We play politics with gay people's lives

[Sapphocrat]

Are we done yet?

Now that eight more states have gay-marriage bans written into their constitutions -- 45 states ban it through amendment or statute -- are we done playing politics with gay people's lives? . . . Because I'm done being a punching bag whose personhood is routinely put up to a public vote so others can feel morally righteous. I've had it with critical decisions about my life being decided by a group of people who don't like the fact that I chose to marry a woman instead of a man.

<snip>

I prefer the slogan seen on a marriage supporter's poster in Massachusetts: "Can I vote on your marriage?"

<snip>

Do you still think civil unions are plenty good enough for gay folks? I challenge any married heterosexual person to trade in his or her marriage certificate for a civil union certificate. Would you do it? When you got engaged, would you have squealed with delight at telling your family and friends, "We're getting civil unioned!"

Would you be OK if hospital staff demanded documentation proving you are the spouse of the person who was just brought in by ambulance instead of just taking your word for it? Would you be happy if your state had a constitutional amendment saying that all protections herein apply equally to everyone except you?

<snip>

More:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/294419_firstperson04.html

[Az]

1. Unfortunately politics is the only game in town

And somebody broke it a while back as well.

Here are the facts. Gays and Lesbians do not have the rights they deserve. There are those of us who believe they should have those rights. There are people out there that honestly believe they do not deserve those rights. They seem to have found the same game we are using which should be expected as it's the only game in town.

[Deja Q]

2. It's human nature to play with other people for personal benefit.

It's called "exploitation".

It's also a matter of how much time, effort, and personal ethics one wants to put into keeping lines drawn and to prevent exploitation from becoming the norm. And when exploitation becomes the norm, it's degenerated into lawless anarchy. Or what might be considered worse...

When there are too many people saying "love and sex can be separate" or people divorcing after a 55 hour "marriage" or fighting to marry and then divorcing a few months later, the mass public starts to get confused about the point in the first place. And that is the aspect I find most interesting these days.

It's rather like "offshoring" once you think about it figuratively... and more like "offshore drilling" on a literal meaning than a figurative one... :rofl:

[sandnsea]

3. My daughter wanted a civil union

I was married by a JP and consider it a civil union. Just so you know that when some folks advocate civil unions it's because we really don't care what our own partnership is called either. Call my partnership a civil union in order to extend rights to everybody, fine by me.

[Solon]

6. That is the most callous thing I have ever seen...

Oh, you don't call your marriage a marriage, so you AREN'T being hypocritical when you advocate for "Civil Unions". How "progressive" of you. Why don't you ACTUALLY put your money where you mouth is, divorce, go to Vermont, get an ACTUAL civil union, then move back to wherever you lived, and see how that compares to your marriage.

[MercutioATC]

8. I'm hoping that was sarcastic...

...you DO know that we have a sarcasm smilie, don't you?

[Solon]

17. Why should it be sarcasm?

They call their marriage a civil union, even though its not, not in any way shape or form, Civil Unions are extremely limited, no federal benefits, no recognition by other states, etc. We have only ONE type of federally recognized partnership of equals in this country, and that's marriage, it should be extended to ALL couples, regardless of whether they are same sex, inter-sex, or different sex.

[sandnsea]

23. According to my religion

it actually IS a civil union, I am NOT married in the eyes of my church.

[Solon]

24. Are you Catholic by any chance?

I asked because you mentioned that you didn't go to a Catholic church to get married. Just a note, to the Church, you aren't in ANYTHING, not a civil union, not a marriage, at least one recognized by them. They don't use terms like "civil union" simply because it doesn't matter to them, most of these types of churches think you are "living in sin". I don't subscribe to those beliefs myself, obviously, for I'm no longer Catholic, but I do know something about it.

[sandnsea]

9. I may have to get a divorce

in order for my husband to qualify for medical care, so frankly I've got more important things to worry about. If I wanted a 'marriage', I'd go down to my Catholic Church and get one. I invite any homosexual couple to find a minister to marry them, there are plenty out there. And then I suggest they begin identifying themselves as married couples, wives and husbands. Marriages don't have to be civil unions and civil unions don't have to be marriages. It's ridiculous to deprive yourself of legal protections over a word and it isn't callous at all, it's plain old common sense.

[Solon]

18. You have a civil marriage, not a civil union, so stop calling it that...

Legally, there is no difference between having a marriage in a church or in a courtroom. However, right now, you have a right that gay couples do not, and that's the right to have your marriage recognized by federal and state governments. There are plenty of married gay couples in this country, its just that, outside of Mass. they aren't recognized in any legal way. Civil Unions do NOT equal marriage, not in this country, can you imagine the legal chaos this would cause in civil and divorce court alone? Would previously married couples still be married, will they have to re-register under "civil union" legislation, would the benefits be the same, what about the responsibilities?

Its much simpler, legally speaking, to just extend recognition of an institution that ALREADY exists to ALL couples.

[sandnsea]

22. I said I don't care if it's called a civil union

What my partnership is called doesn't matter to me - I don't care. If calling it a civil union means everybody will have the same legal rights, then call it a civil union. Not everybody who advocates civil unions is advocating a separate legal institution for gays. I live in Oregon and we will be working very hard to pass civil union legislation this next year. I am damned tired of having that work denigrated. I don't care if it's not PC to point out reality - but the reality is 45 states have said NO to gay marriage. It's time to do the common sense thing and not bash people who point out the obvious. It's STUPID to keep fighting against civil unions, it's the best most states are going to offer right now.

