DISQUS

Suzie2kids · 11 months ago

What I'd like to know is whether a man and woman can get a civil union rather than a marriage. That's what I'd prefer to have! We should all have the choice, both ways!

Bubbles · 11 months ago

Actually I prefer that all 'marriages' be formally termed civil unions - as a legal term defining a legal status. I would prefer the term "marriage" to be informal vernacular term used in everyday conversation.

Marriage is a cultural term, civil union a legal term. If you enter into a civil union and you want to tell everyone you are married, fine - I don't mind.

PeteWa · 11 months ago

You would be giving up so many rights by doing so that it would blow your mind.

lewis stoole · 11 months ago

please expand upon this as it seems to be the only way to cut the divide. i thought they were equivalent until i read the jersey finding in a previous post on this thread.

mjf · 11 months ago

There are two problems with this approach. First, I am writing in California where a law was passed that said civil unions have all the state rights and privileges as married couples an only differ in name. You may wonder how that might be a bad thing. Well in the arguments before the Supreme Court in re Marriage, in the dissent and in argument at least two justices used that law to say that gay marriage is not necessary since gay domestic partners have the same rights as married couples. In fact, a substantial amount of argument before the court has to do with the importance of the word marriage and how being able to obtain the status of that word was a civil right. Another significant discussion was what rights attach to the word marriage that are not necessarily state legal right. Such as, the right to privacy in that you would not have to out yourself in the work place by saying you have a domestic partner rather than you are married. That information could be used by the employer, albeit not legally, for separate and discriminatory treatment.

The supreme court found that WORDS MATTER. The word marriage conveys significant meaning beyond mere legal rights.

The obvious problem is that civil unions can be used as a tool to demean people who want equality and also as a sword to destroy the chances of equality by arguing, hey you already have your rights, its just words.

The fight must be for full equality. I don''t remember Rosa Parks initially fighting to sit in the middle of the bus. If she did she probably would have allowed to stay and never move to the front of the bus since that would be just good enough.

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

interesting.

another laboratory for these ideas is the state of NJ. our civil unions study group has just reported on the legal hurdles that marriage segregation creates. going to court to get rights that were implicit in the civil unions statute can be expensive, at the very least. add to that the privacy issue that you mention and the corrosive social implications.

google NJ civil union review commission.

having said that, segregated marriage COMBINED with federal recognition would be huge. so yes, i'd swallow my pride and push for that in the short term.

mjf · 11 months ago

Thank you for the reference.

I would encourage others to visit the site and read the interim report: http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/1st-Interim...

lewis stoole · 11 months ago

this is an eyeopener to someone who was previously accepting of baby steps (civil union first, marriage (just a label, or so i thought) second.

Garrett in SF · 11 months ago

Sorry to nit pick, but California does not have civil unions, we have domestic partnerships. Second they are not the same as marriage; they are close, but not the same. (One big difference is the way that one enters into a marriage verse a domestic partnership -- for a marriage you must visit a city hall to get a state approved license while for a domestic partnership you need to download a pdf and visit a notary.)

I agree heavily that words matter and that we must continue to fight for full marriage. I also however believe that federal recognition of any same-sex relationship would be an enormous step forward and a huge help to LGBT families immediately. Just image what being treated equally under the tax code, social security benefits and immigration rights would do for us while we fight for full marriage. The two battles do not have to be exclusive -- and I am not willing to hold my breath for full marriage when we could get some immediate steps forward now.

(Wow ... this really sounds like the ENDA battle all over again. Sigh.)

lewis stoole · 11 months ago

i do not care about the church's view in this matter, not out of impudence, but because the constitution is the rule of law in this country; but to go to city hall and have an american gov't institution that was created by the people segregate loving american couples out of the equation simply for being gay really does not sit well with me. and after reading the nj finding on the "civil union experiment" posted in this thread, i finally see that the word "marriage" has more weight than a "civil union"; they are not equal, both in the eyes of the citizens of the usa and in the legal system. this is embarrassing.

ChrisSF · 11 months ago

It works in the other direction, too. If the state is already granting essentially all marriage rights to civil unions, what possible legitimate state interest could there be to deny the word "marriage" to same-sex unions? This is especially true when it comes to adoption, child custody, etc. If the state already mandates equal treatment of LGBT people concerning kids, it becomes impossible to justify a marriage ban based on the idea of "protecting kids' or "promoting procreation." On balance, I think having domestic partnerships in California helped us with the court much, much more than it hurt.

apikoros · 11 months ago

I'm sorry, but "civil unions" are the same as "separate but equal."
It may be separate, but it sure ain't equal.

Older_Wiser · 11 months ago

"Marriage" (the religious institution) doesn't mean squat to me. However, simply letting states decide means you have religious nutjobs politicking to have it removed, as in CA. The only way I would approve of civil unions instead of marriage was if the federal govt recognized them with laws in place and same sex couples were able to get all the rights and benefits as hetero couples, and states were under obligation to recognize those civil unions, giving them the same protection as civilly married hetero couples.

Don't expect some states to even budge on civil unions, though. I think the fed must act the way it did in the manner of equal rights for women and minorities.

Stan Lovenworth · 11 months ago

Call me crass, but a big component for me is inequality of tax treatment under civil unions (and also under marriage as long as DOMA's on the books). For those of us who have been substantial we're talking inequality with a lot of zeroes. One begins to think that gay people are a revenue enhancer for the government.

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

omg, revenue enhancer. that's good. in NJ, municipal tax can be 10% of total income and it mostly goes to educate kids. if the townships were smart, they would advertise for gay singles and couples. lol.

butch · 11 months ago

I totally agree with this strategy. We pushed hard for "marriage" and now the public is wiling to compromise. Full civil unions would really financially help tens of thousands of gay parents, gay seniors, etc. We can haggle over the term marriage after we get benefits!

Further, I know tons of fellow lgbt people who do not like the institution of marriage and would never do it, nor have they helped the movement on this issue. But they would go for civil unions. I have a CU and am fine with just that, tho I realize the problems with "separate but equal." However, if I had full federal rights/benefits then it would bother me less. Andm I'd know my kid would at least get my death benefits and I could claim him on a tax return.

mjf · 11 months ago

The second problem that I accidentally forgot to mention is that Federal Taxation and Immigration do not have to recognize civil unions for any purpose. You are married or not. Thus, just taking civil unions would still deny significant federal rights to gay and lesbian coupes.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

It is true that progress is always made in steps. On the other hand creating separate but equal Civil Unions for gays is exactly like creating separate water fountains for blacks. The one dissimilarity is that at least blacks were still allowed to call their water fountains water fountains. By creating Civil Unions we honor the bigotry of those who feel that by merely allowing gays to embrace the institution of marriage we demean marriage. We also acknowledge second class citizenship as surely as if we condoned the notion that blacks would dirty white fountains. Gay marriage is legal in two states as well as a growing number of countries, and there are currently 18,000 valid gay marriages awaiting a court decision in California. We fall into a trap if we promote Civil Unions over marriage. Separate is not equal, even if it is politically expedient.

Nigel Elliott · 11 months ago

That is such hyperbole comparison. As long as both "marriage" and "civil unions" are both "wedding contracts" equal under divorce law, they are equivalent and equal, not separate but equal. I think the whole reason that Prop 8 failed in Cal is because voters were led by Prop 8 supporters to believe that their churches would be compelled to marry gay couples. However, I also believe that civil unions should be open to gay and straight couples, and if you want to be "married" fight a church to sanctify your marriage before Gawd. Since many church goers think marriage is religious contract, then let churches recognise marriage (some will gladly recognise a "gay marriage" but not the Pope, that's for sure!) and let the government only recognise civil unions for all, like divorce courts do!

Either way, "marriage" and "civil unions" are just a wedding contracts. Couples only realise that during a divorce.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

I sought only to state my opinion for John as he requested, not argue with my fellow posters. But if I must respond, then I have to say that I have seen no mention of the term "wedding contracts" or "marriage contracts" attached to Civil Unions. I believe the whole intent of those who want a separate but equal state for gay people is so that the term "marriage" can be reserved for straight couples only. I stand by my comparison to white-only water fountains. Blacks in the South were viewed by some as too dirty to share white water fountains. Furthermore it was desired by some to reinforce black's place at the bottom of society rather than acknowledge them in that way. The comparison to the way religious bigots view gay marriage is exact. I am well aware that church marriage is both a religious and a civil contract, and I have no interest in making a religious contract whatsoever, nor do I mind if others do. But where we as gay people lend approval to the separate but equal state of civil unions as opposed to marriage, we also lend approval to banning gay people from the time-honored and respected state of matrimony that they seek to honor. I don't wish to argue this point with you here and now. Happy Sol Invictus.

David · 11 months ago

"I believe the whole intent of those who want a separate but equal state for gay people is so that the term "marriage" can be reserved for straight couples only."

I'm one of these people and I don't think it is or will be reserved for straight couples. Think of this as the next step in the battle, not the end result. Look to New Jersey as the model of what I'm proposing. They voted in civil unions, and less than 6 months later they realized it wasn't equal and are ready for marriage equality, much faster and with less commotion.

Again, my point is, what's better. civil unions now and marriage shortly thereafter, or a long time until marriage equality?

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

I understand your point totally, David and respect it. However there are drawbacks to having the collective "gay rights movement" push for separate but equal. That legitimizes the bigotry, and threatens progress in states that already have marriage, are struggling to preserve marriage, or may soon be amenable to marriage for gays. Yes, it could well be the next step in the battle, but battle for what? Equality or enforced second-class status with our implicit assent? I say we push for marriage. It's not beyond our reach. I'm already married.

PhoenixRising · 11 months ago

Yes, the point that something for everyone now would be better than everything for everyone sometime, is a pretty simple one that only an ideologue could argue against. I've heard it from a wide range of sources.

What no one seems to be able to provide is the middle step there.

Your conclusion, that civil unions are achievable politically and pragmatically right now, is a fine one. How did you get to it? Or stated differently, what other than survey results do you have to support the idea that we can get that something if we 'fight for it'?

I have ethical objections to telling my peers that they deserve something, not the marriage equality I already have. But those are secondary to this oft-stated wish for a trade-off that no one can show me exists.

So talk more about that.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Not wanting to get back into the whole terminology debate over the words "union", :civil union" and "marriage", (please god, the explanations have been posted here so many times I've got the memorized) I would just say that the terminology is not semantics. I'm married in California in exactly the same way as hetero couples, with the exception that it has no federal recognition and limited out-of state recognition. But it is the same. Two other states offer gay marriage as well. (Please, no more discussion of the term "gay marriage" from anyone.) If we make it our priority to push for a separate state of union for gay people from the currently recognized "marriage" enjoyed by straight people, we undermine the so-called gay marriage movement that already has met with some success. Think about that when you are pushing for the "civil unions" that Obama favors.

aliasalias · 11 months ago

Bingo. The image of 'colored' water fountains come my mind as I read this stuff as well, I thought of the Baptist church in downtown Ft. Worth Tx., I grew up around, with the two fountains- with one painted black-, and I was old enough to think about how there were NO 'colored' people attending that Church, but being so big-hearted ,considerate people ,and 'righteous' like Rev. Warren (s/), it was explained to me that it was 'in case a colored person came in for water'..inclusive people huh?. I was very young when this got explained to me, but one thing they were very clear about was that that it was for 'my' protection (from 'them'), and that 'they' were to be treated 'differently'....maybe Warren will start 'his progress' with 'gay' water fountains ?

K · 11 months ago

Incrementalism may sound safe and practical, but exactly where has it gotten us in the last decade or so? "Domestic partnership" or "civil union" are pretty trivial stuff, particularly as long as DOMA remains in effect (and, trust me, DOMA's not going anywhere soon -- bear in mind that a lot of Democrats who voted for it in 1996 are still serving).

I believe we should continue pursuing full marriage rights. Leap ahead dramatically, and everything else (employment protection, open military service) will follow almost immediately.

butch · 11 months ago

I dont think we will get such a big leap for decades...whereas civil unions stand a chance. I am in CU in NJ and the biggest benefits deal with legal relationships with your children, etc. Yet, federally gay parents have no protection without costly adoption, then no social security benefits for non-bio kids, etc. So many people are screwed like this!

I think most gay people ultimately care about full benefits more than the term "marriage." We are sick of not getting insurance or medicare or social security. Heck, most feminist lesbians I know were appalled when the rich, white, gay lobby chose this fight.

Ivy in Texas · 11 months ago

I think we need to hold the administration to Joe Biden's statement during the vice presidential debate that under an Obama/Biden administration, there will be no functional difference under the law between a gay union and a straight union.

It's his words. I voted for those words. Let's use them.

butch · 11 months ago

If the federal government offered full rights/benefits, then the separate but equal argument at least is not as huge. It would be societal issues like the credence people give to civil unions versus marriage. That would help further eventual changes to full marriage.

One thing I hate is how this "movement" started and the fact that it is not very grassroots. Even in places where gays can marry/DP/CU, most haven't done so. Big gay donors and orgs like HRC chose this as "our" issue and stopped working on anti-discrimination, anti-violence, education, etc...as a result, we've been constitutionally banned from progrss in most states and violence against us has increased.

