could go for:

1) Marriage equality (all couples are allowed to enter into civil marriage)

or

2) All civil marriages are called Civil Unions and all couples are entitled to them.

How we get there is a different question. I feel like its now being tackled on both ends. We have California offering Domestic Partnerships starting in January that have all the state rights granted by marriage, much like Vermont. Then we have couples suing for full marriage equality under the same system available now. The question is which one will get us to equality faster and with the most political ease....

[Xipe Totec]

17. Should we challenge Church Weddings Based on 1st Amendment?

Separation of Church and State might be a powerful legal argument against Church weddings. We could establish Civil Unions as the state recognized legal contract, automatically grant a Civil Union to people Married in Church, but allow couples to obtain a Civil Union directly without the Church crap. As long as all legal, property, inheritance, and tax consequences were tied to the Civil Union, would that protect the rights of the Gay Community?

Could we then give the Church goers the hollow victory of calling their Church Wedding a marriage, and the state one a Civil Union?

[Cleita]

10. Just for the gadfly aspect of it, I think we should push

for everything we have been pushing for, whether gay marriage, universal health care and everything else we want. They will ignore us. I know because I have had a Rep. congressman all along and he ignores me, but Reps or not they are supposed to work for all of us. So keep those letters, emails and faxes up. Protest their offices when you can. Make their official lives as hellish as you can.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

12. I don't accept the bullshit that "moral values" drove this election

And neither should you! :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=962455&mesg_id=962455

[Xipe Totec]

15. I don't buy the Moral Values BS either

My question is not about winning elections. It is about protecting and extending civil rights for the Gay Community. What can we achieve, realistically, and how should we go about doing it?

[Bluebear]

18. I don't care what they call it as long as it is 100% equal

in terms of benefits. Civil unions make sense to me because it is a contract. if a church wants to extend "marriage" to a couple it is their own choice.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

20. Yes!

Once middle America know what they really are they'll have no problems supporting them. You'd be surprised by how many people who oppose "gay marriage" think that it means that you HAVE to marry someone of the same sex.