Question for the GLBT folks RE: prop h8

[damonm]

Since the Prop 8. question is coming before the CA Supreme Court again this week, I have an honest question:
If there were to be a law on the books for Civil Unions that granted ALL the legal benefits, protections and privileges of marriage, would you still go to the mat to have it called marriage, and if so, why?
Reason I ask is that it seems most of the opposition (aside from the raving right, of course), is coming from those who (a)simply don't want the traditional notion of marriage to be redefined, but have no problem with same-sex couples having the rights & privileges, and (b)fear that churches will be forced to perform these marriages against the tenets of their particular religion.
If this is so, it seems that the word "marriage" is a sticking point that could be removed in order to gain the substantive change sought.
That's what I think - so, how about you?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

1. Yes -- seperate but equal is not equal

People who are against gay marriage are against gays having ANY rights. They don't want us having civil unions, job protection, NOTHING.

[damonm]

5. The problem

with seeing this as a "separate but equal" situation is this...in the Jim Crow south, even a cursory examination would show the glaring lack of equality in facilities, schools, etc.
What I posit here is a situation wherein ALL the rights, priviliges, protections, etc. of marriage, i.e., the substance of "marriage" are a given, but it is merely called something else.
Reason I'm taking this tack is that it might be easier to gain the substantive rights you're seeking now, and then once it's been accepted by the majority of the population that NONE of the horrors they predict from gay marriage are gonna happpen, it would then be FAR easier to gain the symbol, since the substance is already in place.

And I would disagree with your premise - I've talked to a LOT of folks who are squicky about gay marriage, but don't have a problem with the other aspects. What you say IS true as regards the RR, but not necessarily so in regard to the larger population.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

20. Straight people don't have the right to tell gay people what rights they deserve

I know what a civil union is, they don't work.

[Iggo]

50. No one has the right.

[t0dd]

2. Civil Unions are not equal

* Marriage obviously holds a special status in our society; it confers a dignity and respect to a couple that a civil union does not. After all, why should we have to say "Will you civil union me?"

* As the Connecticut Supreme Court said in its recent decision, “…the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody…” (Decision of CT Supreme Court in Kerrigan)

* The only possible reason for creating the separate institution of domestic partnership for lesbian and gay couples is to send a clear message to lesbian and gay couples that they aren’t worthy of the institution of marriage.

* States that pass civil unions instead of marriage just have to go back to the drawing board again: as in California, Connecticut, and now Vermont and New Jersey.

Anyway, we don't want to infringe on any religious freedoms. If churches want to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, that is fine.

[damonm]

7. So...

your opposition to Civil Unions would remain even if the law was worded such that they were marriage in all but name. Have I understood correctly?

[t0dd]

10. Yes. We don't want a separate institution

We want marriage extended to us. We want to be part of it. Again, I don't want to have to say "Will you civil union me?" or if someone asks me if I'm married, I don't want to have to explain I am actually civil unioned and automatically reveal my sexuality to the person. Cmon, look at U.S. history. Separate but equal has never worked. Finally, to me, marriage is a way of being. I don't think of it in a religious way. It is a commitment to the person I love most, and I don't want that committment to be insulted and called anything less than what it is. Anyway, we aren't going to stop fighting until we have the right to marry.

[damonm]

14. "Separate but equal"

has never EXISTED, except as a bad joke, so it's impossible to tell by history if it would work, but I do take your point.
Another question then - would you accept such civil unions (again, provided they were marriage in all but name) as a step toward recognition of same-sex marriage? If not, are you willing to take an all-or-nothing approach to the issue at this point?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

21. IT DOESN'T WORK

All you have to do is look at NJ to see that it doesn't work.

Now, stop arguing against extending full equal rights.

[t0dd]

30. Thank you.. haha. I wanted to respond exactly the same way.

Sometimes you have to shout to get through to people ;-) No we will not compromise. No we will never stop fighting until gays and lesbians have complete equality.

[damonm]

34. "No we will not compromise"

Your commitment is commendable - can't say I'd feel differently were I in your shoes - but the question has evolved to be "would you accept going 9/10ths of the way now and going the rest of the way at a later date?" An all-or-nothing approach DOES have its costs, and can sometimes hinder progress.
Bear in mind - I'm not in any way opposed to your goals. I agree with you. What I'm trying to do is see if there's any way to establish common ground with a sizeable majority of the population in order to advance your goals.

[Two Americas]

131. you ARE in those shoes

This is the core of the problem - people seeing the struggle for justice and equality as "their" fight.

People who do not see this as a fight for all of us, do not understand the issue.

Once we see it as "their" fight, and "their" goals, and "their" agenda we are 90% of the way over to the side of the right wingers and the bigots.

This is a fight against bigotry and hatred, against persecution and oppression, it is not fight for "special favors" from some group of "them." There is no compromise, no common ground with bigotry and injustice. One takes the position that this is about justice and equality - which is ion everyone's interest - OR one takes the position that this is an agenda that is promoting benefits and favors for a small group. Those are the two positions, because that is what the bigots have forced all of us into. You can resist the agenda of the bigots or you can surrender to it.

Once the bigots are successfully persecuting "them" they most assuredly will be coning for "us." That is the way that it always works.


"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."


...

[Zhade]

139. THANK YOU TA!

NT!

[Two Americas]

144. hey Zhade

Always good to see you.

[damonm]

31. SO NJ's civil union law IS marriage in all but name?

I'll look that up - tks for the info.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

32. Theoretically, it is exactly the same, and it doesn't work

Therefore, your whole point it moot (well, it was anyway).

Read the links provided by JackBeck below.

[damonm]

35. "Theoretically" ain't "really"...

And if there was ANY wiggle room in that law for employers to "not recognize it", then the law was poorly written, and would NOT be marriage in all but name.
Be that as it may, all I'm trying to do here is find some way of moving this process forward that doesn't constitute a battle to the death. There's gotta be SOME way, because "all or nothing" hasn't made a huge amount of headway.
You're correct - same-sex marriage SHOULD BE legal. Period. I can't see any way to keep it from being so that doesn't bust hell out of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. That said, it doesn't take too long to see that "should" and "is" are too often at wide variance. What I'm trying to do in the OP is to narrow that gap with an end goal of closing it altogether.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

37. There isn't any wiggle room in the law

People are breaking the law. The law doesn't work. That's why it needs to be marriage.

