What is good enough?

A lot of winking going on here... :wink:

Gays are not asking for a special right. I am sure that gay people would be pleased to allow heterosexuals to marry within their own gender if they see fit. The idea is that everyone enjoy the same right.

Gay marriage may well be an affront to old fashioned people. That's a shame but not a reason to deny gay people equal rights under the law. Going back 40-50 years, white segregationists in many southern states had to get over the changing times as laws were enacted to extend equal rights to blacks. Those same whites made the same arguments then as the homophobes do today. But the nation survived.

Marriages take several forms: religious ceremonies and civil ceremonies. Both are legal. Religions are free to continue to refuse marital rights to gay parishoners based on their interpretation of scripture. States, however, must adhere to the "equal protection under the law" aspect of the constitution and permit gays to marry.

As with abortion rights, the right wingers are attempting to compel the entire country to comply with their belief system. As with abortion rights, they will eventually fail.

I hear ya ;-)

Asking the majority of Americans to redefine an institution that has endured for and preceded the history of the country when these same Americans believe it is necessary for the stability of the country and the good of the children is what is unjust.

Gays have identical rights to heterosexuals now. I strongly advocate that any people be able to form themselves into family units with all the benefits they say theywish. I simply want them to pick another word for it.

Sagamore - I don't think the difference in types of "ceremonies" is what this debate is about. I read it as the consequences of making the "union" of gays legal, which has a potential to impact the economic issues of many in this country who are in opposition. The polls would indicate a majority of Americans have concerns.

I think it also opens up the concerns regarding the possibilities that recognizing marriage between gays perhaps will set a precedent for other minority groups, such as bigamists, polygamists, and the impact the alleged precedent would have on the potential deterioration of the current laws relating to these groups. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm a newbie, too. Enjoy all the varying views on this and many other subjects.

Re: What is good enough?

How would granting a gay couple the right to get married "shake up" any heterosexual's life? Their own marriage would still mean whatever they took it to mean before, right?


Not an issue ... every single individual can choose to accept or not accept whatever he damn well likes. As long as the state accepts that a gay couple is equal to a straight couple, and deserves the same rights (incl. the right to marry, yeah - "the same rights", I said).

That said, civil unions everywhere would already be a big step forward ... and would, in my expectation, near-automatically lead to acceptance of gay marriage over time as well, anyway.

That's the key Nimh. Demanding an all or nothing approach to anything only polarizes people and increases anger and resistance that frequently makes it tougher to fix the problems we wish to address.

To me it is such a simple compromise. Let the defnition of marriage remain one man one woman.

But correct inequities by allowing any others who wish to do so to form themselves into legal family units with all the benefits of shared insurance, rights to inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.
Just pick a word other than marriage for that.

Then all rational people who support traditional marriage are happy. And all rational people who want advantages of marriage are happy. And, as you suggest, in time any unhealthy cultural taboos will dissolve and there will be much wider acceptance as well as tolerance. That makes for happy campers.

The only ones who will still be mad are the all or nothing people on both sides.

JustWonder-this is a human rights issue above all else. Those who condemn gay marriage appear to be seeking a solution that will give them some comfort and some sense of moral superiority. But, human rights issues are not subject to majority vote. It is a legal question. Can states pass legislation that discriminates against gays by forbidding them the right to marry? The Supreme Court of Massachusetts is, I think, the highest court to rule on the question and they determined that legislation passed to refuse gays the right to marry was, indeed, unconstitutional. I'm sure the issue is not yet resolved but right wingers who claim judges are legislating from the bench are simply wrong or they do not understand the way things work in this country.

Let us suppose that some state legislature decides it would be a good idea to re-instate slavery. And, further, let's suppose that the legislation has the support of 80% of the population and is enacted into law by the legislature and signed by the governor. It is now a bonafide law of whatever state. But, because we live in a society where one branch of government has oversight over each of the others, the law is challenged in the courts. Using this admittedly extreme example, the court would likely overturn the popularly passed law and declare it to be unconstitutional and, therefore, void. That is what happened in Massachusetts with respect to the law forbidding gay marriage. The court did not legislate from the bench, they merely performed their function and set aside an unconstitutional law.

