What is good enough?

If i'm vice president of the anti-feminist movement, will i get my own office, with a walnut desk and DSL service?

0 Replies

So ? They're testing the courts divorce laws. So what ? If they try to work within the system, they get criticized. If they try to work around the system, they get criticized.

Agenda? Agenda ? They want their civil rights! I am a white, middle-class, patriotic, hetero American woman who is very ok with that.

Check out Andrew Sullivan's brief piece in the current issue of TIME. He nails it. Bush et al are using this issue to divert attention from the real issues facing our country today, issues with which they have done poorly. He ends his piece by stating the onvious: Bush id no uniter. He is a divider. How selfish of him. How sad for America.

0 Replies

Andrew Sullivan, who is one of my very favorite liberals, also says the gay community is doing itself a grave disservice in forcing the issue of gay marriage and being unwilling to compromise which only polarizes all sides more solidly and slows the meeting of the minds and acceptance that all want.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

We must have a different idea of what "rational" means. I kinda think that rational folks would not be getting their undies all in a bunch over just which word is used.

Tis really rights and benefits being sought, and proponents of the different word know full well that in excess of a thousand federal rights and benefits hinge on the word marriage and would need to be individually fought for.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

"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. . . .

Mr. Rushfeldt musthave some information that the women's lawyers don't.

Quote:

They had been in a relationship for almost 10 years when they tied the knot on June 18, 2003, a week after Ontario allowed same-sex marriages.

But their marriage lasted only five days.

Last month, the partner known only as M.M. in court documents, filed for divorce, citing a year's separation as grounds. The divorce petition, which uses their lawyers' initials to identify the couple, states there is no chance of reconciliation.

The other spouse, J.H., has yet to file a response. Her lawyer, Julie Hannaford, said her client has agreed to the divorce but will cite different grounds.

The couple signed a separation agreement in April that settled all matrimonial issues. All that remains to officially end the marriage is the divorce papers.

<snip>

If that happens, Ms. Hannaford said the divorce proceeding "will go on forever." Any delay is "quite unfair" to her client, who is trying to come to terms with the end of the relationship.

The lawyers deny the couple married and broke up so soon after the happy wedding day to test the federal Divorce Act, which was not changed to allow for same-sex divorces when same-sex marriages became legal.

"They're just average people who got married, their marriage didn't work, and now they want a divorce like any other straight married couple is allowed to have," said Martha McCarthy, a partner at the Toronto firm Epstein Cole LLP. She is representing M.M. in the divorce action.

M.M. was born 41 years ago in Toronto. Her partner is 20 years her senior and was born in Ottawa.

link to Glob(e) story

and for interest's sake, I picked the article from the Glob(e), as it's a distinctly right of political centre paper.

0 Replies

Teehee. The author's name is Gay!

0 Replies

So Fox, do you also agree with Mr. Sullivan's contention that Bush et al are using the gay rights issue to divert attention from other issues (the Iraq debacle, the squandering of post 911 international good will, health care, education, etc) ? You did not respond to that point which was the primary theme of his current article.

Re: the pace of this (or any) civil rights issue. I certainly agree that it will take much time, likely decades, for society in general to understand and reach a certain comfort level with the human difference that is homosexuality, and with the "concept" of gay marriage. The racial civil rights issue faced the same challenges. There were those who wanted to burn down the government in protest of their denial of civil rights. Others felt it was best to do nothing and just "wait for public acceptance" to come at which time their rights would be handed to them with a smile. And still others chose to work within the courts to secure their legal rights, and allow time to take care of the general public which it usually does.

At this time, with this issue, no one is advocating burning the government down. By the same token, it is clear that just waiting for the general public to decide it's ok with gay rights is hardly a real or fair solution (how would the general public have voted fifty years ago on racial civil rights ? or racial intermarriage?) So gay Americans, our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, neighbors and friends, our fellow American citizens, have decided that they will work through the system, particularly through the courts which are there (among other things) to protect the rights of minorities who in and of themselves, by definition, cannot generate a majority vote.