Why are we perpetuating a system where the only ones that matter are those who are "legal." Plenty choose not to marry, yet are treated as lesser thans.

urizon · 11 months ago

I think the government should get out of the marriage business, entirely. Instead, there should be a uniform, federal civil-union law to which all Americans have equal access. Let's stop calling it "marriage," in other words. Then, once the civil union is complete, a couple can choose to get married in the church of their choice -- or not, as it may be -- but no new rights would be granted. The rights that couples would enjoy would be confirmed by the civil union.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, no? Then, what is a secular democracy -- one with an establishment clause it its Bill of Rights, no less -- doing peddling rights grated through a religious ceremony?

Let's get the government out of the pulpit.

Mark in Florida · 11 months ago

If I held in my hand path 'A' and Path 'B'. and path ''A' was the fastest way to full marriage rights. Let's say path A is 5 years, and path B is 15 years.

We would all choose Path 'A'.

What if I now told you that Path 'A' had a few years stop at civil unions first? Now how do you feel.

I still choose Path 'A'. It's quicker. Period. It may not be perfect, but I want it in my lifetime. Sorry if that sounds selfish.

Here is the deal: Most people, even fair minded do not understand that the word 'Marraige' is a biblical term. It's the rights we really want. Who cares about semantics. I could care less. It's the word people are up in arms about.

Just make civil Unions a marraige equivalent in the eyes of the law, and let churches keep the term marriage. It's empty anyway. Who cares.

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

i was with you until you said who cares. essays have been written on the negative implications of legally segregating gays. we have examples and experience. read downthread.

Nigel Elliott · 11 months ago

To interject some levity, Mark check out South Park online. The creators tackled this wording issue. And you are so right, some people really don't understand what "marriage" really means on either side of the debate. Atheists who "marry" have the same rights as religious folks because the law does not recognise the sacrament of "marriage" only the wedding contract is enforceable and protected under civil law.

PhoenixRising · 11 months ago

But Mark, your map is lacking some data.

The path to the destination, which is practical family recognition from the states and the federal government, has many stops. You're suggesting that somehow asking for something called 'civil unions' will get us to the destination, but you're not showing your work. We got where we are by litigating for equality, not by asking nicely for half a loaf.

To David's point: From where do we get the political power to pass a federal civil union bill?

What would it say, that sates are required to offer gay marriage but call it a dill pickle? If we can pass that bill in that form, let's quit screwing around and repeal DOMA, DADT, pass hate crimes and ENDA, and let the backwards states simmer for 15 to 25 years until we get a federal bench that can write our Loving and get a majority to agree to it?

If that's the plan, let's go. Saddle up y'all. If we're lowering our sights to get 'something', let's be honest about that too.

Garrett in SF · 11 months ago

Call it whatever you want ... but give me the identical rights. No ifs, ands, or buts. The people who came to our domestic partnership ceremony did not walk away calling it anything but a marriage. As long as Civil Unions provide identical rights as marriage (including portability across states) -- from both the state and any organization that grants marriage benefits -- I could care less what it is called. In time, civil unions will be found to be separate and unequal, but until then we'd have the rights.

David · 11 months ago

Exactly :) That's the conversation I was hoping to provoke...

No Hope In Politics · 11 months ago

By this logic, "Marriage" should be considered a non-binding religious event (such as a christening/baptism/communion) that governments do not ascribe any legal power to, as opposed to legally biding civil unions for couples of any sex.

Think the public will go for that?

Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago

if only. but that is so 22nd century. ;)

bbock · 11 months ago

Hell no they wouldn't. If we push for that, they will (rightly) say that gays are trying to destroy marriage.

Not Good. Not Good At ALL · 11 months ago

The right to interracial marriage was won in the courts and the streets as part of the struggle for civil rights. Civil unions will probably come first and then courts will determine that it's not really equal. Don't count on DC to do anything until after the war is over.

Obama has handed the gay rights movement a gift; a focal point that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Learn the lessons of the past well and organize and fight.

jharp · 11 months ago

I agree with Nate. Just celebrated my 20th anniversary and in solidarity I'd be happy to start referring to my wife as my civil partner.

claudew · 11 months ago

On a Federal level (which is what David was talking about - thus the "leave marriage up to the states") the only issue is whether gay couples will be recognized for benefits. Marriage and Civil Unions, etc are state matters. Most federal laws refer to "spouse" and even if they use the word marriage, they could easily be amended to include gay couples without excluding anyone.

What Obama has SAID is that he is for recognizing gay couples in States that have either Civil Unions (or Domestic Partnerships) or marriage. Is David (and others who agree with him) saying we should not push for federal benefits for married gay couples? I sure hope not, as part of the 18,000+ couples who got married in CA.

The more interesting question is what to do about couples in states that don't recognize gay relationships at all. I haven't heard anyone address that. If someone were to propose a national Civil Unions or Domestic Partnership Registry, I don't think anyone would oppose that as an interim step.

I happen to think that Congress could, as an enforcer of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, require ALL states to provide equal benefits to gay couples, leaving the exact term up to the states or even requiring that the same term be used for straight and gay couples. However, I haven't heard anyone even mention that.

First things first. Let's get same-sex couples who are in legally recognized realtionships federal benefits.

David · 11 months ago

David here...we're in agreement Claudew. As one of the first married couples in 2004 in CA, I understand the need for state and federal pushes. They aren't mutually exclusive in my mind, but my point was for federal benefits for all gay couples in the US. The good thing about federal civil unions (federal rights) is that they will trump state law, thus at least ensuring civil unions in every state. That's progress to me...

PhoenixRising · 11 months ago

Excuse my perserveration, but again I ask: How?

What does this law say? What are the mechanics of how it transforms the (state by state) family law code from the federal side?

I love the idea that we get something while we continue the many-fronted battle for equality, I simply haven't heard a credible suggestion for how this something is going to be achieved.

claudew · 11 months ago

What does "federal civil union" mean? Are you proposing the federal government start issuing civil union licenses? Would states have to recognize them for state benefits? That is not what Obama or anyone else is proposing. I don't think you've thought this through very well.
Step one is repealing DOMA (or part of it) and getting ALL federal benefits for same-sex couples who have a legally binding contract, even a marriage performed in a state (or country like Canada) other than the one they live in. That would allow any couple who could afford to travel the opportunity to get federal benefits.
Then we tackle the question of mandating states to provide equal benefits to same-sex couples. Congress already gets involved in state matters such as non-discrimination laws (which apply to state governments and businesses that only operate in one state) and elections (including state and local ones). Even though marriages are handled by the states, the denying of that right to same-sex couples is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Congress has every right to remedy that situation.

Markpat · 11 months ago

Thank you, John! I have been saying the very same for years! Finally, a nationally recognized gay American talking sense!
To all of you people stuck on, "but, it's separate but equal", all you are doing is delaying the progress. You must be a LOT younger than my partner and me, because we are willing to accept Civil Unions NOW and baby into full benefits later.
Besides, like an earlier poster said. The term "Marriage" doesn't mean crap to me. Just give me the Rights and Benefits!

bbock · 11 months ago

I'm kind of torn about it. On the one hand, it makes sense to try to get civil unions for every state. On the other hand it really makes sense to keep a hold of the states that allow marriage. I think we should put our energy on one strategy... full equality in states that are amenable to it and ending DOMA so that those marriages are applicable in all states and at a federal level. Then go after the states. All politics is local. We're not going to magically get all states on civil unions.

Some people are inclined to say that we should push for civil unions for everyone, leaving marriage to individual churches. I like it, but I don't want to give the nutty right the ability to say that gays are destroying marriage and have them be right.

BludevlsAdvocate · 11 months ago

"We know, you and I, that it's not full equality, but full equality will take much longer...."

So we should take the crumbs that are thrown from the table at which we are not allowed to sit?

Civil rights are not a negotiable commodity, especially MINE.

No thanks to "separate but equal." If the rest of you want to be happy with "civil unions" so that the straights and the bigots won't be mad at us anymore, go ahead. Count me out.

Nigel Elliott · 11 months ago

Would it be "separate but equal" if the government only recognised "civil unions" for gays and straights and churches recognised "marriages" for straights. Would you rather the law to compel churches to marry gay couples? Separation of church and state is separate but equal?

A wedding contract is a civil union already, that's why couples are divorced in a civil court of law, instead of a criminal court.

David · 11 months ago

Reader David here...what's the alternative then Blu? What is your path to victory? My point is that taking civil unions now will move the ball forward, whereas only settling for marriage will be years away, come through the courts which will further embolden the religious right, and leaves us with nothing for many years to come. But look to New Jersey as the model of what I'm saying. They gave civil unions and less than 6 months later, the state was ready to give full marriage rights.

I'd love to hear your alternative plan...

Daigan · 11 months ago

CHickenshit!

I am not willing to "settle" nor am I willing to defend the simple fact I deserve equality. Fuck pansy ass fags who are too busy assimilating to really fight for justice and equality.

Nigel Elliott · 11 months ago

So are you engaged now waiting for be married?

Garrett in SF · 11 months ago

So you'd rather people not get immigration rights now because it is called civil union rather than marriage? You'd rather people not get survivor benefits from social security not because it is called a civil union rather than a marriage? I'm not ... I know many same sex couples who have had their lives destroyed over the immigration issue.

mjf · 11 months ago

This is exactly the problem. There is NO federal recognition of state Civil Unions. So, even if there were civil unions, there would still be no survivor benefits, no tax benefits, an no recognition of civil unions for immigration purposes.

I am also a victim of the INS not recognizing anything other than heterosexual marriages. My significant other was almost deported because we cannot marry. I am sure you can recognize how devastating it is to have someone you love treated like a criminal and threatened with deportation, whereas a heterosexual couple can get married and at least work on a path towards permanent residency.

The there an be federal rights for civil unions is if the Federal Government repeals DOMA and creates a new law that creates full rights for state civil unions. But, that brings up a whole bunch of other constitutional issues of equal protection.

The only real way to deal with this is to have MARRIAGE rights of same sex couples recognized by the states and to remove DOMA.

For what its worth, this debate over our civil right to marry is happening much sooner that I ever expected it in my lifetime.

warbler · 11 months ago

And so we should look forward to never being just another segment of society, unassimilated, separate, excluded, the other? What's the point of if we reject assimilation?
"Fuck pansy ass fags" is just the right attitude for separate and unequal and Marriage only for butch dykes like you?
Not too clear on this, are you?

warbler · 11 months ago

God and Jesus don’t agree with you. As a matter of fact, you are an embarrassment to them. You are an affront to the very values you claim to hold so dear. You who would yell at someone with a splinter in their eye while not noticing the timber in yours. You who are so busy throwing stones, you can’t see your own shortcomings.

sukabi1 · 11 months ago

you don't win much going an "either or" route... this is a civil rights issue and should be tackled on all fronts. Sure push for "civil unions" and accept them when they come... but continue to push for equal marriage rights.

What this is all going to come down to in the end is a religious factional "war" . What "marriage" is a union that is sanctified by the church and accepted or not by the state. What is going to happen in the short term is some churches will sanction gay marriages and some will not.

Lots of straight folks go down to city hall and partake of civil unions that are recognized the same as marriages performed in a church by a minister and have the same legal rights as those married in a church. There shouldn't be any difference for gay marriages or civil unions.

Elmo Buzz · 11 months ago

Small steps forward are better than steps and certainly better than backstepping.

Ethically, morally and legally, nothing short of full equality in all civil rights should be satisfactory. However, while these fights are going on at the ballot boxes and courthouses, there are real families who are deprived of rights.

If "civil unions" can be used to protect people's rights under the law until society is ready to "allow" us to have what the constitution already guarantees, I suppose that's better than nothing.

As a side note, I find it ironic that all these "patriots" hate America so much that they want to change the constitution to specifically deny their fellow citizens the rights already guaranteed. Would there be a need to amend the constitution to not allow gay marriage unless the constitution as it now is has already guaranteed that right?

Anyway, back to the issue at hand, I find the "seperate but equal" theory to be offensive and repugnant to the notion of equal protection, but it's better than nothing

David Bricka · 11 months ago

I want to be able to walk into the Skagit County Auditor's Office and get a form that provides for me and the man I love the same protections that both of my sisters have with their spouses (who happen to be men.)

Call that WHAT EVER YOU LIKE. I just want to be able to do it.

Now here in Washington, we are registered as Domestic Partners which is cool, however, it is not under the auspices of the Auditor of the County.

I SO WISH that we had the European custom of two ceremonies---the civil.....and the marriage.

Change is incremental. We have come so far since Stonewall and Harvey Milk....which is amazing because I was a kid during that time....knowing that I liked men, but unable to share with ANYONE.

Flash forward 30 years......My partner Michael and I planned a Christmas Party at our HOME for the members of the Mount Vernon High School Gay Straight Alliance for last Friday! ! (Cancelled due to snow.....) Michael is one of the adult volunteers for this group.

I am scheduled as a speaker for the Diversity Club at my alma mater Sedro-Woolley High in 2009.......

Back in 1977----The closet door was very big and thick.....

So------WOW......so much has happened....so much left to do....and it is because of amazing places like Americablog that the discussion is even happening!
I LOVE MICHAEL BONACCI !

warbler · 11 months ago

Where does the "10 years" come from. Any data?

newsbum · 11 months ago

When I think about the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century, the key was victory on multiple fronts. People were fighting for different things but had a shared purpose of equality. In that spirit, those who want incremental progress should work with those who want total equality now, and the two should support each other. So when Prop 8 comes up, everyone agrees, and when initiatives for civil unions or full marriage rights, everyone pushes for it. That is how things get done.