The type of ceremony matter very much in this debate. As a secular country, we have several types of ceremonies, religious and civil. In the religious ceremony, the church is within their rights to refuse to marry anyone if they believe that union is immoral. But, they do not have the right to foist that opinion on another church, who may not agree, or onto anyone performing a civil ceremony.

The solution to this problem for the homophobe need not be one that brings them comfort. Their comfort is no more an issue than popular opinion is. The sole solution that I see is for them to petition their own religious leaders to disallow gay marriages within their church. But they may not attempt to require that all Americans share their unwillingness to treat gays in an inferior way. Your requirement to seek another word is simply a veiled attempt to treat them unequally. Gays did not ask to be gay. They were born that way and, as such, are entitled to "equal treatment under the law." Requiring them to find another word is kind of like back in the 60's when blacks were expected to be happy with seperate but equal. Somehow it didn't turn out that way.

The key for me is the phrase "same rights".

If the offer really was "same rights" meaning "same and equal" than I would support "civil unions". (I would assume that I as a heterosexual would be able to choose to enter a civil union as well.)

"Same rights" means same
- tax policy
- adoption
- custody of children
- inheritance
- medical rights and power of attorney etc.

If all couples who want to enter make a legal, civil commitment have truly equal rights under the law on all issues including these, I wouldn't care what we called it.

Is this what you are offering McG?

(BTW I voted yes on the poll based on this definition of "full rights")

The word game the Right is playing about "marriage" and "civil union" is very much to the point in this debate, but no one has so far been willing to address it when i've brought this up. As laws stand now, partners in a "civil union" do not have equal rights with married partners as far as the federal government goes. I rather suspect that a thorough review of state laws would reveal inequities, as well.

That is exactly what I was getting at ebrown.

I agree completely. And the polygamists, bigamists and those who would marry box turtles DO have a choice, One that we can easily object to as not in need of equal rights within civil commitments.

kicky wrote (above): "Why would gay people care what they called it, as long as they have all the same rights? "

Well, of course.

The point is, and I have expressed this many times on A2K including on threads where McG has raised the same questions he raises here:

As currently structured, civil unions DO NOT provide the same rights as civil marriage. NO FEDERAL RIGHTS are conveyed with any civil unions, and often only limited state rights are included.

Of course, if ALL federal rights that currently come with civil marriage (1049 of them) and ALL states rights were granted to those united via civil unions, there would probably be very little objection from gay people and gay rights supporters.

The opposition would in fact probably come from the other camp. I seriously doubt that those currently opposed to full civil marriage rights for gay people would ever want to grant them truly equal rights, no matter what you called the legal union.

Sagamore - I was unaware that there is now absolute proof that sexual orientation is genetic. I'm not a scientist and don't move in those circles, but last I heard many scientists aren't sure they'll ever have the knowledge to definitively determine whether sexual orientation is genetic or not and weren't sure they'd ever be able to do so.

I need to keep up.

Most scientists agree that there is a genetic component, pre-disposition if you will. There may very well also be a non-genetic component, something that may occur during childhood. Two points I hope people will someday understand are that, once established, sexual orientation cannot be changed, and that that determination almost always occurs very early in a person's life, usually well before puberty. Ask any gay person.

So, back to feminists. Setanta's obviously with me. Anyone else? I say we start an anti-feminism movement. Set, you can be vice-president.

humbug, Scoates!

How should the movement be called, SCoates? Virists?

And the proverbial worm keeps turning. . .

Lesbian couple seeks divorce

By CHRIS WILSON-SMITH



TORONTO (CP) - Barely a year after an Ontario court gave its blessing to same-sex marriage, a lesbian couple is trying to untie the knot in what critics dismissed Wednesday as little more than a judicial stunt to test the limits of Canada's divorce laws.

The pair, identified in court documents only as J.H. and M.M., were together for five years prior to their decision to get married last June, but were separated just five days later - two weeks after the Ontario Court of Appeal legalized same-sex marriages.

"It's clearly a set-up case after five days where they are intentionally trying to push their agenda," said Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition. . . .

"I don't see how you could have a judge hearing a case of two (same-sex) people, when legally in Canada, we don't even have the Supreme Court nor the Parliament legitimizing homosexual marriage." . . .
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/07/21/551610-cp.html