I hope I'm alive fifty years from now to see how America looks back upon this time and this issue. I hope we will be able to do so with pride.

0 Replies

Nicely said, Angie.

0 Replies

Andrew Sullivan is a strong gay-rights activist and one of the more rational voices from the left. He is on record as advocating gay marriage, but he also strongly urges that the matter be approached slowly and unobtrusively and allow cultural biases to adjust in their own time. In other words, by inference, he agrees with my opinion on this one.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Andrew Sullivan, who is one of my very favorite liberals, also says the gay community is doing itself a grave disservice in forcing the issue of gay marriage and being unwilling to compromise which only polarizes all sides more solidly and slows the meeting of the minds and acceptance that all want.

Did Martin Luther King do the African-American community a grave disservice by forcing the issue of civil rights?

What about the woman's sufferage movement?

The homosexual rights movement is correct both morally and politically. They are doing what other groups, including blacks and women, have done successfully in the past to ensure their due rights.

0 Replies

The difference is that gays have identical rights with heterosexuals now. Identical. Check the laws. Identical. Gays can do anything heterosexuals can do.

The last I looked, the African American community is more than 2 to 1 opposed to gay marriage and resent very much the gay marriage battle being compared to racial equality. They see it as very different.

And speaking as a woman, there is no comparison between the gay marriage controversy and obtaining equal rights for women.

What gays are advocating is to make the system unequal. They want a right that is not available to same sex heterosexuals. I'm advocating compromise to add a new benefit to all people who do not want marriage (one man one woman) but who want the benefits associated with marriage.

I have no problem with the benefits. I just want them to make one small compromise. Pick another word for it and they have my 100% support.

0 Replies

And this is where you lose your credibility, IMO.

It is BOGUS to suggest that "... gays have identical rights with heterosexuals now." And you know it.

Gay people do not have the right, as straight people do, to marry people to whom they are attracted and with whom they want to spend their lives, perhaps raise a family. While I know that there may be other reasons to marry, these are primary ones, and gay people do not have them.

Black people had the right to get drinks of water from public drinking fountains, just not the SAME fountains as white folk. They had the right to eat in restaurants, just not the SAME restaurants as while people. etc., etc., etc.

The right to marry someone you love is a subset of the right to marry (in general) and it is this subset, a rather important one, from which gay people are excluded.

And you well know that, Foffyre. We have had this discussion many times before.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The difference is that gays have identical rights with heterosexuals now. Identical. Check the laws. Identical. Gays can do anything heterosexuals can do.

Bull!

Heterosexuals can marry the person they are in love with. Gays can not.

Marriage bestows important legal rights that Gays do not have they include:

- The ability to have joint custody of children.
- The ability to file taxes jointly.
- Inheritance rights.
- The ability to make medical decisions.

Quote:

The last I looked, the African American community is more than 2 to 1 opposed to gay marriage and resent very much the gay marriage battle being compared to racial equality. They see it as very different.

I see this as gross hypocrisy on the part of African Americans. The fact that 2 to 1 people hold the same assinine position that you hold does not make them, or you right.

Quote:

What gays are advocating is to make the system unequal. They want a right that is not available to same sex heterosexuals. I'm advocating compromise to add a new benefit to all people who do not want marriage (one man one woman) but who want the benefits associated with marriage.

This is a stupid argument.

Equality means that I can marry any person I want to regardless of their race or gender.

Yes, that I just included race is a fair and relevant. It wasn't that long ago when I couldn't have married my wife because she is a different race than I am. People who tried to use your argument that this prohibition was fair because "everyone has the right to marry someone of the same race". .. -- well I would have been furious.

Saying that homosexuals want to make the system unequal is illogical.

I married my wife because I was deeply in love with her. I wanted to make both a spiritual and a legal commitment to her. The legal commitment is important because of the implications it has to our finances and our children.

Equality means that any two people regardless of their race or gender, who are willing to make this commitment to each other, should have the same rights.