[damonm]

40. I'll have to look at the law itself, but...

if they're breaking the law here, why wouldn't they break it if it WERE marriage?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

41. Because the excuse they're using is that we're not really married couples

[damonm]

48. Ok, let's assume you were

do you think they STILL wouldn't break the law?
If they're gonna break a civil union law, they'll have no compunctions about breaking marriage law 'cuz THEY don't think you're married.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

52. Actually states with gay marriage haven't really had that issue

So your point is pretty moot.

And guess what, in my experience, most people don't even know what civil unions really mean. When we bought a house we had to explain what being civil unioned was over and over. No one gave us any hassles, and treated us as a married couple, but it's pretty ridiculous having to explain it.

Admit it, your separate but equal plan is an epic fail.

[damonm]

61. Fine.

I'm trying to find a different way forward, but you want to be hostile with someone who fundamentally agrees with you. So be it.
It's head-butting all the way for you - I get it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

66. You haven't found anything

Next you'll make the post that you don't care about gay rights anymore because we're mean. That's how EVERY ONE of these threads ends up with.

[damonm]

74. You're right about one thing...

I haven't. Thought it might be worth floating, but it looks like a non-starter.
As to your text, shows you how wrong you can be.
YOU may be hostile, but many aren't, and quite frankly, you aren't going to change my mind about gay rights anytime soon. So go ahead and be hostile; I'll agree with you about gay rights anyway. :P

[Marrah_G]

83. She isn't being hostile. She is fighting for her rights and the rights of her family

You think she should accept partial rights and be happy with that. She thinks she deserves to have the same rights that YOU do.

She would prefer to be able to say she is Married...just like you can. Not that she is "civil unioned" or some other BS phrase that breaks it down to some blant governmental contract devoid of love and feeling, because THAT is saved only for the "real" married couples.

[damonm]

85. "You think ..."

No, I don't think she should be happy with that, nor should anybody.
The OP was an idea to go around the politics of it, and move towards full rights with the aim of getting them completely down the road. Doesn't work - I see that now. So, like bathtubs made of swiss cheese, it's an idea whose time will never come.

[QC]

111. For you, this is simply an intellectual exercise, something to discuss on a slow afternoon.

For Haruka, it is her life. Same with Ronny, who is going to be forcibly divorced soon if Prop H8 stands.

And besides, do you really think that you are the first person ever to wander in here and post, "I know! Let's just call it a civil union and then everything will be great!"?

Someone posts this very same thread, more or less, every week or two. It's frustrating to answer the same questions over and over. It's even more frustrating when someone pretends to want feedback, as you do here, and gets all pissy when the feedback takes the form of disagreement.

Besides, the bigots don't care if it's called a civil union or a marriage. The bigots here in Florida banned both, even though the language needed to do so will also attack straight couples, many of them the retirees that Florida's economy depends on. Consider Utah, which has repeatedly defeated any attempt to give gay couples anything at all.

It's simply not true that the homophobes will back off if we don't sully the precious word marriage. For them, the mere fact that we exist is an outrage.

[damonm]

112. I believe you'll find I've conceded the point.

Bad idea.

[Two Americas]

141. not true

Several times you have claimed to have conceded the point, only to continue to defend your position.

[damonm]

151. Then what of this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5183373&mesg_id=5186059

[Two Americas]

159. what about it?

If that post in sincere, what are you still arguing about?

[damonm]

153. Or this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5183373&mesg_id=5186115

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

124. Thank you

:hug:

[Marrah_G]

129. .

:hugs: you shouldn't even have to be having this conversation with anyone.

[Two Americas]

133. that is not support for gay rights

Merely mouthing the words that you "support gay rights" while you argue aggressively against the proponents of equal rights is not supporting gay rights.

Your idea, and the arguments you are using to support it, are nothing new and have been posted here hundreds of times. It has been patiently explained to you why the idea will not work. You then get testy.

What you are describing is not a way to advance the cause, but rather a way for liberal and progressives who are unwilling to take a stand to move away from and dismiss the issue.

[Two Americas]

132. you don't

You don't "fundamentally agree" because you are misunderstanding the issue, and you are expressing opposition in the only acceptable way here, and it so happens, in the most effective way.

Just because the other member disagrees with you, that does not mean they "want to be hostile."

[Zhade]

140. If you don't support our right to marry, you are NOT on our side.

NT!

[WillyT]

3. Churches Don't Marry Anybody...

The state does. It's called a Marriage License, and unless you have one signed and witnessed, no amount of church performed marriage ceremonies make one "married".

Therefore, it's a church versus state issue, and religion should not be able to use its tenets to to inform state law, and people's civil rights.

Separate but equal is unconstitutional, period.

[polmaven]

4. As far as point (b) is concerned,

No church is now obligated to perform ANY marriage it does not see as fit - hetero or homosexual.

This straight woman with a strong Christian faith can only say that I think the government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether, and call all unions "civil" unions.

If churches want to perform a ceremony and call it a marriage, well, then, fine, but civil unions should be the universal term governmentally.

[AB_Positive]

8. This radical far-left transwoman agrees with the Christian straight woman.

Make current marriages "grandfathered", make Civil Unions required for all couples. This:

1) Allows me to have rights conferred to my partner and I.

2) Allows my inner Atheist to say "GET RELIGION OUT OF MY RIGHTS YOU JACKASSES".

I hate the concept of marriage. It's dated, outmoded, and makes Atheists have to give in to a squicky religious ideal if they want their partners to have rights.

[damonm]

9. DING DING DING

THANK you. I've been saying that from the get-go on this. Since we have civil marriages, how is it necessarily religious?

[Retrograde]

17. I'd go one step farther

and let only the state perform the union. That's the legally binding part. If people want to go ahead and hold a full-blown religious ceremony let them go all out if they want to - as a separate event. It seems to work for the French.