ChristianLibrul · 11 months ago

"Leaving it up to the states" is a Washington dodge, a cop-out. Every time this country left things up to the states, we very nearly remained part of England, then we got slavery, a Civil War, and segregation. Oh, and the states already ratified the Constitution long ago, so now the only issue is abiding by what it already says. Either there is equal protection under the law, or there isn't, and "5000 years of defining marriage..." and "the voters of (California) have spoken" be damned. Call republicans and especially theofascists what they are: superior, separatist bullies. And then tell them if they hate the Constitution so much, they can move to Iran where they won't be annoyed by such liberal stuff.

pdxprobert · 11 months ago

From what Im hearing, our country is going to go through a change of venue.. states are going to become more reponsible for areas that were traditionally looked upon as a federal mandate... i.e., healthcare products (insurance), and welfare assistance up to an including retirement programs such as social security... so when they say states rights, it may have more to do with the transitiioning of programs to the state level... what the republicans started in the last 8 years, isnt going away imo... its just hopefully going to be done a little better with the new administration... ps - on a different note, pay attention to the wording on the agreement of US troops leaving Iraq... in particular, the word "combat" troops.... we arent leaving Iraq as many people think... just the name of the soldiers remaining will change...

Pope Buck I · 11 months ago

That used to be my position - not any more. At this point, civil unions have been unmasked as a "separate but equal" sham, and "leave it up to the states" has been unmasked as rank political cowardice. We are on the fast track towards our own Loving v. Virginia, so we might as well go all in.

Mark · 11 months ago

Give me liberty or give me death, John. This is about equality and I want the same thing my brother has had two of: a marriage. Not a civil union, which feels like a pat on the head. No way.

I say, get the government out of the marriage license issue altogether. Give EVERYONE civil unions. THEN I'd be happy. Til then, I want EQUALITY.

David · 11 months ago

Reader David here...I agree with you on principle, but what are the odds of getting either of these done anytime in the next 10 years? What I'm arguing now is take what we can get now (civil unions) and it will make the rest easier and faster. Otherwise we're left with nothing until then.

Hardy Haberman · 11 months ago

I think Civil Unions should be the legal statute, Marriage is a sacrament of the church. Let churches marry people and the government perform Civil Unions. For legal purposes, the only recognized standing should be Civil Union. Government has no business in religion.

I believe this is what they do in France, and I know Maryland has at least looked at this option as well. Makes sense, but because of that it probably won't happen.

For me, Civil Union is just fine. I can get married in my church to my partner anytime I want.

Nigel Elliott · 11 months ago

I agree with you 100%, although the French civil union model is more like a marriage-lite, one party can call it off. However, if "marriage" is more than a civil union, then why don't people get divorced by a church (if granted one) like they did in Medieval times? Because all western "marriages" are civil unions, but the church still have some role in it as a sacrament. Sacraments are not enforceable, only the wedding contracts are.

Savage8862 · 11 months ago

All marriages are civil unions - contracts between a couple and the state. If one wants a certificate that says married on it feel free to go to a religious institution. Yes right now civil unions are considered not equal to that of straight marriage but if all marriages are considered civil unions regardless of whether it is a straight or gay union then all benefits are bestowed upon the couple. That is what we should be arguing. Not arguing to be able to call it marriage because we will fail all the time. Civil unions takes the religious argument out and puts the legal argument in.

timncguy · 11 months ago

No marriage is a civil union. States issue MARRIAGE licenses, not civil union licenses. And, you are legally married whether you have a religious cerimony or not. Are you trying to claim that atheists are not married?

Savage8862 · 11 months ago

No. What I was saying is that in the tru sense of the word all marriages are indeed civil unions. A simple contract between the state and the couple. I know they aren't labeled as civil union licensing but in reality that is what they are. I am sure an avenue can be placed in the law that states if a couple insists on receiving a piece of paper thathas the word "married" on it so that they feel more legit, then either go to your religious institution or to a damn court house if you are an atheist (like myself). This is why we lose the argument all the time because we sit here and argue about the semantics. Some in our community will refuse anything less than calling it marriage while still others say civil unions with all the benefits is just fine (like myself). Until we all get on the same page, we will be sitting in the back of the "legally recognized and enjoying all the benefits of relationship" bus.

timncguy · 11 months ago

I don't think anyone in the gay community would object to a civil union as long as straight couples got the same civil unions. that's the difference. As a poster above stated that in CA gay couples are supposed to receive the same benefits as married couples. But, in order to even QUALIFY for domestic partnership in CA you have to jump through hoops and HOPE they accept your registration. That is even LESS than separate but equal. You are required to show you are both residents of CA, you live in the same domicile and have comingled finances. Does any straight couple have to prove that to get married? NOPE

jl · 11 months ago

Well, I'm trans and bi so we may or may not be allies in terms of the greater queer thing....

...but from the perspective of queer rights being human rights, I think pushing for marriage is the right thing to do. It is about full recognition and equality under the law...or it's not. And marriage provides that. Shy changes in federal tax and immigration law and a slew of other things, civil unions do not provide that equality.

Cuneiformed@gmail.com · 11 months ago

Canada went full same-sex marriage without going through civil unions first.

"Moderates" will pat themselves on the back for granting you "equality" with civil unions, and then you will never be able to convince them that only full marriage is true equality. Proof: the number of self-identified progessives who tell is to shut the f*** up when we complain about Warren.

PJ · 11 months ago

I believe fully in civil unions which I define as having all the rights and privileges of "marriage". I do believe in the Biblical definition of "marriage". I do not believe states or the federal government have any business in marriage. I believe the states and federal government to have a duty to fulfill in sanctioning and enforcing all civil unions between adults regardless of sex. The government needs to get out of the "marriage" license business and into the "civil union" business. I was not allowed to "marry" in my church because I am once divorced. I had a "civil union" with my wife and pray when I get to heaven the church was wrong in their interpretation of divorce rights and God accepts me for the sinner I am.
Peace!

timncguy · 11 months ago

you DID NOT have a civil union with your wife. The state issued you a MARRIAGE license. And, you are legally MARRIED despite what your church says.

Mitch · 11 months ago

I'm for equal protection under the law. Nothing less.

Bob in BC · 11 months ago

Speaking from a negotiating point of view, I would argue that it is important to continue to pursue full equality using the term "marriage." Two State Supreme Courts have ruled that civil unions are not equal treatment. We shouldn't give up that position at this stage. If at some point we need to consider accepting civil unions, then so be it. But let's not delude ourselves that it is full equality. And let's keep the negotiating room as wide as possible at this stage.

cowboyneok · 11 months ago

I'm for providing civil unions for everyone and totally controlled by the government, but removing marriage as a simple ceremony that provides or conveys no special benefit. The reason I do think it should be this way is if EVERYONE had to get their "civil union" through the state then marriage could be a choice left up to the individuals who wanted a religious ceremony. Again the civil union would be the only legally binding contract beween two spouses. The marriage would simply be a religious service after people got a civil union from the government.

No matter what is decided, I still believe separate is not equal and will NOT be equal. There should be no reason in the world not to treat any couple equally no matter what the sex of the spouses.

judybrowni · 11 months ago

Hell yeah, if they include partner's Social Security benefits and all other legal benefits of marriage.

However, you know the rightwing nuts will then forget they care about the word "marriage" and fight against civil unions.

Because they're God's spoil sports.

Aaron · 11 months ago

John, I think that it is exactly the fight for marriage equality that is driving the poll numbers in support of civil unions. I do NOT think that we should stop the fight for full marriage equality. We should not however fail to recognize the important step toward full equality that federally recognized civil unions (with equal benefits) would be to our community

whomod · 11 months ago

And i agree with this completely. Federal legislation in support of civil unions. Once you cross that hurdle, a more palatable one to moderates and right wingers, then you can work on full marriage. And it would be an easier hurdle on the state level if gays already enjoy the benefits of marriage anyways IN ALL 50 STATES. That way the only opposition that would come in the future would be just from the hard core right wing evangelicals who have their backs up on account of the word "marriage".

bobbyjoe · 11 months ago

Aaron's exactly right. And were the gay community to all suddenly decide "hey, let's abandon the marriage idea and just argue for civil unions" then the same rightwing forces that pour money against marriage would just find some convoluted reason as to how they actually ARE against civil unions (despite what they might have previously said) and the wishy-washy folks who are always saying "oh, I'm just against the use of the word marriage, not civil unions" would suddenly find some other reason why they were against civil unions, too (like "it's marriage in everything but name only, and that's just too much for our weak little hearts to tolerate, boo hoo hoo"). Dropping the fight for marriage in favor of civil unions likely wouldn't make one real bit of positive difference in the end because of the constant disingenuous (read "lying") nature of the rightwing, and would likely just be counter-productive.

LowKey · 11 months ago

YOu can see that in Utah. The moron church argued in their fight against propH8 that they were not against civil unions or benefits or adoption rights. BUt that was just lie number 312. They have always been against all those things - just look at the laws in Utah. Mormons try to claim they were persecuted for being abolitionists, but in 1852 they were given the choice of being a free or a slave territory and they chose to be a slave territory. Sorry got off on a tangent there didn''t I?

And yes I know I left the second M out of mormon church up above and no it was not a typo.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

I'd love to see the government get out of marriage and just provide civil unions for everyone, but that doesn't look like a viable option. In the states that don't have constitutional amendments, fight for marriage. In the states with simple amendments, fight for civil unions. Once we do that, we should have the infrastructure we need to sue on the federal level.

Indigo · 11 months ago

Civil union is fine provided that the attendant rights and privileges pertaining to legal matter of medical care, financial issues and inherentence and other pertinent matters are identical.

But face it, there is no Santa Claus.

nicho · 11 months ago

Oh -- you just couldn't resist spoiling Christmas for me. :-)

Bill · 11 months ago

I believe in addressing "need" before "want". We need the legal and financial safeguards of civil unions more than we need the social nicety of marriage. Once we obtain widespread civil unions and society fails to fall apart, our argument for marriage will be much fortified.

whomod · 11 months ago

Agree 100%!

Nigel Elliott · 11 months ago

Interesting comment.

mikeyDe · 11 months ago

What is the definition of civil union?

As far as I can tell, in this great land of ours marriage and civil union are one and the same thing. Couples must go to the government and buy a marriage license. Either a religious institution or a government official verifies that the union is legal before the law. Whatever you have before God (holy matrimony) is not part of the legal mix. I wonder what would stop my partner and me from going to the courthouse and buying a marriage license.

I think we should go for marriage wherever possible. It's the cheapest and simplest way (you don't have to rewrite thousands of laws to accommodate so-called civil unions). Once many states have recognized marriage equality, the other states would have to follow suit.

montag · 11 months ago

Every marriage is currently a civil union, some have religious sanction. Try getting a skypilot to do his mumbo jumbo without one. And some don't, JP's and town clerks aren't ordained. Getting equality under law for all civil unions is the battle to win. You can always find a friendly skypilot to do you.

montag · 11 months ago

Meant to say

Try getting a skypilot to do his mumbo jumbo without a license from your city or town.

ecurve · 11 months ago

Marriage or bust. It is not up to me to ask my gay brothers and sisters how much equality they'll settle for.

Timo · 11 months ago

In MA you have the full monty and in CA prop 8 will be overturned, thanks to Jerry Brown. Why take a step back with civil unions?

whomod · 11 months ago

I'd say because we're talking state by state. Certainly the more progressive states will have civil unions or full marriage but wouldn't you be happier having rights in all 50 states, even the conservative ones if this was a federal right?

kladinvt · 11 months ago

The only way this will work or I would consider agreeing to it, would be for everyone, gay & str8, to be granted 'civil unions' by their states, that would legalize the union of the participants & which would convey ALL the benefits (all 1400 benefits) that those who are "currently married" enjoy, such as joint filling with the IRS. Then if a church wants to hold a ceremony & call it the "sacrament of marriage", go for it. We'd all be married then & it would merely be a battle of semantics.
As long as there is no longer the current system of "separate but equal", it might be acceptable.

timncguy · 11 months ago

This is exactly what I proposed in a comment the other day. It'w what many opponents on the far right keep saying they want. They want to protect the word "marriage" for their church. Fine then. Let's offer that up and see how fast they change their tune.

Let's make all legal unions gay and straight civil unions in all states. They all have all the same legal meaning and all the same rights and responsibilities.

Then marriage is left to individual churches. Get married or don't. It's up to you and does't matter one bit "legally". Marriage would have no legal recognition at all. Just like churches own the word "baptism".

You know they would reject this idea becuas "liberal" churches would marry gays. And the civil unions would recognize gays. And that is what they object to in the end. They want THEIR church to control the word marriage. And, they want NO LEGAL recognition of gay relationships. they believe homosexuality is a CHOICE. And, they are afraid if it is legally recognized, their children may choose to be gay. That is their big fear. THey don't want their children to think it is OK to be gay.

katymine · 11 months ago

Marriage - with all the rights and benefits it entails.
Reason - all over the country there are laws, statues, contractual, employment and legal language that use the word "marriage" and civil unions would not satisfy much of the legal requirements. Example, I have a retirement from a previous employer, it would only pay out survivors benefits to my legal spouse (supply marriage certificate).

You do not give a group of Americans a half a right.

kladinvt · 11 months ago

My partner & I live in Vermont, where civil unions have been available for years now, but we have decided to forego one, because we feel it is a system of separate but equal & that is "equal" with a very very small "e"!!