0 Replies

As I said (on another thread on this issue), if gays could be united legally and receive ALL the same federal and state rights now granted to straight people through civil marriage, I would support it, too, under any name, as (I suspect) would most gay people.

The problem is, of course, that civil unions, as currently structured bring NO FEDERAL RIGHTS (none of the 1049 of them) and only limited states rights.

Many of those who currently support civil unions know this. It is not "separate but equal" that they are advocating. It is separate and unequal.

As an American, this just feels wrong to me, ..... probably because it is.

0 Replies

Is this issue really all important? I don't know why people just don't accept that sooner or later it will be legal for homosexuals to get married anywhere in the United States as it should be. There is no reason that the supreme court can deny them that right if they want it except religious ones and as of yet our country don't work that way.

It is not question of what is good enough or whatever, the question is do we have to right to deny any consenting adults the right to marry if they want to? The answer is no we do not.

0 Replies

To ebrown, I will ask that proof be shown that marriage laws anywhere require (or even refer to) people loving each other in order to get married.

To Angie, there is no federal (or state) law that puts a civil union on par with marriage, but thank you. At last a voice of reason from the left? (I'm assuming you're on the left.)

I'm proposing there be a federal law allowing all others, straight or gay, who for whatever reason cannot or do not want to marry a person of the opposite sex, be allowed to form themselves into legally recogized family groups that will afford them the advantages enjoyed by married couples.
If this is allowed gay couples but is denied to same sex heterosexuals or other various combinations, the system that is now equitable for everybody becomes unequitable.

I think a good majority of the anti-gay marriage crowd would agree to civil unions with equal benefits would would even support this if one small compromise can be made: just call it something other than marriage. That will satisfy just about everybody except the tiny minority of the 'all or nothing' crowd on both sides.

0 Replies

Obviously civil unions would be restructered. That would be the point.

0 Replies

Foxy,

I stand corrected the law does not require love in a marriage. The legal commitment is what is important -- legally that is.

If "civil unions" for homosexuals and "marriages" for heterosexuals were legally the same in every way both locally and federally, I repeat that I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I do feel that making a different legal term for two things that provide exactly the same rights is silly.

I would be surprised if anti-gay folks would accept this distinction in terms-- especially since most people would call these new family units marriages (informally of course) anyway.

The only difference between what you are suggesting , and what I want is one word printed on one legal piece of paper..

Your suggested compromise is really a victory for us who believe that civil rights should be extended to homosexuals. I would, of course, graciously accept this victory.

0 Replies

Thanks ebrown.
It would make the pro-marriage people happier I think just because they would not have to give up a 200+ year old tradition for something they may or may not agree with. Their sensibilities may not make sense to some, but it is prudent to recognize them.

As far as equal rights are concerned, the dual system would provide all the benefits that the gay community (and others) say that they want and would correct the very real inequities that now exist.

The one issue that remains to be fought is the issue of adopting children. That does not suggest that gay persons or single persons would be ineligible to adopt, but it does speak to the question of whether heterosexual couples should have preference in adopting purely for the good of the children. But as Andrew Sullivan has said, lets go slow, one step at a time. When we have more experience with gay parenting to make a valid determination, that issue may be solved without ever having to fire a shot. Meanwhile reasonable compromise and victories now will help a lot and might even get the two sides to reason and talk to each other toward actual acceptance and blessings. In time, the dual system might not even be practical anymore. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think a good majority of the anti-gay marriage crowd would agree to civil unions with equal benefits would would even support this if one small compromise can be made: just call it something other than marriage. That will satisfy just about everybody except the tiny minority of the 'all or nothing' crowd on both sides.

I think you are being a bit disingenuous with that statement. You know there is no way for a new law to insert itself into more than a thousand federal laws, codes and regulations and untold state laws, codes, and regulations. You are also on record as stating that you would not support any law giving gays equal rights in adoption procedures.

0 Replies

What is good enough?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know