[polmaven]

18. That is actually the point

I was trying to make. I may not have fully articulated it. If a church wants to perform a "marriage" ceremony of their own, fine, but the state should issue a license for a civil union.

The church can call it a marriage, and so can the couple if they want to, but legally it is a civil union.

[damonm]

36. I have ZERO problem with that.

Seems to be the only rational way aside from full marriage rights. Either is fine by me.

[Terran]

6. I don't care what it's called; but

some of the assumptions you make about those who oppose same-sex marriage are incorrect.

it seems most of the opposition (aside from the raving right, of course), is coming from those who (a)simply don't want the traditional notion of marriage to be redefined, but have no problem with same-sex couples having the rights & privileges...

While a large percentage of Americans support civil unions, it's not a majority.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm (abbout 44% support)

And of course, this notion of the "traditional" notion of marriage is a myth, given how many times over the centuries the nature of marriage has changed by custom and law. That's not your error, it's the propaganda being catapulted at the public.

Me, I just want my federal rights that married couples have, because it's a major economic issue for me. I truly don't care if it's not called marriage, and personally I find the "separate-but-equal" arguments good in principle but extremely weak in practice. Federal civil unions would be light years ahead of what we have now, and I damn well will take it for now.

[damonm]

11. OK, I'll check the link

...and thanks for the correction - I was going off firsthand anecdotal evidence anyway.

[closeupready]

12. Absolutely not. Gays and heterosexuals must have unions EQUAL in ALL respects.

No compromising.

[nichomachus]

13. Would you agree to a situation

Where Jews could have civil unions, but everyone else could be married?

Or where blacks could have civil unions, but whites could be married?

You're on the right track, but the wrong train of thought.

Marriage should have two components:

1. A civil union, which everyone -- gay, straight, black, white, etc. -- is required to engage in. That is both necessary and sufficient for marriage. Once you complete the civil union, you are married.

2. A religious component, which is completely optional. You may choose to have it or not -- and a church may decide to perform it for you or not. However, this religious component has no bearing on whether or not you are married for civil purposes (only for purposes of your religious tradition) and it has no effect on your tax status, property rights, ability to adopt, etc. The religious ceremony does not make you "married," unless you have gone through the civil process.

If the churches want a different word for marriage that sets them apart, let them come up with their own word.

Clergypeople should not be the gatekeepers of my tax status, my property ownership rights, my inheritance rights, my access to public benefits, etc.

[damonm]

15. A fair point.

I do like your 2 component approach.

[nichomachus]

16. It's what's done in most sane countries

Even in Mexico, for heaven's sake, you can't be married in a church unless you have been married civilly.

[SidneyCarton]

27. This is true in Brazil as well.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

Marriage already has those two components

Legally, I'm civil unioned, even though we had a religious ceremony. My mom is married, even though she had a civil ceremony.

[nichomachus]

24. Yes, but they should be separate

Your religious ceremony should not have taken the place of the civil union. This is how we got into this mess. That is something that should be done at city hall or the country office -- and not in a church at the discretion of a clergyperson.

Clergypeople should not be the gatekeepers of civil benefits, tax status, property rights, inheritance rights, adoption rights. Those are civil matters and should be kept out of the hands of clergypersons.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

25. You still have to go down to city hall, get all the paperwork together

All the clergy does is sign it. No big deal.

[JackBeck]

19. A New Jersey Commission has unanimously concluded that civil unions don't work.

Here's a link to their bi-partisan report: http://www.civilunionsdontwork.com/

And now take a look at what the Mormons are currently up to, as they ride the wave of their victory in California:

Mormon Machine Cranking Up Against Illinois Civil Unions Bill

Some of us have been saying for years that once the bigots come after marriage and defeat it, the next step would be to go after civil unions. And this is exactly what is currently happening.

I'd also like to add that anthropologists disagree with the notion of what the Religious Right has defined as "traditional family" and "traditional marriage":

http://dev.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-Family.cfm

Regardless of what you state in your OP, this is a fight with the Religious Right and the stranglehold they've had on this nation for over 20 years. The fight to have my relationship recognized as equal with the term "marriage" is simply something that I am not willing to concede.

And the fear-based tactics you express when you mention churches being forced to do something against their will is commonly used when trying to deny LGBT Americans their equal rights.

I'm done watching this country coddle the Religious Right. Are you?

[readmoreoften]

23. great site. thanks!

[JackBeck]

121. Full disclosure:

I've been volunteering three days a week at Garden State Equality. Although, I was aware of the website before I started. ;)

[Jamastiene]

33. There is nothing I can say better than JackBeck's post.

It is clear, concise, and to the point. It explains it perfectly AND in detail. I wish it was an OP, to be honest, so I could K&R it.

[JackBeck]

120. Thank you, Jamastiene.

:hug: :loveya:

[damonm]

39. At no point

have I said the RR is NOT an opponent - that would be ludicrous on its face.
Thing is, the RR are the HARD CORE of the opposition - they're not gonna be moved off this, so we gotta go after the softer oppostion, and that's what I'm talking about, because there's a LOT of that out there. We convert that, and we're unstoppable. And a lot of that soft opposition's fears could perhaps be mollified by giving up the word - for now.
As I said upthread, all I'm trying to do here is to find some common ground so as to move the same-sex issue forward more easily. All the fighting is doing is throwing sand into machinery that ALREADY doesn't work well enough.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

54. Who is this "we" that you're talking about?

You certainly don't speak for me, or any other GLBT person on this thread.

[damonm]

65. The "we" is

those of us who WANT you to have your rights.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

70. Oh okay

Here's a thread for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5181246

[damonm]

76. Cool - will check it out.

[Terran]

88. Haruka, don't think you speak for every GLBT person

on this thread. Maybe if you read the thread you'd see I basically agree with the OP's assertion.

[Shakespeare]

97. She hasn't suggested anywhere that she does.

I've read the thread. She's read the thread. I'm not sure where you come up with that accusation, but you're wrong.

[Terran]

99. See post #54

I fact, the OP pretty much does in some respects state what I feel about this matter.