Akaison · 11 months ago

We aren't going to get rid of this issue by calling it civil unions. Yes, I know what hte polls say. I also know how the right will spin this. The same way they have already done in states like VA and FL. "Those liberals say civil union, but really it's marriage." I think its fantasy to believe we will fool anyone. This assumes a static opponent.

bigwar · 11 months ago

By the definition of seperation of church and state, civil unions are the best first step. Let the govt grant the civil union, providing all the legal benefits and then if the church does not want to recognize it, that is the church's issue.

Akaison · 11 months ago

your post is false. civil marriages are no religious events. unless you consider going to justices of the peace as religous. my only thought is that you are really ignorant of the facts, but feel the need to chime in anyway. to me, the most dangerous thing in america is the idea that people feel they can talk without understanding the facts first. that's dangerous in a democracy to speak out of ignorance. you have the right to be ignorant, but its still dangerous. one of the issue that we face on these issues is the sheer ignorance. i mean, honestly, how could you post this with google available?

Beth · 11 months ago

I'm greedy about it (if you call it greedy to want to be treated equally). I want full marriage rights, mainly because of the number of pro-Prop 8 arguments I saw where domestic partnership was seen as "enough." It also makes me nervous that, at least in California, domestic partnerships can be dissolved by the Californian government without the agreement of the people who entered into the partnership. This can't be done with marriage (at least until Ken Starr gets involved). If people want to not call it marriage, fine, but then let's dissolve the institution of civil "marriage" and call it civil unions for all.

I know that in parts of the country where gay people consider themselves lucky to not be beaten up on a regular basis, civil unions might be a good first step to ease folks in, but I think we're learning that if we're not pushing for the ideal, we're not making progress at all. We know now that people will give us nothing out of the goodness of their hearts or because it's the right thing. We have to keep demanding.

Abelard · 11 months ago

The problem with Civil Unions is that they are not equal at all. California's CU laws specifically state that BOTH parties have to be residents of the State of California, share a domicile, provide proof of shared residence and financial inter-dependence and then, after scrutiny, the state will grant a civil union.

To get married in California, all you need is a valid government ID (from anywhere) and cash.

How is that equal again?

Len · 11 months ago

When it comes to civil rights, which this is, you don't "move the ball forward in smaller steps." When it comes to the word itself, I really don't care if you call it marriage or abcxyz or the kitchen sink, just as long as my partner and I get the exact same rights and privileges that a heterosexual married couple enjoys... inheritance, tax benefits, legal protections, hospital visitation, the right to make medical decisions, insurance benefits, and so on... all of it. Equal in every way, secondary in none.

captainj1 · 11 months ago

I think that the largest problem we are having convincing people that we should have same genger marriages, is the terminology. There are, in fact, two kinds of marriages. We have religious marriages, and we have civil marriages. The law dictates the civil marriage, and who is entitled to the 1400 legal benefits and responsibilities that come with that status. We also have a religious marriage that is determined by the various religions and sects that control who is entitled to that status.

Why not just go for civil marriages, no matter what they are called? I don't think it is important to force various religions to acknowldege same gender marriage. Some already do, some do not.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

That's exectly what we're doing: going for civil marriage. It's the opposition who keeps muddling the issue.

Tom · 11 months ago

Absolutely not. It's gotta be marriage. Civil union does not carry the connotation of marriage. In my opinion marriage is part of what the Framers declared was "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I am not in favor of the active pursuit of second-class citizenship. The Supreme Court of California on May 15 agreed and stated in no uncertain terms that equal treatment under the law is paramount. Settling for civil union is simply surrendering to bigotry.

Akaison · 11 months ago

the real issue, on marriage v unions, is that one really does have less rights than the other.

ChrisS · 11 months ago

I'm always going to be of two minds on this, I'm afraid.

On the one hand, civil unions do, in fact, move the ball down the field. In particular, we're probably not going to get the Congress to overturn DOMA until a majority of states have at least reached the civil unions phase. And the bottom line is that the federal benefits, on taxation, social security, immigration, etc. aren't going to appear until DOMA is gone, or until the Supreme Court throws it out. But what's the point where that happens? When 15 states have marriage and 20 have civil unions? Some other mix? Who knows?

On the other hand -- John, you're a lawyer, too -- there is a tried and true principle in the law that you don't call something by a different name in a statute unless you actually mean it to be different. Most courts in most cases will get it right when they look at their state legislative histories on civil unions, but a lot of them won't. That distinction in legal terminology, combined with DOMA, will allow any judge who wants to screw over a gay couple a great big loophole you could drive a Mack truck through. Which means that gay and lesbian "civil unionists" are going to face a whole lot of litigation and confrontation they wouldn't have to face as spouses.

Which means that, as nice as it is to say that civil unions are "the same" as marriage, for a lot of people they won't be. And a lot of non-gay people will treat them as less than marriage, since doing so seems to be so important to them.

On a personal level, my actual, but legally quasi-, husband and I are probably going to wait until we can actually get married here in D.C. -- and possibly until it's recognized on a federal level. Durable powers of attorney for health care are well-understood legal instruments. As are marriages. Civil unions are not. I wouldn't stand in the way, or do anything less than fight on behalf of, any couple that wanted a civil union. I just don't think anything short of marriage is going to do it for me and my guy.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Bingo. You understand the legal implications of this. I am going to get in trouble for saying this, but I really wish non-lawyers would stop talking about this or, at least, research the subject matter because they often have no idea what they are discussing other than how they feel. They have no idea about the legal or factual elements involved at all. It do think this is unhealthy as I write below in a society for everyone to think everything is just a matter of opinion.

The chief issue I have with civil unions is as you describe. The law has a problem with new concepts. it tends to take decades for it to catch up, if it catches up at all.

ChrisS · 11 months ago

Thanks for that. I'm in this weird position of being a lawyer working in politics -- so I kind of see both sides. What do you do with something that unambiguously is political progress when it leads you into an absolute legal quagmire?

Unfortunately, this technical, legal argument is the best one to explain why separate is NOT equal here. I just wish I could find a way to boil it down to a 5-second sound bite since that seems to be the standard for political discussion in most places these days.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Well, I am not only a lawyer, but also have a background in history and politics.

As I point out above, the intended goal (Civil union as a stop gap) may become the final outcome for a century or more.

Why? Well, we can look to the historical example of Jim Crow laws. No one thought when they were drafted that the temporary solution would last 100 years.

The problem as I also mention is that we ignore how societies work in these arguments. To make the argument "civil unions" are the same as marriage now would ingrain this as the common wisdom. The result is that any attempts to change this common wisdom would be even more difficul to address or change later considering the laws are , in fact, unequal. The problem is inertia would set in.

Steve · 11 months ago

Talk about hitting the nail on the head!!! BOOM!

ChrisS · 11 months ago

Thanks! I do my best. :-)

Demo_Dave · 11 months ago

Civil Unions are the way to go. This is the last great civil rights movement. Even though blacks eventually prevailed in the early civil rights movements it took decades for full equality to be recognized if it has. Once people become accustom to civil unions the lines between full marriage and civil unions will be become blurred. I can remember when my grandparents thought blacks and whites were equal but that they should live in separate neighborhoods and not inter marry. Before my grandmothers death she regularly entertainment black elderly people in her apartment at the retirement community she lived at and no longer felt the way she had earlier. The same will happen with the gay civil rights movent. the door must be cracked before it is opened unfortunately.

Tom · 11 months ago

If the argument is semantic...fine. The states use the term "marriage" as the civil covenant. Let the religionists use "matrimony" for the religious one. Problem solved.

Nigel Elliott · 11 months ago

Man, I wish it was that easy! Wars were fought over semantics! :-)

ChrisSF · 11 months ago

Transubstantiation vs consubstantiation, anyone? It still tastes like bread to me!

Savage8862 · 11 months ago

Exactly!

nicho · 11 months ago

I'm all for civil unions -- with a few conditions.

One is that everyone wanting to get married, same-sex or opposite-sex, first have to enter a civil union. Second, the civil union and not the marriage ceremony is what confers all rights, privileges, tax benefits, property rights, inheritance rights, etc. "Married" people have no more or less benefits than people in a civil union.

If you want to get married in your church, you must -- as you do in most sane countries -- enter the civil union first. Even in Mexico, which is considered a Catholic country, a couple cannot be married in a church, until they have entered a civil union.

We should do the same. If we do, then I'm all in favor of civil unions. Oh -- and they also have to be recognized in all 50 states.

Steve · 11 months ago

Many conservatives like to quote the "I Have a Dream" speech's "content of their character" section, but few quote this portion of the speech. For me, this says it all:

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

For all of my Black brothers and sisters, before you weigh in about me equating the LGBT Equality Movement to the Civil Rights Era Movement, I'm not equating the two. I am, however, saying that Dr. King's words answer the question for me insofar as the question of civil rights are concerned. One is either equal or one is not, there are no grades of equality.

Shaun Greenleaf · 11 months ago

My partner and I became RDP (Registered Domestic Partners) as soon as it was possible to do so in California; we married this August, as soon as it was possible to do so. I strongly believe that the incremental step od RDP is very valuable, and also that it is a pragmatic possibility to move legislation allowing RDP forward now. Unfortunately, the idea of "gay marriage" is risible to many people, often for quite trivial reasons (What do you call the *other* party? Am I Jeff's "wife?" Neither of us likes that term, and he's definitel;y my husband, but a lot of time and effort's lost with these semantics). I believe gay mariage will become legal, but it will take a long time. Let's go for RDP status in a big way. A lot of people who opposed gay marriage have said it's the terminology, not the reality that they can't support. Let's call their bluff.

Akaison · 11 months ago

HISTORICAL COMPARISION TO JIM CROW- 100 years.

The problem is also that civil union as a temporary move down the field assumes people will eventually move forward to marriage.

Jim Crow illustrates why this thinking is faulty.

Remember, Jim Crow was designed as a stop gap measure. it was never meant to last a century like it did.

We must remember social dynamics here. If we fight for civil unions many people will consider the issue 'settled' and not understand any later battles about how civil unions are not the same as marriage after we have spent so much time telling them that they are.

Indeed, part of the issue in CA is that many people thought "now you are just being greedy. You have domestic partnerships so I m not denying you any rights." This was reported in the LA Times.

Jay · 11 months ago

We're fighting for CIVIL marriage. It's NOT a religious institution.

Civil unions do not lead to marriage. Ask the folks in Vermont, they'll tell you.

Besides, all I have to do is drive a few miles into Massachusetts and get married there. Why the heck would I settle for LESS? Makes no sense.

HeartlandLiberal · 11 months ago

Civil unions as an instrument of legal co-mingling of assets, and legal rights to act for and on behalf of the other party in the union is absolutely the way to go.

If you drop the word 'marriage', you take away the major chew toy of the right wing and the religious fundies.

After all, a marriage is nothing more than a civil union declared for legal purposes before the state, associated with a nice shiny marriage ceremony for the relatives and your church.

The way to win this is to focus on civil unions, drop the references to marriage, achieve legal equity, and in less than a decade you will see more acceptance of GLBT community than ever before, because the world not only will not end, you will be seeing the results of civil unions, the percentage of which that fail over time may well be less than the current divorce rate in traditional marriages: and won't that be a icing on the wedding cake.

timncguy · 11 months ago

Obama made a commitment during the campaign to support the FULL repeal of DOMA. Good, I hope he does support it and gets it done.

I just read an article on another site where a federal court ordered the state sof Louisianna to change a birth certificate of an adopted child to include BOTH dads. They used the "full faith and credit" clause for this decision.

That would mean to me that if DOMA is repealed, every state could be forced to recognize gay marriages performed in MA, which no longer has a residency requirement, by filing suit citing the "full faith and credit" clause.

Of course the fundies will figure this out and fight like hell to stop the repeal of DOMA

timncguy · 11 months ago

here is the link to the other article
http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Federal_court_ord...

larry · 11 months ago

I guess the two need to be defined for what each really means. I see civil union as the "marriage" of two people in state or legal terms. I think Marriage is the religious step...you know get married by a judge then by a priest or minister so its "before God". Personally I do not need to be married before, beside, behind or on top of the church and "God". I do want civil rights...I want to be able to rent an apartment, a house, not have sexual orientation be factored in mortgage application(whether the banks will admit that or not), my partner could come see me in intensive care, decide whether to bury or cremate. Simple civil rights which we do not have. A landlord can not rent to you if you are gay in lots of states in this country....so I want civil rights and civil unions. I simply do not care what theologians, people of faith, preachers, priest , rabbis, Imans, etc. think, feel, want or do not want because I am not asking for there acceptance or blessing inside there faith or the building they insist on going to to worship.. I for one have NO interest in the churches acceptance of my civil union or the American people. I just want the damn right.

fredndallas · 11 months ago

Really excellent comments here. When I read the suggestion, I came to give it my endorsement and now I'm not so sure. Frankly, fear, hate, hetero-elitism, homophobia, ignorance and demagoguery aside, this is a fine political mess we've gotten ourselves into.

Despite being a gay-equality pioneer almost 40 years ago, I'm not quite sure the specific genesis of the "gay marriage" demand/fight, but I'm pretty confident that it did not come "bubbling up from the bottom" of community insistence. It came from so called "gay leadership" which in my cynical (realistic?) moments, I feel was rather largely motivated to create a steady stream community-fight generated income for years. Nonetheless, along the way the "leadership" seems to have accomplished some impressive gains in America's workplace. (Though it could be pointed out that those gains have come at horrifying costs like the result of 8 years of terrible happenings and death toll with Bush/Cheney, which likely never would have happened without all those "gay marriage" state ballot provisions, stirred up by gay "leadership".)