[Solon]

25. The problem is this, many view "civil union" legislation as an end itself...

it shouldn't be considered that, not at all, at best its a stepping stone, no more, no less, to full marriage rights for homosexual couples.

[sandnsea]

26. A very important stepping stone

To ease most of the injustices gay couples face today, and generate acceptance in more of the population. What's sad to me is that many states might have passed civil unions some time ago, if it weren't for those who insist on marriage or nothing. I suppose if gay couples want to continue to endure the difficulities, it's up to them. I do note they aren't turning away employee partnership benefits when they're offered.

[Solon]

27. Actually, in some states, civil unions are also banned...

Homophobia extends far beyond just banning marriage for homosexuals, but also extends to anti-discrimination legislation and civil unions as well. Repukes and other conservatives usually oppose civil unions just as vigorously as they do gay marriage, and therefore link the two, they both get voted on, and even civil unions can't pass in those states.

Hell, some have gone so far as to ban powers of attorney on unrelated people, and many other provisions, and damn the consequences. The "law of unintended consequences" has bit some of these laws in the ass.

[Rockholm]

10. Excellent post.

[bliss_eternal]

4. I wouldn't be ok with any of this...

which is only part of why I support same sex marriage. No one has the right to say any population is "less entitled" than another.

Quote:
Would you be OK if hospital staff demanded documentation proving you are the spouse of the person who was just brought in by ambulance instead of just taking your word for it? Would you be happy if your state had a constitutional amendment saying that all protections herein apply equally to everyone except you?

I don't like the idea of same sex couples falling in the cracks of the health care system becasue they are estranged from "blood relatives," and their partners aren't allowed to make decisions for them. I've heard and seen this happen too much when working in health care for time.

Perhaps it's easier for some to focus on the same sex aspect and forget that we are talking about "human beings."

Kicked and nominated. :)

[valerief]

5. And sick people's lives and poor people's lives and seniors' lives. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

7. I think our greatest failure was not confronting this head on in the 70's and 80's

Now that the GOP has "embraced" the fight against AIDS we don't have the issue we really need to garner the emotional support for homosexual rights.

[Sapphocrat]

11. But we did.

And we confronted it head-on. But as long as AIDS was just "the gay cancer," (almost) nobody else cared.

[bliss_eternal]

15. It wasn't until Magic Johnson got HIV that suddenly

it was a "horrible" thing. :eyes: Countless gay men had died, but a revered athlete had to contract the virus for anyone to give a damn.

Rock Hudson died and Liz Taylor took up the cause, or I wonder if the Hollywood community would have got involved. (forgive me if I've mixed up which came first M. Johnson or Rock Hudson :blush:).

People need to think about this. :mad::(

[originalpckelly]

12. Marriage is a religious institution and we need to secularize it...

the government is supporting a religious tradition.

I say everyone in America should receive civil unions. They can call it whatever they want (I prefer to use marriage for EVERYONE!)

[Az]

13. Same camp

Government should get out of the marriage business. It should be there to recognise any binding commitments a couple makes but sanctifying it isn't their job. That is up to whatever belief systems the couple place value in.

[Solon]

20. Marriage was never, originally, a religious institution...

it was a property contract, a deed transfer, if you will, between a father and a groom. Hell, up till the Middle Ages, churches only haphazardly sanctified such marriages, for there was no "overreaching" authority on the matter. States, on the other hand, were required to recognize these contracts, mostly for hereditary and tax purposes. When the Church finally did start recognizing such marriages, they sanctified the same contracts. When, in the late middle ages to the Renaissance, many states were theocracies, the state and church were the same, so such marriages became associated with religion in general.

The basic definition of a marriage didn't begin to change till much later anyways, when, thanks to many different women's liberation movements, etc. Marriage gradually changed from a deed on a woman who was property to a partnership contract between a man and woman. The only change to be required now is to remove the sex references from it, changing it again to a partnership contract between two people.

[porphyrian]

14. Maybe gay people should play Life with politicians.

I like Life, but the spinner always comes off.

[mattfromnossa]

16. Please keep doing what you're doing.

Keep talking about it and vote.

[ninkasi]

19. It shouldn't be possible

for the state, or anybody else, to prevent consenting adults who are single from marrying. Why do people think they have the right to deny other people the ability to marry, or have insurance benefits, or the ability to make health care decisions, just because THEY don't approve of their lifestyles? I am a straight woman, with gay friends, and they should have exactly the same rights I do. How can people think they are entitled to vote on other people's rights?

I'm sure that the government, the same government which feels entitled to deny human rights to certain segments of the population, do not feel that in return for the denial of those rights, gays should be exempt from all taxes. After all, tax money supports government, so gays shouldn't be forced to surrender tax money that is used to deny them human rights.

This whole issue infuriates me, because society has been asking gays to hush up, not make waves, the time isn't right, blah blah blah. When the time is right, you MIGHT be treated as equal. That's the same message women and blacks heard for years. That message was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

[Orsino]

21. Bravo. No more "patience," no more quiet acceptance.

Demand full civil rights.