[Shakespeare]

102. Perhaps you need to read that post again.

The only thing she says in post 54 is that the OP doesn't speak for all GLBT posters; she doesn't presume to speak for the group, and simply asks that the OP not presume to do the same. You see the difference now, I hope...

[Terran]

116. I'll suggest the same to you

"You certainly don't speak for me, or any other GLBT person on this thread."

ANY OTHER = NONE. Get it. He IS in fact speaking what I feel on some of his points. Clear?

[Two Americas]

134. the statement was accurate

That member had no right to presume to speak "for any other GLBT person on this thread." The fact that you agree with them doesn't change that or mean that there was anything wrong with Haruka's statement.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

126. That's fine for you, but I want equal rights

And at the time I made that post, every GLBT person in this thread was agreeing with me.

I have no clue if you're GLBT or not. I don't recognize your name from the list of many DUers who have fought repeatedly against homophobia on here.

[Zhade]

142. Well, every group has its Aunt Tom.

Congrats on that ignoble status.

[Two Americas]

146. people have different opinions

Nothing unusual about that.

[AB_Positive]

154. What don't people get? Make marriage a church-only term!

Problem solved. Everyone has to get civil unions.

I will keep rankling the chains on this. I DON'T want marriages! Period. They're dated and hooked into a prejudicial and evil system. You want equality, make straight people need civil unions. THAT will happen years before 'gay marriage' happens in this nation. Plus, I wouldn't be forced into a church to get my equal rights.

Just because I'm GLBT doesn't mean I want marriage. I wouldn't want marriage if I was straight.

[JackBeck]

155. And what you don't get is that even if we had federal civil unions

States would then respond by making "marriages" the only form of a union recognized on a state level.

Seven states this year are active in the marriage equality fight, so it appears we're a lot closer to having same-gender marriage than federal civil unions.

Don't let the facts stop you, though. Keep on trying to create a reality that doesn't exist.

[JackBeck]

122. Sorry I'm late in my response.

Even though I see you have conceded, I still hope you take the information I have posted and share it with those you have contact with who are the movable middle. Because you are correct when you acknowledged in this thread they are the ones we need and can win over.

[Terran]

89. I read several parts of the civilunionsdontwork.com report...

and I have to say that I'm finding it a bit less than fully credible. The report is based on testimony, so it's essentially anecdotal in nature. And it faults civil unions to the extent that they haven't been the complete answer to all the problems inherent in marriage discrimination. It points out, and I certainly agree, that *federal* impediments to marriage equality such as DOMA are what are making civil unions not work as they might--but anyone involved in this issue should know that already. Civil unions *don't* work on a state level, not in any real substantive economic way, because the crux of the matter is *federal*. A state civil union is inherently mostly window dressing without the ability to, say, collect on SSI survivor benefits or file your taxes jointly.

The report goes into what other states have done. For example, Vermont, it says:

The Commission heard testimony that even eight years after enactment,
Vermont’s Civil Union Law has not resulted in true equality although it purports
to provide protections equal to marriage.118 “Time cannot and does not mend
the inequality inherent in the two separate institutions.”

Well DUH. Civil unions are not a magic wand and even with full federal recognition they won't cure centuries of discrimination overnight or in eight years. But this brings me back to my main point: without federally recognized civil unions, state civil unions are not going to redress the issues inherent in marriage discrimination, and they never can.

So, IMO, there's absolutely nothing in this report that says *real* federally-granted civil unions wouldn't work; only that the current lame situation isn't working (and I think you need more than 150 people giving testimony to really know even that).

[JackBeck]

118. Let me simplify for you why federal civil unions won't work.

States will then respond by passing laws that only recognize marriages, leaving LGBT couples with federal rights, but none on a state level.

See how that works?

The choice is yours, though. You can either join the marriage equality movement that grows each and every day and has an infrastructure, or you can throw your support and energy behind the civil...union...movement?

And I'm ignoring your remarks where you are completely dismissive of your gay brothers and sisters. I'm still letting your post sink in while stifling the urge to want to reach into my screen and slap you upside your head.

[readmoreoften]

22. I feel the idea that people are "really just against a word" is patently ludicrous.

A word stands for a concept. The fact that they are fighting so hard to preserve "a word" over and above the rights of people should send off warning bells from the get-go. The idea that churches will be "forced to perform" a wedding is also disingenuous. For example, no Catholic church has ever been "forced to perform" a ceremony for a Jewish couple.

There is no such thing as a civil union that is legally identical to a marriage. If that were the case, there would be one word for the concept.

It's a total red herring exploited by the right wing to allow bigots a seemingly innocuous excuse to oppose people's rights and freedoms.

[Marrah_G]

26. Separate is not Equal

Why would Blacks want to have the SAME water fountain if they had their very own over there---->

Get it now?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

29. It seems to be a perfectly good water fountain to me

It's even called a water fountain.

[bullwinkle428]

28. For the 8000th time, "separate but equal" is NOT equal!

If some ignorant fuck-nozzle still wants to believe that churches will be "forced" to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples, then they're quite possibly too stupid to deserve U.S. citizenship! :mad:

[HillWilliam]

38. Nobody is asking anybody

to "redefine" marriage. Nobody is asking churches to perform ceremonies they don't want to. Both of those talking points are right-wing horseshit. Let's put that to bed right now.

There are churches that turn down straight couples NOW. They aren't being forced to marry anyone they don't want to now and they won't be forced to marry same-sex couples in the future. As for "redefining" marriage, "marriage" has always had a fluid definition. So are we talking about Solomon and his thousand wives and concubines? Are we talking about Romans who had sex with anyone they wanted to, married or no? Are we talking about the Catholic Church that performed same-sex unions until the 14th Century? Are we talking about Baptists who refuse to have sex standing up for fear that someone will accuse them of dancing?

Puh-lease. Let's lay all the horseshit objections aside. The right wing wants to make noise to cover their bigotry.

Period.

As for me, damned right I will go to the mat for equal terminology, equal rights, equal representation. If I have to pay taxes, I want the rights that go with them -- ALL the rights of citizenship, thankyouverymuch. I'm sick and damned tired of subsidizing bigots with MY tax dollars and getting shit on in thanks. The selfservatives can kiss my fruit-flavored arse.