All of which is to realize that human condition politics is such a tricky business that perhaps any of us who weighs in with a strong opinion/conclusion may be fool-hardy given unintended consequences and such.

Several things we can learn, I think:

1) Anything that impacts the GLBT community as broadly as this strategy, should NOT be decided in that tight circle of "community leaders". (Look at Prop 8!) It needs to come from a broad consensus of all of us, however that might possibly be achieved. (A national GLBT "Constitutional Convention"? A GLBT party? Consensus/votes from a hundred blogs? Community meetings?)

2.) Don't even begin to UNDERestimate the Puritan nature of this country, its politicians and the center-right. Never OVERestimate the character or noble motivations of American politicians.

3.) Response from the courts seems to be where progress really comes from, probably only after a good deal of setting the issue up to be compelling through societal actions. This may well be the most cogent framework for a productive strategy, whatever that implies.

4.) Anticipate (if possible) that societal happenings frequently have an amazing impact on politics in an obtuse and emotional way. IE: Rove's use of the "gay marriage terror" to push votes just far enough to create the margin necessary for the war party, weapons dealers and greed creed financial crooks to get an 8 year free reign; The comprehensive "attitude softening" of substantial numbers of Americans toward gay folks as a consequence of AIDS and the spectacular job our community did to help our own when nobody else would.

Civil-unions vs marriage is a gigantic strategic question that not only will impact the rest of our lives, but all GLBT people who come after us, but also the very fabric and character of our country. We need to choose a strategy very carefully, but it is obvious to me that we need some kind of community consensus around SOME strategy.

chrisS · 11 months ago

Those are excellent comments. I'm continually impressed with the brainpower that shows up on this blog.

The one exception I might take to what you've said is that the community response as a whole is a political strategy, but that a litigation strategy is always available to any individual (or couple) at any time -- and they don't need anybody's OK to move forward.

The thing that hasn't gotten a lot of coverage in the Prop 8 debate (debacle) is that both chambers of the California legislature passed gay marriage legislation TWICE. In both cases, it was vetoed by the Governor. Now, not one legislator lost his or her job over that vote and there was an intervening election.

From a purely political perspective, it probably would have been better to wait until California had a Democratic governor who would sign the bill. But the legal avenue is always going to be open to individuals acting on their own as, frankly, it should be. That means that any political strategy we work out needs to take into account the fact that we're not going to be in control of who poses which question where.

Napalmgod · 11 months ago

I think we're going ass this bass-ackwards.

We are discussing two entirely separate things here, civil marriage and religious marriage. When people talk about how marriage is a sacrament and a contract with God, that's religious marriage. The various governments in the US should, correctly, have no say in that. Civil marriage defines what rights two people have under the law if they join into the legal contract called 'marriage' by the state. That should be defined by the law.

You can see how these are separate fairly easily. To get (civil) married, you go down to the county registrar's office and sign a form. To get (religious) married, you go to a church and have a religious figure officiate a ceremony.

What needs to happen is for the two to be decoupled, and then a decision made as to the rules.

Basically, what I'm saying here is that we shouldn't have marriage anymore, everything should be civil unions.

Tip: Ask people what other sacraments government should regulate. Confirmation? Communion? Wiretapping confessionals?

Akaison · 11 months ago

Re CIVIL MARRIAGE

I have said that rather than calling it 'gay marriage" we need to be calling it what it is "civil marriage" as a marketing tool. By repeating that statement, maybe it will finally sink in. The problem right now is that we have mostly battled on the opponent's terms. Let's change the game so that it's clear by adding "civil" to marriage.

However, I would not fight over trying to tell straights that we need them to do civil unions. It needs to be made clear that what we already do is a civil marriage in the state. That's what we need to make clear. When we run adds- we need to anticipate the arguments of the right. We need to start with 'civil marriage is not religous marriage" as the openning ad and hammer this home to the voter.

Nigel Elliott · 11 months ago

good point!

Nigel Elliott · 11 months ago

Good comment. Totally agree. Religion has to be taken out any form or definition of "marriage" enforceable and protected under the law.

timncguy · 11 months ago

and why can't you understand that these two separate things civil marriage and religious marriage are ALREADY DECOUPLED. That's why they already are called two different things.

christiekeith · 11 months ago

I'm not looking at other people's responses. Just saying what I've come to believe.

Six months ago, while this would have pissed me off, I might have thought, well, yeah, this is the best we can do.

I no longer believe that, because I think there's been a sea change in this country, mostly among gay people ourselves, but also among many of our friends and allies. There is no longer a political will for incrementalism. It's evaporated. Even if it made sense (which I don't think it does), it's not going to inspire anyone to fight for it.

You know what they say... there is no power like an idea whose time has come. We're on fire for full legal equality on the federal level, by which I mean EVERYTHING: repeal DOMA, pass a trans-inclusive ENDA, repeal DADT, and marriage equality, a list that even TWO months ago I would have argued vehemently against even trying for -- and now I truly believe it's the only thing that will put that fire out.

We can debate it all we want, but things have moved. This fight is on different terrain now. We can wring our hands or rejoice, but it's happened and it won't go back.

And crazy as it sounds, I'd rather fail trying for what we deserve and are guaranteed under the constitution than sign onto second class citizenship ever, ever again.

Akaison · 11 months ago

People don't get you can fail going forward. What i mean by this is that you lose this time, and the next, and the next but each time you lose by a little bit less until youwin. Part of this issue is that its generational. Thus we need to fight it like it is.

christiekeith · 11 months ago

I'd answer, that's exactly what we've been doing now... failing by going forward. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result -- or doing the same failing thing over just harder -- is nuts.

Akaison · 11 months ago

well, I meant it in a different way. But that's true what you describe too.

I feel the doing the same thing is the whole "if we do this easy thing, then it will solve our problem with the right."

The assumption is that if we call it a different name, then they will stop presecuting us.

This view is to me - well naive.

The right will not stop attacking us,a nd winning unless we understand how they are winning.

They are winning because we don't fight them in their own safe zones. they win because we are ready to give up the minute something is hard. They win becaue we do not anticipate their attacks. They are winning because as you describe we use the same old strategies over and over again. And have been doing so for almost 2 decades.

I will get in trouble for this, but the reality is that the gay movement needs to become a lot less reflective of upper white class views, and a lot more focused on lower views of life. That means - not making it about being anti religion, including minorities, including low income people, going out into the streets to get our hands dirty, coalition building, going into the red areas of the country to plead our case (including expecting to lose for a few years) etc. Until willing to do what the Black Civil rights movment did, we will continue to have a hard fight ahead of us.

christiekeith · 11 months ago

Basically, I agree with you. I just think we should, in the same spirit as those other things, not flinch from what we want and what the constitution guarantees us: full legal equality in every respect. Why start out compromising? We may have to compromise in some way, but why do their work for them? We should stand up, get our hands dirty, go out and form coalitions and make allies, and not give up before we even begin.

If we have to give up ground, give it up inch by inch after a bloody fight that we can't win, not before we even start.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Yes, we are in agreement. I find the other approach is defeatism, and , despite what people here think yields failure and defeat. That's part of the problem- what they describe has been tried and failed. it doesn't work because the other side senses blood in the water when we yield. They sense we are not willing to fight that inch by inche you describe. Instead, like No on 8 we do silly ads and neverdo any GOTV, and expect to win. This is silly, and that's why no one took it seriously.

timncguy · 11 months ago

If Civil Unions are so palatable to people why do so many of the state level constitutional ammendments ban gay marriage AND ANY OTHER LEGAL BASIS THAT WOULD BESTOW ANY OR ALL OF THE RIGHTS OF MARRIAGE TO GAYS?????

Akaison · 11 months ago

because despite what they say- people are not open to civil unions either when the Christian right tells them 'Psssst- its really marriage." that's why this whole discussion is false.

Tom in Toronto · 11 months ago

I wonder though Tim if marriage wasn't the main point and those amendments were just for Civil Unions, would they have passed. I think Civil Unions have a much better chance of being on the 55% side of support.

Akaison · 11 months ago

The answer is that they still would have failed. i don't have to wonder since it was made clear. indeed, many of these states already had statutes banning marriage. There are a few states, like maybe Arizona where this is not true. but even there, the difference was more about the impact of the law on unmarried straight couples. The discussion here, as I said, keeps assuming a static right that will not respond to argue that we are trying to really get marriage by another name. I guess the question is whether you think bigots are stupid or not. I don't think evil has to be stupid. I think its very smart. Thus changing a name won't change the battle.

Tom in Toronto · 11 months ago

Which states had an amendment banning gay marriage that went on to separately ban Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships? I don't recall any.

Akaison · 11 months ago

I don't even understand your question. Look at Ohio, Virginia, and multiple other states where this has come up in the debate. THe result was that the conservative pushed in more draconian laws. It was understood as such because even Republicans said "this is too draconian.' it passed anway.

Don't just post here to ask other people do your research for you. Bad manners.

Tom in Toronto · 11 months ago

I am sorry, but you don't seem to understand my point. I can't help you.

Akaison · 11 months ago

I understood your point.

Your point is- let's see whether if we separate out civil unions whether we can get this.

My response is that it will not matter.

What is there to get?

Tom in Toronto · 11 months ago

I was asking Tim based on what he wrote that if over 50% support Domestic Partnerships and under 50% support marriage,.

We go for the civil union on the national level now that we have Dem control and it will override any state bans on Civil Unions as it did with interracial marriage. . We need to gain much needed rights now for suffering people and then work on marriage.

My other point is the right didn't even try to soley ban Civil Unions because they knew they would lose, they muddied the marriage amendments to include banning the CU and DP. Which to me says we go for what we can get now because even the Right knows we can win them.

Even people in my own family are against gay marriages yet support Civil Unions. It's just stupid religious based ignorance, but I don't I think I can ever change their minds.

Akaison · 11 months ago

My point is that right now they say that until the right manipulates them. because if they are against civil marriage, rights, they don't underwstand the conversation. Changing the word will not help convince them because the response of the right will be "this is just an attempt to change the word but do the same thing regarding marriage." This is still marriage. That will be the argument,a nd after a million ads, those same people you discuss who do not understand (despite getting married themselves) that civil marriage are not religous marriage- will be saying that they re against civil unions too.

Akaison · 11 months ago

actually let me add after a million ads, pastor's telling them that its the same, and massive GOTV, many will vote the same way.

timncguy · 11 months ago

they didn't have a constitutional ammendmendment banning gay marriage and then went on to ban civil unions. They had LAWS banning gay marriage and went on to change the state constitutions to ban gay marriage and ANYTHING REMOTELY EQUIVOLENT all at the same time. Ohio is one of them. If fact the ammendment in Ohio has now been used to ban state universities from providing benefits to the partners of gay employees. Has nothing to do with marriage at all. Can't even get health benefits from a state employer

Tom in Toronto · 11 months ago

Be practical and take the Civil Union now, it's better than nothing until we can win Marriage. The Civil Union must be on the National and State level to cover all rights especially for couples in our situation. We are a binational gay couple that were forced out of the US by the goverment. It's surreal that my government spent years and so much money just in an attempt to break up two guys who love each other.

davidkc · 11 months ago

I have never liked the "separate but equal" (or sometimes "separate but unequal") civil union option. Five years ago I would have agreed with the writer to get civil unions first and then go for gay marriage later, but I don't think that any longer. With a few states already allowing gay marriages, why fall back on civil unions now, particularly if it only gives us a few crumbs compared to the benefits of heterosexual marriage?

aumshantih · 11 months ago

Civil Unions for all, marriages for none. Keep your church out of my state!

Bryan · 11 months ago

Civil marriage and civil union statues are a matter of state law, not federal law. In no way should the federal government endorse, create, or establish a legal family law vehicle that has typically been handled by the states. Where this has been handled by the states, civil unions are a complete failure. The New Jersey commission that studied such unions has unanimously concluded they are a failure, based on real life experiences of those who have entered into them. Insofar as civil unions go, every state currently has a civil union law on the books, called civil marriage. A civil marriage licensed by the state, is a contract between two people, which in most states is limited to man-woman couples; no religious endorsement is required; hence, civil union. So the future of equal marriage movement should be focused on the state level and focused on access to civil marriage. Civil unions, as classically understood, are an outdated, civil marriage non-equivalent and should be eliminated in all states; should be replaced with civil marriage.

YankeeClipper · 11 months ago

Bob Barr's famous Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has all ready made the issue a Federal one, Bryan

ChrisSF · 11 months ago

That reminds me, there could possibly be a constitutional problem with a federal civil union law. If the feds mandate the states to create civil unions, it might be a 10th Amendment violation. If the feds create their own civil unions and require states to honor them, there could be a question about whether Congress has the power to do that. This deserves some thought . . . .

matty · 11 months ago

To me 'marriage' is a religious institution that has been codified into state and federal laws. I'm in no way religious.

Marriage should be separated from the state. If ANY couple, gay or straight, wants to be legally joined in some way, they need to go to the courthouse. But hey, they already do!! If they want to get 'married', then they should go to any church that is willing to bless such a union. Separate Church and State!!!! Remove marriage as a 'legal entity' for all... anyone and everyone has to get 'unionized' or some other term at the court house. If you want a good old fashioned 'wedding' between you and your partner and deity of choice - have at it. Find a church that's willing to do it.. It's none of the State's business.

