angie wrote:I read a proposal from a local politician calling for civil unions for everyone, gay or straight, with all the same rights. Then, whoever desires a sacramental union can seek one out in a church willing to perform the service. I love that idea.
I have also stated previously here that this would be the most logical, fool-proof course of action, though I also think the limit of two individuals should also be dropped. I can think of no reason for the government to limit my life-partner choices with respect
either to gender
or to the number of life-partners I might choose to have.
.
Scrat, I agree. I would have no intereswt in limiting the number of spouses a person could have, WITH ONE QUALIFIER. Economics. A person would only be able to claim ONE spouse for any legal economic benefits.
The thing with "civil unions for everyone" is that people who do not really WANT to come up with a legally equitable solution for gay people would find some reason to object to this "solution".
What they want is separate and unequal. Period. This issue, like racial civil rights, and like abortion, will never be resolved through compromise. Only when the courts step up and do the right thing in keeping with the letter and the spirit of our constitution, only them will this issue be resolved. .
angie wrote:I would have no intereswt in limiting the number of spouses a person could have, WITH ONE QUALIFIER. Economics. A person would only be able to claim ONE spouse for any legal economic benefits.
Having given this some thought, I would instead advocate for the sharing of said benefits amongst the partners as best suited their needs. If you had a civil union between three partners where two worked outside the home and had access to health benefits, one or the other could put the third on his or her health insurance, for instance. If one person worked outside the home, he or she could put the other two on his or her health insurance. It would of course cost more to add two "spouses" than to add one.
Scrat wrote:angie wrote:I would have no intereswt in limiting the number of spouses a person could have, WITH ONE QUALIFIER. Economics. A person would only be able to claim ONE spouse for any legal economic benefits.
Having given this some thought, I would instead advocate for the sharing of said benefits amongst the partners as best suited their needs. If you had a civil union between three partners where two worked outside the home and had access to health benefits, one or the other could put the third on his or her health insurance, for instance. If one person worked outside the home, he or she could put the other two on his or her health insurance. It would of course cost more to add two "spouses" than to add one.
This is already available through some programs - sold as family and dependent policies, and of course they cost more than basic spousal coverage. Nothin' wrong with it. More money for the insurers
.
Wow, when reasonable, open, genuinely fair-minded people put their heads together, they they can actually solve problems and make real progress!
There's hope for us all yet.
: )
.
And ehBeth's comments remind us that we don't always need the government to solve all of our problems. You might reasonably complain about the rate of change, but there are lots more options for same-gender couples today and society is generally opening up for them in ways that seemed unlikely just a few years ago.
BTW, I know everyone is aware of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," but has anybody else seen "Straight Plan for the Gay Man" on Comedy Central? It's a scream! The one show I caught so far, they had four erstwhile "straight" men (all comics) teaching a gay man how to pick up women. It was very funny.
The San Jose City Council is working towards legalizing same sex marriage.
Quote:The San Jose City Council is working towards legalizing same sex marriage.
Shame they lack the
authority to legalize it.
BTW, I want to applaud the actions of the mayor of Seattle. (Anybody else catch this in the news?) Using the legitimate, legal power and authority he holds, he has decided that Seattle will extend benefits to same-gender spouses of city workers who are joined in a civil union or marriage performed anywhere in the country.
In doing so he also pointed out that he lacked the legal standing to perform such marriages or unions in Seattle since they are against state law at this time.
That's the way a man of integrity who is sworn to uphold the law and his state's constitution takes a stand on this issue; he does what it is within his power to do without thumbing his nose at--and weakening--the rule of law.
Quote:SEATTLE (Reuters) - Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels on Monday ordered the city government to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, even though Washington state law clearly prohibits same-sex marriage.
"Spouses of city employees in same-sex marriages will enjoy all of the health and insurance benefits that all opposite sex partners enjoy," Nickels said at a news conference.
Same-sex couples with marriage licenses recently issued in cities including Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco would be eligible for full benefits with no extra paperwork required to apply.
(
Complete Story...)
On NPR's Talk of the Nation program today, a caller identified himself as Joe, a white, evangelical clergyman (referring to an earlier comment by a statistician). He made the comment that he was struggling with the issue--and he said that he was disturbed by the constant references to "the sanctity of marriage," pointing out that more than 50% of marriages performed in churches end in divorce. When asked for a brief summary, he stated that "the country doesn't need the constitutional amendment the President is proposing, and churches don't need to be told who they can marry." A refreshingly non-partisan point of view, i would say.