[damonm]

43. Oh, come on...

Tell me what you REALLY think...;)

Seriously, I agree with you - I can think of no reason why same-sex marriage should NOT be legal that doesn't bust the living holy shit out of either the 1st or 14th Amendments.
That said, the gap between "should" and "is" is too often a wide one. All I'm trying to accomplish through the OP is to see if there can be a common ground between proponents of same-sex marriage and the "softer opposition" (the part of the opposition that is not the Religious Right) where this whole thing can be moved forward without the head-butting.

[HillWilliam]

44. Hehe Do ya REALLLLLLLLY want to know?

I've been in the streets for thirty-plus years going toe-to-toe for equality. One thing I've learned is that one simply cannot reason with the far right. That is the most intractible, arrogant, self-centered, smug, hypocritical group I've ever had the displeasure of going up against. Fact means nothing to them and neither does reason. It has to be all their way all the time, period.

I'm getting older and I'm getting tired. I'm tired of "let's wait and things will work out". I'm tired of "next time" and "next election season". I'm tired of playing games with semantics. No matter what we seem to give in on, they always move the goalposts. More than that, I'm just plain tired. I've fought and I've waited and I've waited and I've fought. I have to put a peg in the ground somewhere, some time. This is it.

No 'ffense.

No more giving in. Every time we've given an inch, they've taken forty'leven miles.

[damonm]

47. Hey, serves me right for asking...

I agree - the far (or, as I like to call it, Raving) right CANNOT be reasoned with. They're not my target here. I'm after the ignorant - there's FAR too many of 'em, IMO - who bite on the RR's propaganda without thinking about it. Those can be moved, and I'm looking to establish a common ground there - create a base from which to overwhelm the RR.

And I sympathize. I'd hate like hell to have to fight for everything I should have by right, so no offense taken. Certainly your prerogative to dig in. And if folks like me CAN'T find the common ground, we'll need you dug in.

[Two Americas]

135. that may be

It may be true that "the gap between 'should' and 'is' is too often a wide one." But that is not relevant here, and is in fact the age-old defense of the conservative position.

There was certainly a wide gap between the defenders of slavery and the Abolitionists. That would not have been an excuse for people to advocate for less than full and unqualified emancipation, or to advocate going "half way" or something because that would be easier, because those who were opposed to emancipation might go along with it, and to then claim that this was somehow advocating for "moving things forward."

At issue here is not what is practical, but what we should be advocating. Qualifying your advocacy, and getting others to do the same, will cause that gap between "should" and "is" to get wider, and the eventual compromise will be a lot closer to the way things are than the way that they should be.

In the 1850's people did in fact make the exact same arguments about slavery that you are making here. That caused the Whig party to collapse. You cannot simultaneously be for and against something. They said "don't get me wrong, I oppose slavery BUT..." which was then followed by all of the compromise, bipartisan, baby steps, practicality, being realistic arguments.

We advocate for what is right, not for what is practical or possible. Let the politicians worry about practical and possible - that is what we pay them for. Our job is to make it easier for them to do the right thing than the wrong thing, and we do that by pressuring them through uncompromising, unambiguous and principled advocacy.



....

[Maven]

42. The premise of your question (found in your second paragraph) is totally false.

"Reason I ask is that it seems most of the opposition (aside from the raving right, of course), is coming from those who (a)simply don't want the traditional notion of marriage to be redefined, but have no problem with same-sex couples having the rights & privileges, and (b)fear that churches will be forced to perform these marriages against the tenets of their particular religion."

A) Those who oppose our rights do so in ALL circumstances. They oppose civil unions, they oppose domestic partnerships, they oppose any benefits or rights or recognition for GLBT people and families. This lie about "it's just about the word" is just that--a total lie--that people who should be on our side often trot out to enable and justify hate.

B) No one really fears churches being forced to do anything. That's another lie. And no church WOULD be forced to officiate over any ceremony they didn't want to.

C) There will never be a single "law on the books" for civil unions since marriages and like institutions are a state matter. In fact, the ONLY way we'll likely get protection across the board is to include GLBT people in the institution all states already recognize. MARRIAGE.

So the answer to your question is, firstly, all the assumptions you're making are wrong, and secondly, no. Full equality, in name and in substance, and nothing less.

[damonm]

46. Your (A)

flies in the face of what I've actually seen - there is a "softer opposition" to this. The characterization you make here describes the RR to a "T", but not the group I'm aiming at - one that is frightened by their propaganda, but not with them. basically, people who don't know the facts. THAT's who we have to educate.
You see, with a lot of people I've talked to, when I explain to them that allowing G&L marriage rights doesn't force the churches into anything, the opposition goes away. They're like "shit, I got no problem with that." Please don't tell me they don't exist - I've met them.

your B) is wrong for that same reason. You're right - it IS a lie, and one catapulted to the ignorant by the RR. And you and I both know damn good & well that churches couldn't be forced to do same-sex marriage - it's the ones who DON'T know that that we gotta reach. And there are FAR too many out there, largely because of a gross ignorance of the Constitution. You see, ignorance is curable - stupidity, as evidenced by the RR is not.

Don't get me wrong here - I agree 100% that same-sex marriage SHOULD be legal. I'm just trying to find a smoother way to narrow the all-too-often huge gap between "should" and "is". Just thought this might be a way forward NOW so the rest of the ground can be covered later when the RR's been DEMONSTRATED to be wrong about the consequences of "legalizing" same-sex couples.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

53. As to (A) what you've seen is bullshit

[damonm]

60. As you wish.

I know what I've seen, I know what people have told me. If you choose not to believe that - not my problem.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

64. I think gay people know what's best for gay people

So, really, you don't have to lecture us.

[Two Americas]

136. what people have told you

People have told me the same thing. That does not mean that I have to assume that it is true.

I believe that you have heard that. I do not believe that the people saying that are being honest, and I do not believe they are in any way supportive of equality.

This "middle position" is an illusion, a pleasant and reasonable sounding enough fiction, used as a hidey hole for those afraid to take a stand one way or the other. Forced to take a stand most of those people would vote "no."