They can keep marriage for all I care, just give the exact same civil rights currently conveyed under marriage in a civil union and I'll be just fine.

Akaison · 11 months ago

marriage already is separate. Again, you are working off igorance rather than the reality of the law.

matty · 11 months ago

Leaving the 'ignorance' comment alone, perhaps I didn't make my comment clear enough. After reading down a bit, I'm of the same mind as Napalmgod.

Tom in Toronto · 11 months ago

Don't worry Matty, he's taking my point on tangents too

Akaison · 11 months ago

No- I am pointing out that it leads to tangents that irrelevant. I got your points. I am telling yo uthat adding all the additonal layers produces bad results. Not better ones.

Tom in Toronto · 11 months ago

Actually you did nothing of the sort and just seem to can't handle anyone who disagrees with you or the you perceive disagrees with you. We all have the same goal in mind here, we just have different ideas on the path.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Actually I did. Do you want me to cut and paste where I specify because I can.

Tom in Toronto · 11 months ago

You mean where I made the point that the relgious right never were able to solely ban with an amendment Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships in any state after gay marriage was banned. They had to muddy the amendment to include them because DPs and CUs actually have popular support.

It was the point where you couldn't come up with one and then went on about homework or something.

Akaison · 11 months ago

No what I did was to tell you that I am not going to do your work foryou. The thing I hate online is where I am suppose to convince you that your argument that you postulated is right or wrong. Since you are coming up with the radical theory- prove to me that it's right. I know my views are easier view based on history. America has always added additional groups to existing concepts more easily than it has tried to create new concepts. Indeed, as I point out many of the battles discussed actually demonstrate the problem in total. There were already laws against marriage,a nd amendments in states like VA. They added some of this language barring even civil unions , domestic partnerships and contracts, later with stronger amendments. They still passed. You still say that's not proof. So, thats why I say- you do your own research for your own argument.

Akaison · 11 months ago

I don't care who you are working off. I am saying that what you describe needlessly confuses the discussion.

it's a pretty simple one. We need to clarify that this is about civil marriage, not religous marriage. Your way requires additonal steps for the listeners to understand that actually do not impact the civil marriage at all. In essense we already have civil unions as civil marriage. To try to then convince people that they need to go civil marriage is overly broad as an approach. What we really want to do is have them understand what civil marriages are- state rights- versus what religious.

Marriage is not per se religous. That's historically wrong in the US and abroad. The issue is hammering hard on the point rather than just letting the right control the conversation.

matty · 11 months ago

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. Marriage IS perceived as religious. Doesn't matter what it's perceived as historically. More importantly, using the term 'marriage' in both a civil and religious sense only muddies the water further in my opinion. If anything, saying one is 'civil married' or 'religious married' (or both) just makes things even MORE confusing. It's much easier to just say "yeah we got our paperwork". Let everyone else worry about that silly 'married' term, because when it boils down to it I don't really care what others call it as long as I have the same civil rights.

Akaison · 11 months ago

No, what you are doing is pushing your idealogy which is false into the equation of marriage equality. I get that. But you keep acting like you what you saying is no big deal. I explain above, and I am not going to do so again here, why this is false.

timncguy · 11 months ago

if CIVIL Marriage is perceived as religious, how do atheists get married? How does Elvis get away with performing all those marriages in Vegas?

matty · 11 months ago

In other words, to say one is 'married' should be a societal or cultural definition - not a legal one.

Akaison · 11 months ago

it would needlessly confuse an already confused discussion.

What people seem to be doing here- and what I dislike- is taking their own baggage rather than considering how can we make this easy for people to understand.

That's why its easier to just say there are two issues a) civil and b) religious. We are only discussion civil marriages.

The other way- requires we change people's minds about too much to understand the concept.

matty · 11 months ago

Again... you keep using that word 'marriage'. The state should only be involved in civil unions. Marriage is for religious people.

I think we're actually thinking along the same lines, except that you're intent on having a traditional reference applied to something that would be quite UN-traditional up until know. I don't see that as 'wrong', but I think the quickest way to achieve the civil rights defined under a 'marriage' is to get the term 'marriage' out of the legal system all together.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Yes- I got your IDEALOGICAL perspective.

I just don't care abut the idealogy. I am discussing the legal and political realities and trying to figure out how best to achieve equality rather than changing the word (as you are doing) for everyone.

I do not have a bone to pick about religion like you do. This is about civil marriage. Which is the topic of discussion.

You are the one injecting a lot of extra baggage. And, I am actualy not discussing hte same things because I understand that i am discussing civil marriage, which has the longest tradition in this country. Not religious.

I also understand to do what you say would require convincing straights to marry under civil unions. If you think explaining civil marriage is hard, good luck with trying to rename civil marriages as civil unions.

I am also not even going into the discussion of why legally that creates all sorts of problems.

As is discussed below, when the law starts naming things or renaming the assumption under hthe law is that it has a different or slightly different meaning, and that means it will need re-interpreting. Settled law will become unsettled. This is legal thing as well. I don't think many of you with your idealogical, rather than legal or political points, are discussing this.

matty · 11 months ago

Huh?

You're really out there, but I'm at least glad your passionate about it. You really did just say 'marry under civil unions'... seems to me you're the one twisting around ideologies.

Anyone want to get partnered? Go to the judge?
Anyone want to get married (which is a religiously sanctioned joining of two people)? Go to church.

Akaison · 11 months ago

You are the one who is really out there if you think changing the name of all marriages to civil unions is the easy route to marriage equality. I really can not help you here if you don't get how radical a statement that is in the American system of governance. Rather than getting a view more on board for adding gays to civil marriage rights , you are now asking everyone tochange a concept that they once understood , including the courts, to a new term. As I said, you are basically expousing an idelaogical perspective, bu tnot one that will make it easier either legally or politically.

matty · 11 months ago

You REALLY REALLY want to use that word 'marriage', don't you? Like it means something in a legal sense. It currently does, but it shouldn't.

That's my opinion. We can play the "You're wrong, no YOU'RE wrong" game all night, but I think we still want the same thing in the end - the same civil rights.

What you and I are debating is simply a matter of semantics at this point. To readdress John's question... "Hold off on marriage until we get Civil Unions"? I'd say yes to that. The terminology will work itself out in the long run.

timncguy · 11 months ago

do you understand how many laws that exist in every level of goverment from the smallest village up to the federal level and how many company poilicies would have to be changed in order to make a civil union replace the word marriage and what a nightmare that would be?

The LAW already understands the difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage. Try having a religious marriage without a civil marriage license and see how far you get legally. But, have a civil marriage without ever going to a church and you have no legal problem at all.

Thatis what Akaison is trying to explain to you. It would be a complete administrative NIGHTMARE to try to change all the laws and policies from civil marriage to civil union. Why bother. Just educate people to the difference between CIVIL marriage and HOLY matrimony.

Akaison · 11 months ago

I have explained it a million times to this poster. Either he's being deliberately obtuse or he's just an idealogue with an agenda. I am going for the later. His facts are way off, and most of it is just designed to push agenda rather than resolve the legal and political issues I raise over what he has described.

matty · 11 months ago

Sigh... you people are so hung up on the word 'marriage'. Call me 'idealougue' all you want, but the point you seem to keep missing is the confusion and discontent caused by using the word 'marriage'. If you insist on calling your legal union a 'marriage' then you're going to meet roadblock after roadblock and I doubt the religious right is going to give up that fight any time soon. Like it or not, marriage is seen as a religious institution. Take the term 'marriage' out of the laws and replace it with something that works for everyone without having any religious connotations. Then go off to church and get married!

As far as all the laws that would have to be changed?? Fine - there's a little Word function called 'find and replace all' that makes it amazingly easy - and there's also an army of people out there willing to help do it.

Akaison · 11 months ago

With this post I can now give you the old saying "sometimes it is better to keep quiet and have people believe you are ignorant, than to open your mouth to prove it." As i said you are political idealogue. This post proves it. it's not simply a matter of find-replace in the law. If you don't nderstand that, then you don't underestand the conversation. It's that simple. You can sigh all you want. And feel I am mistreating you for pointing out your ignorance. But your own words, Prove my point.

Akaison · 11 months ago

I really think you are idealogue who does not care or does no understand wha tyou are talking about. Multiple people along this thread have explained it to you. Tim among others have explained to you the problem with whatyou are saying. You persist in acting like I am the radical, but you are the one with issues with accepting how radical your suggestion is.

lewis stoole · 11 months ago

i was on board with the little steps, civil union to marriage, but then i read the jersey finding posted above. even though gays were joined under "civil unions", the system and various institutions still did not recognize the term and allowed legal loopholes and gaffes in computer programming to continue so that only "marriage" was recognized. this is disturbing.

Tommy Marx · 11 months ago

I'm not dating anyone, let alone in a serious enough relationship that marriage would be a consideration. But I'm also not serving in the military. Still, I completely support the legalization of same-gender marriage on both a state and Federal level, and I completely support banning both the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" rule and any form of restrictions based on what gender someone is attracted to. The door has been opened, not just by two states legalizing marriage but more importantly by a third state legalizing it and then having that right stripped away by popular vote. It's too late to back off now. And think about how far we've come. The situation in California was met with enormous outrage, bringing us together like nothing has for years. Even more importantly, 47% of all voters in California voted to allow gays and lesbians to continue getting married. We're constantly hearing how activist judges are making their own rules and most people believe that same-gender marriages will destroy the holy institution of marriage. But the truth is, almost half of Californians believe we should be allowed to get married. A year ago I would have said, fight for civil unions. But if California has taught me anything, it's that I'm sick and tired of being fed scraps. I want to sit at the table and enjoy the same priviledges the other people do.

YankeeClipper · 11 months ago

Marriage is a religious sacrament; the state has no business being involved in it. "Civil unions," per se, should be open to any one and every one; straight or gay. I heard (or did I read it in a gay publication?) the President-elect discussing this point some time ago during the campaign, it made perfect sense to me.

timncguy · 11 months ago

if marriage is a religious sacrament, how do heterosexual atheists get married? A CIVIL MARRIAGE has nothing to do with religion at all.

matty · 11 months ago

YankeeClipper said quite clearly that 'the state has no business being involved in it". That state involvement is what allows heterosexual atheists to get 'married'.

timncguy · 11 months ago

any YankeeClipper got it wrong. Civil Marriage is a state contract and has nothign to do with religious matrimony. You can get married in a church all you want. But, without a civil marriage license issued by the state your religious marriage carries no legal weigh at all.

The state has the ONLY business being involved in granting the legal rights and responsibilties that go with CIVIL marriage.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Yeah, you are wasting your time. tried multiple time to explain this below. They don't want to under the point. I believe they are just idealogues with a problem with marriage, but want to piggy back to use marriage equality as a way to achieve their other ends. I have no other way to explain why they would keep repeating obvious falsehoods.

YankeeClipper · 11 months ago

Marriage, per se, is a sacrament of a religious institution, it's called "Holy Union," and didn't become a sacrament until issues of inheritance arose. I'm arguing the state should not be involved in performing marriages, only Civil Unions. If a couple wants a civil ceremony and a religious one, good for them. If someone wants to say, "we're married," when in fact they had a civil union performed by JP in Las Vegas; so be it. Marriage is NOT a state function. Akaison, you trying out to be Bill O'Reilly's replacement? Any one that doesn't see things your way or, disagrees with you, is automatically an "ideologue" or has something against marriage. You're well on your way to being an O'Reilly clone. You do O'Reilly and Warren proud.

Mike · 11 months ago

My 2 cents:
http://administrativia.blogspot.com/2008/12/oba...

Say it Lamar · 11 months ago

Not EVERY gay couple wants to get married.

Civil Union is a much better option and a more reasonable option for those of us THAT do NOT want TO get MARRIED.

timncguy · 11 months ago

if you don't want to get a CIVIL MARRIAGE, why do you want a CIVIL UNION? They would be the same. No one who gets married is required to ever step inside a church. Atheists get married all the time.

timncguy · 11 months ago

Absolutely, the only problem the opposition has is to the word marriage.

That's why ENDA and Hate Crimes legislation were so easily approved in Congress. That's why we have legal gay adoption in all 50 states now. That's why DADT was repealed with no complaints.

Oh wait......I almost forgot, we have NONE OF THOSE OTHER RIGHTS that have nothing to do with the word marriage...

Akaison · 11 months ago

THANK YOU!

I am discussing this with these folks below. They think of the right as stagnant, and easy to manipulate if you just play word games with them.

You encapsulate my concern exactly. That this is not about word choice. it's about the opposiion and winning over persuadables. Word choice is just a grand illusion.

The only bit of marketing I would do is to focus on calling it civil marriage to start to make it clear factually what we are voting on so the persuables are less confused about it being religious. Other than that, I don't think anything else will shift the debate.

Tom in Toronto · 11 months ago

We haven't had Democratic control of the House, Senate and White House since the early 90's. The time is now for all those to pass. ENDA and Hate Crimes failed only due to Republican majorities. It's time we make the DEMs work for us. Obama had better keep his promise.

Akaison · 11 months ago

they already sayingthat they will not take these things up for 2 years. they are trying to punt on them.

More importantly, the posters point should not be lost. The point is that none of these were a matter of word choice, but how people felt about gays ing eneral. Thus the problem with the whole word game.

timncguy · 11 months ago

trust me democratic control isn't going to help with these one bit. There are way too many conservative dems in congress to get these enacted.