Setanta wrote:On NPR's Talk of the Nation program today, a caller identified himself as Joe, a white, evangelical clergyman (referring to an earlier comment by a statistician). He made the comment that he was struggling with the issue--and he said that he was disturbed by the constant references to "the sanctity of marriage," pointing out that more than 50% of marriages performed in churches end in divorce. When asked for a brief summary, he stated that "the country doesn't need the constitutional amendment the President is proposing, and churches don't need to be told who they can marry." A refreshingly non-partisan point of view, i would say.
It also happens to be my point of view. (Of course, I'm perplexed as to why you didn't call it "refreshingly non-partisan" when I espoused it.) :wink: (sigh...)
.
Scrat,
Your perspective is "refreshingly non-partisan".
IMO, civil rights issues ought NEVER be partisan.
When it comes to civil rights, and human rights, neither side of the political aisle can claim the turf as theirs.
A sense of fairness and justice ought to be in each of us, regardless of our perspective on taxes, education, the environment, pre-emption, etc.
.
Angie - It has been my experience here that I am only labelled as being "partisan" when I disagree with liberals on what they see as the correct "liberal" position on an issue. When my personal opinion happens to align with the "liberal" position, I occasionally get a nod from someone for being an open-minded free-thinker, but as soon as I espouse a position that is perceived as being "conservative" I'm a "partisan", "right-wing fanatic", "Bushie", "neoCon", and worse.
The strange thing is that I always think I'm being open-minded, I'm always trying to think freely and for myself. So why is it I get accused of not being/doing so when my open mind and free thinking lead me to conclusions with which liberals disagree? I wonder whether they really think that everyone who ever disagrees with them must fit in one dark, foul-smelling "right-wing" box.
Just thinking out loud. Thanks for the kudos. I hope I'll still be deserving of them when I express an opinion with which you personally disagree. :wink:
Well, Scrat, i hadn't known you were a white, evangelical clergyman--i'll take note of that, and lower my expectations of you . . . damn, we're gonna have to lower this floor here . . .
I should have written that I shared that point of view, to avoid the confusion I clearly have engendered in you. My bad. :wink:
Thanks for a good laugh. Hopefully you're laughing with or near me, as opposed to "at".
guffaw away, Boss, we're in tune . . . this once, at any event . . .
I'll see what I can do to keep it that way, in our tone if not in our opinions. :wink:
Scrat wrote:<snip>The strange thing is that I always think I'm being open-minded, I'm always trying to think freely and for myself. So why is it I get accused of not being/doing so when my open mind and free thinking lead me to conclusions with which liberals disagree? <snip>
Take out the 'liberals' in that quote, Scrat, and I think you'll find quite a few of us will agree. That is, use liberal or conservative, or republican or democrat, or whatever. Not a lot of us really fit tidily into a precise political/religious/economic thought slot as defined for us by others.
I always hope people will see that I'm presenting one angle of me - not all of me. Regrettably (predictably?) that angle is what people are looking at/thinking of, and not reflecting on the other angles they've seen in the past. I know that I'm guilty of that same tendency to focus on one angle/issue, and not to reflect on the larger picture the person has presented over time.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to teach people to consider the whole person. j/k
ehBeth - Point taken. Yes, there are plenty of peons on all sides, but in the microcosm that is A2K I see far more attack dogs on the left than on the right, and please believe me when I write that I'm not blind to bad behavior from the right side of an issue. Nobody, from people who know of me to people who don't, has ever castigated me for one of my "liberal" opinions. Nobody has questioned my intelligence for supporting same-gender unions or the decriminalization of drugs, for instance. People have disagreed with me on those issues, but without calling me names or attacking me. Yet on EVERY issue where my opinion is considered "conservative" I am called names, treated with disrespect, condescended to by people ignorant of the most basic facts of the issue being discussed... there's simply no comparison.
Sure, it happens on both sides, but here in A2K at least, most of the vitriol comes from the left. (And by "left" I mean those on the "liberal" side of a given issue, or who call themselves "liberals".)
errrr, very few of the self-described left here are even near the political centre on a globabl spectrum. It's not fair to the real left to call them left, or liberal. They're just barely, slightly left of the right.
(that ^^^ is this quarter's rant on that topic - resume your positions - and keep on singin', scrat)
.
Scrat, you wrote: "Just thinking out loud. Thanks for the kudos. I hope I'll still be deserving of them when I express an opinion with which you personally disagree. "
As I said, civil rights / human rights ought to be entirely non-partisan. There simply are not two sides to these issues.
You and I will probably come down on opposite sides of center re other issues, and we may both deserve the partisan label at that point. Which is Ok. This is, after all, America: free speech, broad spectrum of cultures and philosophies, rich and valued diversity, etc. I look forward to healthy, vigorious, passionate debates, as I'm sure you do.
Thanks for the reasoned respectful discourse here.
.