This lone that "I favor gay rights, but others don't so we need to compromise" is also disingenuous, in my experience. What does where other people stand have to do with where you stand? And what sort of ally aggressively promotes compromise?

"no, no I don't oppose equality. It is those other people who do." Why are you worried about the people you claim to be in opposition to? Why not argue with them rather than the people you claim to be in alignment with. See how illogical all of this is?

[Maven]

157. Well, you solve those problems by LEADING and by EDUCATING people.

Not by letting RW lies stand and trying to "work around" them.

[Shakespeare]

45. NO. Separate but equal is NOT equal.

There should be no compromise on this whatsoever.

And good luck getting "marriage" out of the legal and civil discourse; the language is simply too ingrained. Ergo, nothing but full marriage rights for our GLBT brothers and sisters.

[damonm]

49. No compromise...

not even to advance toward the desired end?

[Shakespeare]

51. No. No compromise.

Because it doesn't advance toward the desired end; it simply further cements the idea of separate but equal.

[damonm]

56. So, then

All or nothing, regardless of time or cost?
Even if this hypothetical law had EVERY legal right, benefit, privilege and protection that marriage carries?
Essentially what I'm proposing is - what if they GET THE RIGHTS now? Would it be acceptable to get the name after the opposition has been proven wrong on EVERY SINGLE POINT they've made?

Don't get me wrong here - I agree 100% that Gays & Lesbians SHOULD have full marriage rights, including the name, but the existing politics of the thing make that problematic, as CA so lamentably proved last November. So I'm seeing if maybe something like this might be a way around that roadblock so progress could be made.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

57. Civil unions don't work, but yet you still argue for them

[damonm]

62. I'm not - but you're determined to miss the point.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

68. You're starting from a false point, as Shakespeare said, so I'm not missing anything

[Shakespeare]

59. You're using a false premise as your starting point.

It does not, and can not, have every legal right, benefit privilege and protection.

Only somebody who doesn't understand how ingrained the word "marriage" is in legal language going back CENTURIES would make such a suggestion. There is simply no way that a civil union would provide all the same benefits as marriage, and that's speaking strictly from a secular standpoint.

[damonm]

63. Then perhaps I don't.

And would love an explanation as to how it can't possibly.
As I've said, all I was doing here was to see if there was another way to get this done that didn't involve all the head-butting. Apparently, this isn't it.

[readmoreoften]

73. Tell bigots to stop butting heads with us if you're so eager to help.

And that includes your sweet old grandma and mine.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

78. Oddly enough, my racist, anti-semitic head of the K of C step-grandfather is for gay marriage

In his words, "I like the gays!"

Bizarre, but true.

[damonm]

91. Not as odd as you might think...

Barry Goldwater, of all people(!) saw absolutely nothing wrong with gays serving in the military during that flap in the early '90s. He felt if they wanted to serve their country, then LET 'EM.
I seem to recall him pointing out at one point or another that Freidrich Von Steuben, the man who INSTILLED order & discipline into the Continental Army, was openly gay.
So much for the "homosexuality is prejudicial to good order & discipline" argument!
Barry wasn't all bad. He's also the man who said "I think all good Christians ought to kick Jerry Falwell right in the ass."
Whatever the man's politics, he endeared himself to me forever with that line...

[damonm]

80. I do - got Grandma convinced already.

Just wanted to see if there was an end run that could work instead of plowing through the line. Oh, well.

[Marrah_G]

55. Which of your rights do you compromise?

[damonm]

58. To my great good fortune,

I haven't had to.
But if I had, I imagine I'd be happy (albeit unsatisfied) with progress, so long as it doesn't stop at that. I'd want, nay, demand, my full rights, and work any angle to get them, including compromise, if it got me moving in the right direction.

[Marrah_G]

81. You only have to imagine. Some of your fellow Duers have had theirs stripped away

or never had them in the first place.

Civil rights should not only be for the fortunate.

[damonm]

84. Not a false word from you here.

I just wanted to try a workaround on the politics of it, but it's obviously a bad job.

[readmoreoften]

72. Did you read the civilunionsdontwork.com site? Or are you deliberately obtuse.

IT DOESN'T WORK. IT ISN'T AN ADVANCE.

[Behind the Aegis]

67. Mildred Loving says it best....

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights." source

Not a difficult concept to understand!

[damonm]

82. This IS true.

I was trying to end-run the politics of it, but see now it was a bad idea. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board...

[Bluenorthwest]

69. You buy the spin of liars

Those who oppose equality are not bent out of shape about a word. And this 'soft' opposition of yours, I don't see it. I see a chairman of the DNC who opposes civil unions and marriage equality. How is that soft? And he's the chairman of the DNC.

[readmoreoften]

75. It's not 'soft opposition.' It's "compassionate conservatism".

And its rampant in the Democratic party.

[DevonRex]

71. That is not acceptable.

Why should we call it something else, just because it's a gay couple getting hitched? That is not equal. On its face, it says that gay couples aren't equal to straight couples.

Churches cannot be forced to perform any ceremony, so that argument is silly.

[radfringe]

77. frankly I don't care what it's called as long as the same

rights and legal benefits are there.

my partner has been without health insurance for almost 2 years. She'll be 60 yrs old in October. Thankfully, she's healthy. Neither Pennsylvania nor the company I work for recognizes domestic partners - so I can't put her on my insurance.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

79. Is there anyway you can move to NJ or NY?

Because PA isn't going to recognize anything for gays anytime soon. NC will recognize gay couples way before PA.

[cboy4]

86. Those are excellent right wing fundamentalist christian conservative

Republican talking points....especially the one scaring people that the churches will be forced to start performing same sex marriage.

Despicable. :puke:

[damonm]

87. Yeah, unfortunately they do that...

And it scares the ignorant silly.

That's who's gotta be reached - the loony right won't move an inch, so those of us who favor full rights for GLBT have to get the "compassionate ignorant" into a coalition with us and just steamroll the RR.

[readmoreoften]

90. Then why don't you just point out that churches aren't forced to perform celebration services

for those who aren't members of their church? No Catholic church has ever been forced to hold a ceremony for a Jewish couple. No synagogue has ever been forced to marry Catholics.