SteamingPile · 11 months ago

JULIET:
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2

smiling_dog · 11 months ago

I guess I would ask what the difference is between a civil union and a marriage? Marriage, in my mind, is largely a religious union that has been secularized by the State. Is it important to call it "marriage" in terms of feeling equal or because there is something inherently different between a "marriage" and a "civil union"?

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

Civil union doesn't carry the same social force and recognition as marriage. If you want to learn more, I suggest you look at what's happening in New Jersey. http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/1st-Interim...

lewis stoole · 11 months ago

nice post RP, this was eye opening to someone who was on board with the civil unions first (just to get the same rights), marriage second (just to get it called what it really is).

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

Yes, although it's still better than nothing. Like I was trying to say earlier, we need to build up infrastructure for a multi-pronged attack at the federal level.

Akaison · 11 months ago

agree. part fo that is being involved in the selection of judicial nominees.

AdmNaismith · 11 months ago

F*ck No. It's time for EQUALITY. Not Seperate, but equal.
If someone want to change everyone of those tens of thousands of laws that say 'Marriage' to 'Civil Unions' (and see to it that every Marriage is turned into a Civil Union), fine,otherwise straight up equality with the words already in play (I didn't use the word Marriage, lawmakers did).

'Civil Union' as it stand now covers nothing.

JP · 11 months ago

I meant to post this on another thread but think it is relevant here.

I am in favor of civil unions first. Civil Unions solve most of the legal rights issues.

Separately, as well as almost all of my gay friends believe that the choice of Rick Warren is a much bigger issue than gay, straight, racist or Christian. Obama chose Warren because he represents a mass of Christians (unlike those who follow the Dobson and Perkins types) who can be reasoned with and build a unifying consensus that there are very important issues we must solve and that despite our personal beliefs, we can work together to solve problems that impact all of our lives.

Warren is much bigger than a gesture. Warren's followers are not going to change their religious and social views on gay marriage which (as many have noted over the past 8 years, despite Karl Rove and his ilk's insisting) has no bearing on the quality of life for you and I - including how we express our love to each other.

I think it is a very smart move on Obama's part to help the country heal (not the feeling of being healed but a real attempt to inspire all people to work together and solve the serious problems that both now and in the future will face us).

Marriage rights gay or straight will not matter if we do not come together and solve the present and coming crisis's - referrence THE MEANING OF THE 21st CENTURY by James Martin (author of THE WIRED SOCIETY, 1978)

PeterB · 11 months ago

Don't let up on marriage equality. Put them in a position that they'll be so afraid that the equality for all (gay and straight) folks will win the whole enchilada that they'll cede all that comes with it except the name. Take that. And then continue to push for full equality, in which it's either marriage certificates for all or the move to civil union certificates for all and eliminating marriage certs).

Cory · 11 months ago

To those gays that doesn't want to get married are really missing the point. Just because you don't want to get married doesn't give you the right to deny those that do want to get married to the one they love. Civil union does not equal marriage. We all pay the same taxes and we should all be treated as equals in all things. Don't let others make you think that civil union is "good enough". It's not the same and we shouldn't settle for less.

codger · 11 months ago

Is there a way to just run a poll on this? It might be easier to get a feel for the big picture without sorting through the nuanced opinions which, though
well thought and stated, end up muddying the overall marriage or union issue.

Kevin · 11 months ago

All the folks saying marriage is a religious institution seem to be saying at some level that gays cannot be religious. It's insulting, hurtful, and dehumanizing.

ARP · 11 months ago

It is. The issue is that the Government recognizes it for taxes, wills, insurance, etc.

matty · 11 months ago

Not at all... if you're gay and religious, after you've gone to the courthouse and filed your "Partner Paperwork" (straight people would have to do it to), go to your church that supports marriage. There ARE churches out there that support a gay marriage.

Our point is just to remove 'marriage' from the legal part of it.

Akaison · 11 months ago

You are right, but a lot people want to muddy the waters for whatever reason so its hard to discuss it as clearly as you are doing.

jgm22 · 11 months ago

I agree Kevin. I'm personally an atheist but I believe that everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they choose so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (obviously). So if we settle for civil unions we are leaving out a lot of our gay brothers and sisters who want a religious wedding. It doesn't end there though. Civil rights is a way to separate gays from heterosexual society. It's further division. It's also easy for the courts to mask certain rights under civil unions because of the name. A separate name may equal separate rights, so instead of all 1200 you may only get 1100. I, personally, don't trust civil union because it could lead to a lot of interpretation and corruption.

Also I really believe this isn't all about marriage vs. civil unions. I think we're through with second best in any instance. We have been fighting for our rights for a long long time and settling. It's time we don't settle anymore.

Also, this 5,000 year tradition of marriage that Rev. Warren likes to through around so much well until about 1,500 years ago it was highly polygamous. Polygamy has a long and deep history in western and well, most societies. This "taboo" tradition was quite common and the world as we know it today probably wouldn't exist if there was no polygamy. A lot of cultures would not have left their homelands to settle new lands if there wasn't a lack of available women at home. I'm getting off topic and I'm not a polygamist (not that there's anything wrong with it for consenting adults) but my point is that these people are talking out their asses. They don't know about the history of marriage. They are egomaniacs who want to control how people think and act. It's fine if you want to follow these people, but don't tell me I can't do what I want to do. You are NOT my conscience. You do NOT speak for me.

Catman51 · 11 months ago

Full equality. That includes Marriage and nothing less. I am not second class and refuse to be.

Jeffrey · 11 months ago

The only reason that bigots don't want us to use the word marriage is because they think we are disgusting perverts and we would 'soil' the word if we get to use it. Well, we are not disgusting or perverts and we should not accept the notion that we are not worthy of the term 'marriage'. It is like having a 'married' section of the bus up in front and a 'civil union' section of the bus in back. I deserve to sit up front where I can see where I'm going.

BobD · 11 months ago

That has been my opinion for the longest time. Incremental change. Call the bluff of all the opponents that say they're not against gay rights, just gay marriage. Push for FULL equality of Civil Unions.

jgm22 · 11 months ago

we have tried step by step and it's not worked. it's strange and maybe not true but I find a coincidence with age and this argument. most of the people, in my experience, who are arguing this are at least 40, but usually older. i don't know if this stems from fear, or a different coming out/gay lifestyle experience - or maybe even wisdom but no matter what it's settling and i think it's time everyone of all ages stop settling. plus, i don't trust full equality of civil unions. it's really easy to slip discrimination in.

Akaison · 11 months ago

I agree with the age gap. There are a lot of gays for whom the concept of marriage, much less civil unions, is alient to them. it was never something they imagine would happen. So they will say take what you can get because this is how they had to live their lives. I know a lot of older gay men just like that.

texasbob · 11 months ago

Of course, take what you can get now. Civil union would provide for the more important (that is, substantive) rights anyway. But why not also fight religion with religion? Why does someone not found a church where all marriages are regarded as sacraments? Then secular (state) prohibitions of gay marriage would be violations of religious freedom, no? Courts seem to me to be far likelier (if gruding) allies in the struggle than a largely bigoted public.

RonNYC · 11 months ago

If civil unions offered exactly the same rights and responsibilities as "marriage" then it doesn't matter all that much to me. Marriage can come later (probably in a few years). Anyway, I find it sort of weird for guys to talk about their husband or women about their wife. Just seems odd to me; not horrible or anything, just odd. Then again, going back to the 70s there's never been a good word to describe our partners, "partner," "companion," "boyfriend," "girlfriend"...nothing quite gets it right, but neither does husband or wife. At least for all the gay couples i know, it doesn't seem like those categories work (but this is a digression).

For me, the core issues are rights and responsibilities; tax consequences, inheritance, hospital policies, contracts, etc., i.e., to live equally, even if the words are different (note: I am not in a relationship now).

Akaison · 11 months ago

it doesn't. thats the point.

timncguy · 11 months ago

you hit on another issue here as well. ONce we cede the word "marriage" to them, then they will want full control of the words husband, wife, spouse, family..... it will never end with them.

RonNYC · 11 months ago

Several commenters basically say that my view would be ceding the bigots their point and in a sense it would, there's no denying it. But for gay couples in legal limbo, would it be better to get civil equality or the whole enchilada?

foxy · 11 months ago

If they completely remove the word "marriage" and make them all (gay or straight) civil unions I say fine.

Gary · 11 months ago

As a non-gay regular reader, all I have to say is I think that the people that are looking at this as an "all or nothing" equation might sadly be left with nothing for quite some time... so you better get used to it. It certainly doesn't sound like Obama is going to help you out with anything besides "civil unions" with full legal status, so we are looking 8 years out already. From there, who knows? With any Pub, you will be SOL, and if its Hillary, prolly the same.

Myself, as a lifelong single heterosexual person, I don't understand why anyone would want to get married in the first place, let alone make a fuss over what it is called.

Just my thoughts....

Akaison · 11 months ago

Are you a minority of any group? if not then let me point out what i just described above. The fact is you are not alking what has happened historically in this country. What has happened is that once we try to lower our standards, the right raises the bar even more. It's a game that where if we do as you say- compromise before even trying- we will get half of what you claim we can get by compromising. This is how these things work. what you describe is what the dems do in every negotiation with the right. Its why they constantly capitulation rather than compromise.

jgm22 · 11 months ago

your two cents is annoying. I do not have to get used to anything - especially not second class status. i will NEVER get used to that.

my partner died 3 and a half years ago and i lost out on a pension because we weren't allowed to get married. he wanted to give that gift to me and he was unable to because a lot of people in this country think i didn't deserve it because one of us wasn't a woman. so when you say why would anyone want to get married in the first place, maybe you should reconsider the benefits marriage has to offer. if your girlfriend was dying and wanted to give you something like a pension i bet you'd take it. i am pretty sure you'd get married then. so while a piece of paper doesn't prove my love to someone it does give me the equality i deserve.

NGLTF · 11 months ago

"Myself, as a lifelong single heterosexual person, I don't understand why anyone would want to get married in the first place"

There are many Caucasians who never vote in elections. They see it as a silly practice that won't change anything. For that reason, shouldn't those Caucasians be able to take voting rights away from African-Americans?

ChrisSF · 11 months ago

I am assuming what's being proposed is a federal law that would either require states to provide civil unions or create a new federal civil union. I think it's an interesting idea, although I doubt it would pass. I would support it if it required all federal, state and local governments to treat civil unions exactly the same as marriage and extend all rights and benefits to civil unions on an equal basis as marriage. It would also be a nice "wedge" issue to see whether supposedly moderate Christians like Warren will back it. Of course, this is an interim step. Full marriage equality is the only acceptable solution under our Constitution, but I think that will only come (eventually) through the courts.

dula · 11 months ago

Most likely if we get Civil Unions that include ALL the exact same benefits State and Federal, people will just begin to call it Marriage because Civil Unions sounds too awkward. The problem will be legal issues (during divorce for example)...all the laws on the books regarding the contract of marriage use the word marriage. There will have to be a law that says the words Civil Unions can be legally substituted for the word marriage.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Bingo- the associated laws and issues that will result in a huge mess.

SkippyFlipjack · 11 months ago

Going the way we are, there will be a point at which nearly all states will have constitutions that bar gay marriages. At that point, it would seem almost trivial to ratify that in the federal constitution, at which point gay marriage will be dead for a long, long time. If the right would stop their attempts to forever ban gay marriage, I think it makes sense to be satisfied with civil unions. But they won't, so it doesn't, IMHO.

Akaison · 11 months ago

there is virtually zero chance of a federal ban regardless of what happens with the states. you are just alking from fear not understanding of process.

SkippyFlipjack · 11 months ago

I'm not alking from fear; I seldom alk at all. And I know the process of changing the constitution (just a wikipedia link away!) and yes it's unlikely, but the more states have their own amendments, the more people will make the argument that a couple of massachusetts will override the wishes of all the other states, and they'll work hard to change the U.S. constitution. The hateful are fighting battles across the country to prevent gay marriage; accepting civil unions means giving up ground which will take a long time to get back.

timncguy · 11 months ago

The fundies do not and will not provide a "static" target for us to shoot for.

It used to be that you just had to prove that being gay is biological, then we'll give you rights. Well Rick Warren just shot that one down this week. He said even if it's biological, it's still a no go.

Then it was gays don't need marriage, they can get all the same rights by creating legal contracts. Yeah right, point me to the legal contract that gives me the right to my partner's social security benefits and filing a joint federal tax return. THEY LIE ALL THE TIME.

Then it was civil unions and domestic partnerships provide all the same benefits as marriage, so that should be good enough. Check out how that's working in NJ. Check in CA and see what is required for a gay couple to PROVE in CA before they get a domestic partnership registered and that a hetero couple doesn't have to PROVE anything to get married.

Now it's just that they want to protect the word "marriage". Don't believe them, they have passed just as many constitutional ammendments banning civil unions as they have marriage. They even use those ammendments to stop state employees from receiving ANY PARTNER benefits at all.

It has nothing to do with the word marriage. It has to do with societal recognition, which they will not put up with. They do not want their children to think that gay is legitimate. They are afraid their children will CHOOSE to be gay.

The fundies play this game the same way Lucy plays football with Charlie Brown. Honest Charlie, this year I will let you kick the football, I promise, trust me. And, every year Charlie trusts her and ends up flat on his back again when one more time Lucy pulls the football away at the last minute.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Bingo.