But you're not really here for answers. You just want to "scold" us.

[Terran]

93. Ridiculous

But you're not really here for answers. You just want to "scold" us.

Such a fucking knee-jerk response. Try reading what the guy has actually written in this thread and see if you see any scolding. Geez.

[cboy4]

94. Yea, I did read it .. he's thinking of a way to compromise on

civil rights which violates the first rule of the Civil Rights Fight Club.

There's no compromise.

And stop projecting while you're at it.

[Terran]

96. Accuse someone else of projecting...

the response of someone without a response.

[readmoreoften]

100. Except that you exactly are projecting.

[Terran]

103. Tell me what I'm "projecting". n/t

:rofl:

[cboy4]

105. uh huh

That's make a lot of sense.

It would be much less of a waste of time if you would just explain why you feel separate and unequal is perfectly fine.

You don't fool me.

Get it off your chest Terran

[Terran]

115. I'm not trying to "fool" anyone

What, did you think I was a troll or something? A homophobe? I've been a member here since 2001, and I'm gay, so I have as much dog in this fight as the rest of you. I think that separate but equal IS fine for now, so don't try to put your fucking words in my mouth ("separate but unequal"). I'm 50 years old and I've been waiting most of my life for my rights, probably a lot longer than you have, and at this point I will settle for ANY scheme that gives me economic justice.

I'm sure you and many others are very proud of standing on your principles and insisting on complete justice for us all, but I have a news flash for you, you may not get it in your life time. I'm willing to take a federal civil union if it gives me what I want and need; marriage can follow in its own time.

"You don't fool me." Moron.

[cboy4]

119. If you read the thread, you would have learned civil unions

are not working in New Jersey.

If you read the thread, you would have learned that the Mormons are fighting civil unions.

So you are naive as hell ... especially if you're 50 years old ... to be satisfied with settling for less than equal .. and that you believe compromising on civil rights (unconscionable)is a way to achieve "economic justice."

Absolutely no guarantee you'll get shit backing down.

You're not so over the hill that you shouldn't be fighting for the full rights gay people deserve, including those of us who are younger, but are apparently doing all of the heavy lifting.

It's very irritating to hear that you're gay and yet you hold these passive feelings.

Grow some dude.

TYPOS

[readmoreoften]

98. Yes, I have read the thread. How many times and how many people have to explain the same thing

before its badgering?

I understand that the OP disagrees with those he quotes. But he does suggest that there is a "third way" which implies that LGBT people can accommodate these people is badgering if you continue to argue that LGBT people need to meet kindly old conservatives in the middle.

(And such a "fucking knee-jerk response" from you, I might add.)

[Terran]

101. Wow

He's "badgering" because you consider him wrong; and the rest aren't badgering because they're "right". Nice.

[readmoreoften]

109. I don't CONSIDER those who oppose equal rights wrong. I KNOW they're wrong.

And yes, to create a thread devoting to arguing with people about how they should accept 2nd class status while playing the game of "just curious" is badgering AKA passive aggressive. I consider him badgering because he's BADGERING.

If you don't know the difference between right and wrong, you've got a bigger problem than some poster on an anonymous board can even address.

[Terran]

117. You know, distorting what people say is the tool of the Right

but you sure are good at it. Where the fuck did he say he opposes equal rights? Show me. And for that matter, where the fuck did I say that? Show me or shut the fuck up.

[Two Americas]

137. so what?

People claim to support things all of the time here - it costs them nothing to say that - and then post all of the arguments against the very position they claim to support.

The usual trick is to say this: "don't get me wrong I agree with you, BUT..." which them opens the gate for all of the opposition arguments to be promoted.

It means nothing that a person does not say they oppose equal rights. Support for equal rights is not a passive thing.

[damonm]

104. Well, I've given up on it, but...

My original idea was this:
A) take the substance of the rights now
B) get the name later
My thinking WAS (note past tense) that by having the substance of the rights in place, it could be thoroghly demonstrated to any on the fence about marriage that the hysterical predictions of the RR weren't even close to reality, and then going the rest of the way would be relatively easy.
I can see I was wrong, tho.

[readmoreoften]

110. Glad to see the thread helped answer your question then.

Sorry if people are hostile towards the question. But it is literally about the 100th time the question has been asked. And about 75% of the time, the person asking the question has revealed themselves to not really stand for LGBT equality. Thanks for taking the time to argue with conservatives on our behalf.

[damonm]

113. No prob - I didn't think about how often you've probably had this brought up.

Guess I'd get pretty fed up, as well.

[damonm]

95. Actually, I do.

And, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, a lot of people I've talked to have their resistance vanish when apprised of this fact.

You might wish to take the advice of your handle.

[readmoreoften]

106. So, what's your point then? If you know what to do, why not just go out and do it?

Why keep arguing that there should be some sort of compromise "in the middle"? If it's so easy to disabuse people of their poor reasoning, why ask us to consider conceding rights? Why not just disabuse people of their poor reasoning?

[damonm]

108. I haven't asked anyone to concede rights.

The whole point was:
IF there were a civil union law that had EXACTLY THE SAME rights as marriage (I've seen now that that's gonna be damn near impossible),would you still go to the mat to have the name marriage?

My thinking being described here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5183373&mesg_id=5186059

I was wrong - I admit that. I was trying to go around the politics, get the rights, and tack the name on later. I can see now that it won't work.

[readmoreoften]

114. I understand.

You didn't understand that asking us to accept civil unions is a concession of rights because they don't work, i.e. leave out rights/create loopholes. Since you now "get it" I understand that you aren't asking us to concede rights. But please understand many people come here and continue to argue that we're somehow "wrong" and that separate but equal is possible despite evidence contrary to the fact--even after we explain and show proof.

The reality is that many people who say they want equality for LGBT people but not the legal term marriage, really want to have their heterosexuality validated as something "special" and "sacred" and "superior". It's not a far leap to understanding how validating such a desire will lead to inequality in practice.

[Two Americas]

143. I have found the opposite to be true

I walked into a roomful of Warren supporters at a conservative church in a rural community on Christmas Eve and strongly advocated for full equality. That changed hearts and minds, that reached people. Talk of compromise would have achieved nothing. I think it was my passion and uncompromising defense of what is right that moved people. Wishy washy compromise proposals could never have accomplished that.

We may not change people's hearts and minds by being passionate, uncompromising and standing up and strongly speaking out for what is right. But we certainly will never change people's hearts and minds if we do not stand up and strongly speak out for what is right.

[Terran]

92. oh fercrissakes

He was describing how people think; he's not advocating those positions. Reading comprehension?

[Name removed]

107. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Two Americas]

145. maybe

Too often "this is not what I think, but it is what other people think" is a way to get opinions into the discussion without taking responsibility for that. Not saying that is necessarily true in this case, but it happens quite a bit. I am not at all clear where the OP stands. All I know is their opinion about what other people think - and I believe that to be inaccurate.

I don't believe that there are people who think civil unions are OK but marriage is not - other than maybe here, among progressives. There are people who say that, but I don't believe them. Discussing the issue with them in any death at all almost always reveals that to be true. Taking them at their word and going no farther can leave one with a false impression - exactly the false impression that the right wingers and bigots want us to believe.

"I would accept civil unions" is a clever stalking horse for opposition to equality, and opposition to equality is not a position we can or should compromise with.

Who takes people spouting right wing talking points at their word? May as well turn Limbaugh on to get their "opinion" and skip the discussion with them altogether.

People here are too quick to latch into this civil union idea, in my opinion, and I think that is because they are uncomfortable standing up and speaking out for full equality, and the civil unions idea offers them a way out while saving face among other liberals and progressives.

That discomfort, that unwillingness to stand up and speak out is our undoing, not just on this issue but on every issue.


...

[Bluebear]

123. 'churches will be forced to perform these marriages' - typical right wing Christian scare tactics

It's simply not true.

[donco6]

125. No church has EVER performed a marriage against their tenets.

It doesn't happen. Never has.

[JackBeck]

130. And this is one of the points we need to make to the movable middle.

We need to remind them that this will never infringe on their freedom to practice their religion in the manner they choose.

[NMMNG]

127. All of their excuses are lies and bigotry

Civil Unions, no matter how well intentioned, are not equivalent. "Separate but Equal" isn't. Never was, never will be. The residents of VT, NJ and other states who have been forced to make do with less than can easily explain to you why the Colored-Only water fountain of the 21st century known as "Civil Unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" is nowhere near equal to marriage. Only marriage is equivalent marriage, and slapping an "=" sign on anything less doesn't make it so. I always notice the people who claim Civil Unions are good enough for gays balk at the idea of Civil Unions for everyone, and screech at the idea of us getting marriage while they get Civil Unions. That proves they know Civil Unions are inferior.




(a)simply don't want the traditional notion of marriage to be redefined

What do you mean THE traditional notion of marriage? There is no one traditional notion of marriage, despite the way the RRRW likes to pretend there is. There are thousands of marriage traditions throughout history, across cultures and around the world, including same-sex marriages. Stop playing into their lie that we're "redefining" marriage. It has never been a static entity.



(b)fear that churches will be forced to perform these marriages against the tenets of their particular religion.

Pure, unadulterated fearmongering bullshit. No church has ever been forced to perform a wedding against their will. Catholics haven't been forced to marry Jews or atheists. Baptists haven't been forced to marry Satanists. And no church is going to be forced to marry same-sex couples.



Proposition 8 is not about Freedom of Religion, "protecting marriage" or any other such nonsense. It's about anti-gay bigotry, period. My marriage is on the line thanks to the scum who have the audacity to claim they're "protecting marriage". That's as screwed up as you can get.

[JackBeck]

128. They have always lied about us and our fight for equality.

And you and I both know they will continue to catapult their propaganda.

What I find odd is when liberals and progressives accept their line of reasoning as possibly possessing some sort of creditability, since some of the theosexuals have fine-tuned their crazy rantings throughout the years, and then in turn use it to argue for a 'compromise'.

[NMMNG]

148. It's one of the failings of liberals

We try too hard to be accommodating and reach compromises. There are things on which you don't compromise (like human/civil rights). And you simply can't accommodate some people because they'll only take advantage of you. They have no desire for anything but to run everything and everyone.

[JackBeck]

150. Good luck today. I wish I could be there with both of you.

And I really tried hard to make it happen, but I've been traveling so much between the Creating Change conference in Denver and for work on top of it that some days I'm surprised to wake-up in my own bed.

:loveya: :grouphug:

[Two Americas]

147. of course

"All of their excuses are lies and bigotry."

Have people not been paying attention? Of course the right wingers lie.

What will we be debating next? Whether or not water is wet?" I can see it now - "a lot of people think that water is not wet - don't get me wrong I don't agree with them - so maybe we shouldn't put roofs on houses. Or put half a roof on them. You know, as a first step."



...

[NMMNG]

149. Sadly many so-called progressives bow to their nonsense

Even among our own LGBTs are told to "take baby steps", stop demanding too much, not rock the boat (lest we ruin things for the Dems), and why are we whining about our rights anyway when there are so many more pressing matters... (Because you know we're not affected by the economy, homelessness, hunger, joblessness, natural disasters or those other things. :sarcasm:)

Yes, I'm really agitated right now. It has a lot to do with tomorrow and my marriage being on the line thanks to the "sanctity of marriage" people. Thanks, though, for your support. :hi:

[Zhade]

138. YES. Separate but equal never is.

At this point, I must remind everyone: IF YOU DO NOT SUPPORT OUR FULL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE, YOU ARE *NOT* WELCOME ON DU. THAT IS PER THE SITE'S FOUNDER.

That said, realize this - gay people who get "civil unions" WILL ALWAYS CALL THEMSELVES MARRIED ANYWAY.

[snooper2]

152. More than half of marriages fail anyway- call it garriage

might have a better chance :)

[ScreamingMeemie]

156. Equal is equal.

The church doesn't have a stranglehold on the word marriage...even if they think they do. I was married (yes, married) in a judge's office.

[AirBaud]

158. such a long discussion thread

for a question that should not even be asked on this type of forum.