Being black, I can tell you that this is a game that bigots always play. They set up some threshold through which if you jump, then they will see you equally.

Except, it never happens. It's a game of hide the ball. Once you have met that previous criteria, it will become something new. It's a shell game. The sooner we realize that there is no negotiating with terrorist as our mantra, the better.

rmichels · 11 months ago

Terrorists?

Akaison · 11 months ago

Yes. In the traditional 4 freedoms sense. If you realize what they are doing is designed to instil terror in you then you start to understand the situation better.

Practical examples of what I mean:

a) There are huge sections of this country (the U.S.) where gays can not as a couple walk around openly without being in danger of bodily harm. Even the apperance of being gay (as was the recent case with the dead Ecuadorian) as a matter of terrorizing a community. It's the equivalent of what the KKK did to the African Americans. The goal is to enforce social norms through de facto terror rather than state based violence. The people like Warren full well know when they are comparing us to pedophles this is a machinary that pushes violence.

b) I will give another practical way of seeing what i mean by how this terror works to reinforce social norms that you problay do not notice or accept as given. Recently the UN tried to pass a non binding resolution against criminalizing homosexuality and also against violence against homsexuality. The Catholic church argued against it. So did the US. The reasons stated by the countries that wanted to continue this violence was that to legalize homsexuality is to give permission for incest and pedophiles. Etc.

The point I am making is that terror is the point. The point is to enforce social standards by doing nothing or reinforcing outlandish claims being used to rationalize de facto violence.

It also works to convince gays to remain in gay enclaves. If yo ulook at the hate crimes reported- one of the things that they say is that while the number that is reported is high, the actual number is probably higher. Why? because of the terror related to a lose of jobs, home or even further violence.

We don't thinka bout these things because (if you are gay) you are taught to avoid the coversation or have been for 30 years now.

It's not all state based action. Thus-- how else owuld you describe the action if not to terrorize people into social conformity?

timncguy · 11 months ago

yes. It is the same as when they tell you that gay rights are not civil rights because gays can hide being gay and blacks can't hide being black.

What they are saying is that you can be treated equally (somewhat) and avoid being beaten or killed or fired from your job as long as you ACT straight. Just a way to keep gays hidden out of fear.

Akaison · 11 months ago

the argument falls a part when you think about the same argument as applied to Jews. Should the jews have acted non jewish in WW2 to not be persecuted? Would that have made it better? The argument is a false one because that's never been the standard for human rights. It's just once again moving the ball to justify the violence.

timncguy · 11 months ago

i thihnk we can both probably agree that the anti-gays have yet to come up with an argument that doesn't fall apart when argued against. The only argument that they can come up with is "cause the bible tells me so", and that shouldn't work in court.

Akaison · 11 months ago

yes basically that's the whole point. which is why changing the subject will no work by trying to change names. it's not about the natme. the name is the rationale for the bigotry, and not the bigotry itself. even the religion is the rationale when you start arguing with them about what the bible does and does not say.

timncguy · 11 months ago

you can't even convince them that our laws aren't based on the bible. Then they say, well the bible says thou shall not kill and murder is illegal, therefore... They can't grasp the concept that just because some civil laws match some bible rules doesn't mean that one was derived from the other.

Akaison · 11 months ago

No- they understand it. It's just easier to lie to themselves to justify pre decided opinion. Never allow people's rationalizations to fool you into believing they are dumb or thick headed as they claim. Some are. A l ot are not. People have a great skill to lie to themselves.

Akaison · 11 months ago

by the way- as an aside to my post below:

Bowers v Hardwich used this logic of gays being a status and an action, and that its the action that's criminalized. It was widely considered one of the worse rulings in my con law class and my sevreral of my professors. The reason being as I described- Jewish or Catholic is also both a status (one is Catholic by choice)_ and a series of actions (one engaged in communion- that's again a choice). Thus, what's the difference?

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

The U.S didn't actually argue against it. It just didn't say anything either way. It's still inexcuseable, but we need to stay accurate.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Their silence was their no vote. Unless there was some procedural reason for doing so- I don't understand your point. It was done due to the pressure of the political right. When you say stay accurate, I find that confusing. Do you think they were being silent for some other reason other than political pressure ? And, given we are talking gays being killed- what exactly is inaccurate about how I am describing the impact of their actions? Would you say the same thing for other groups? What of a place like Rwanda? I guess I am through making excuses for excuseable behavior,a nd don't understand how my pointing out their behavior (even on yoru terms) is wrong substantively as to intended impact.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

Do remember that Bush and his cronies are still in office. When Bush was governer, he fought to keep the Texas sodomy law on the books.
Saying they argued against it implies that they actually released a statement about why they weren't signing. I'm not excusing their behavior. I think the best way to put it is just that they refused to sign the declaration. Another coalition, run mostly by muslim countries, released a statement against the resolution. The U.S didn't sign that either.

timncguy · 11 months ago

i believe they did issue a statement along the lines of not wanting to sign it because they felt it was a "states' rights" issue.

Akaison · 11 months ago

yet they have signed things regarding other rights so that's just an excuse.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

What do states' rights have to do with this? The resolution was about decriminalizing homosexuality all over the world. It's been completely legal here for five years.

timncguy · 11 months ago

i think they may have been referring to other "nation states" as opposed to the 50 US states.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

Could you give me a link to that statement?

timncguy · 11 months ago

here

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081219/ap_on_re_us...

According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Which is exactly the frame used by the Vatican as a wink-wink nod-nod. The Vactican claims they did not support decriminalization because it would lead to marriage.

This is just a rationalization. both the Vaticans position and that of the U.S. In case of the U.S., it does not even pass the smell test. The U.S. is on the cusp of passing a federal statute regarding housing and employment discrimination for gays that would cover the entire country in every state. Thus, this argument is thin at best. It is more likely they were concerned about relgious pressure to me than that they were really concerened with unrelated issue stha tthey discribe. The resolution was about criminalization of homosexuality.

There was no legal consequence regarding rights. One does not per se lead to the other. No more than a resolution supporting ending violence against women tells countries how to treat women.

Akaison · 11 months ago

I think you are being naive here. Sorry, but that's not the way it went down. The more likely reality is thaqt they feqars the christian right,a nd it's clear obama does too. It's why he refuses to describe this in civil rights terms. It's not a mistake. Like me, obama is a lawyer. He knows there is a moral difference between lower or higher taxes and a civil rights discussion.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

Bush doesn't fear the christian right. He IS the christian right. Obama may fear the christian right, but from what I've seen, he's still of the mind that we're a social issue. Could you show me the statement the U.S released about the resolution.

Akaison · 11 months ago

why would they release a statement along the lines of what I describe. I am telling you to read between the lines.

Jeez, this reminds me of the naivette of the No on 8 campaign. When they Yes on 8 campaign would come out with some lie, the No on 8 crowd thought all they had to do was release some press release saying it was a lie.

This is reality here. Hard nose politics means that people will do things, and not tell you why they did it. so you are left ot use your commons ense about the parties involved to figure it out.

The dangerous approach is to expect the players to be honest with you in open public statements.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

I AM reading between the lines. I know full well why they didn't do anything, but the fact remains that they did NOTHING. They didn't support it, but they didn't oppose it either. Remaining TECHNICALLY neutral will have different long term effects than active opposition. My original point was that with the right's love of distorting things, we can't afford any inaccuracies.

Akaison · 11 months ago

my point is that when you say distort. this is inaccurate. the truth is you seem to think doing nothing not tantamount to U.S. Support. this is the U.N. we are discussing here. The U.S. action carries a lot of weight. They did nothing because they wanted the result to be no. That's reading between the line. Saying they did nothing because they did nothing is not reading between the lines. That's accepting their public argument without understandin the background. there is nothing inaccurate about understanding why they did nothing. We simply disagree about what the action means. I understood contextually to mean something different fromw haty ou think it means. i think there is more support for my position which I can go into in terms of context than yours. The evangelical community in America heavily supporting many of the countries in Africa that are engaged in some of the most heinous practices against gays , for example. You can loook up the present diary on Daily Kos about warren's support of these reactionary forces in Africa. It's about how Warren supports a guy who backs a law with the same measures those used for Para 175. The law used by the Nazis to inprison gays,a nd it was eventually used to put us in concentration camps. The US fully realizes that to do nothing by the US is to support it . If this were women's right-s once again, there would not be a question. It it were some ethinic group genocide the same thing. The context on this is not good for your argument.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

As I said, I know why they're doing this, but your're acting as if they actively opposed it. Passive opposition sends a much weaker message than active opposition. It can't quite be called support because they didn't say anything about the opposing resolution. They should have supported the resolution, but the effects of technical neutrality won't be as strong as active opposition.

Akaison · 11 months ago

I acting like I know what they are doing is meant to approve without doing so. It may send a weaker message, but the message is clear. You are spliting hairs. I hope the fact that they don't actively support violence makes you feel better. But it does nothing for me when I know with say women they would be active in preventing it. You also can not know what the effect will be. I say it will be that people feel that when the last remaining super power can't be bothered to say "no" that means they tacitly endorse it. It's like you witnessing a murder where the murder knows you could have an impact on preventing it, but you do nothing. Does that mean you are murdering someone? No. But to say that means they do not see your inaction as a cause to continue is also a stretch.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

No it doesn't make me feel better that they don't actively oppose it. Neither of us can know the outcome for sure, but in case you haven't noticed, the rest of the world doesn't take us that seriously anymore. I find it unlikely that the countries that criminalize us would change regardless of what we do. I think the most likely result of the U.S's refusal to sign is that nothing will change either way, but when other countries start leaning on them, they won't be able to say that we opposed the resolution.

matty · 11 months ago

Akaison's anger clouds his/hers judgment. He doesn't care if we're on the same team. That's the LAST thing our movement needs.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Funny. I was thinking your lack of factual analysis or understanding of politics or the law cloud yours.

Akaison · 11 months ago

I can know the behavior patterns, and understand using my political science background what that means.

What you believe to me is kind of irrelevant to that understanding of how the U.N. works.

No they will not decrimininalize just because we say so. But they will feel pressure to do so.

Yes, evangelicals here have been making overtures abroad, especially in African countries as the link I provide describes. Thus, they have every incentive behind the scenes to pressure the US, and given politics in teh US for the US government to listen.

This is not based on how I feel. this is ust how politics works.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

With the number of countries signing the resolution, they'll feel pressure regardless of what we do. How much more pressure do you really think they would feel if we had signed it? Most of these countries don't care for us anyway, especially after the things we've done in the last five years.

Akaison · 11 months ago

letsw compare this , for example , to issues of women's rights abroad. to me I think this is giving them too much for taking the cowardly way of saying no.

rmichels · 11 months ago

thanks for explaining; much appreciated

Akaison · 11 months ago

by the way- going back to Jim Crow and the KKK. People often miss what the KKK wanted. They didn't 'hate" blacks if we stayed in our place as they defined it. What they hated were the "uppidy" blacks who did not understand their place as the KKK membership defined it. The terror that they perpetrated against blacks was to remind us to conform to social norms or else. They would use religion to back these arguments.

The similar dynamic is found regarding sexual orientation. We just don't think of it like this, but it doesn't change the reality of what's happening.

If youa re gay, think about how controleld we are regarding public displays of affection.

We like to think "it 's my choice." But really - that's a lie we tell our selves. We may or may not choose it, but its not clear what would happen if we didn't. There is that fear related to it. That's part of the reality of how terror works. It's the same dynamics that my parents experienced with race- stay in your place or else. The black community too rationalized these choices as our own even when often they weren't choice. They were there by force of fear.

petra glyph · 11 months ago

That's an easy one. I'll take the marriage option and full equality. Separate is not equal, or so I was always taught.

scottinsf · 11 months ago

No.

islandmom · 11 months ago

I think marriage should be something only performed by a church. I think the various states should perform civil unions. I'm a straight married female. I think the document I get from city hall should be for that of a civil union -- and should be available to EVERYONE. Let churches keep marriages if they want.

NGLTF · 11 months ago

I'm curious, did you get married in a church? And are you an atheist? Then why would you deny glbt Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc the right of marriage in their house of worship?

jgm22 · 11 months ago

I'm curious too. it's easy to say oh church - marriage and state - civil union. but that's not reality.

timncguy · 11 months ago

that's not what she is saying. She is saying have all state licenses for gay and straights be for civil unions. Then let ANY church marry any gay or straight couple they want to because a religious marriage would be of no LEGAL value at all. A religious marriage would only be between the couple, their churh and their god(s).

I agree with this as a concept. I just don't think you would EVER be able to get all the thousands of laws and company policies changed from marriage to union.

NGLTF · 11 months ago

No, she said "Let churches keep marriages if they want." That statement assumes that churches are not a place for gays. It is an extremely offensive and bigoted statement. If she is an atheist, then it is not her right to give away someone else's religious freedom. If she is religious, then she has sinned against God by proposing to strip other humans of the same rights she enjoys.

Troy3 · 11 months ago

let's also remember that in those 40,000+ laws which form the body of law applicable to marriage, it's called "marriage" not "civil union"
would they just automatically apply?

(at least, that's what i reckon)

Akaison · 11 months ago

not necessarily. that's the problem. It's not as easy as people here want to pretend. Part of the problem is they are looking for a simple solution, but all around it's not clear a) it would work any better and b) it is certain the end result would be worse for many reasons because the 1) the law itself would b emore limited and 2) the impact of the law would be more limited (as to application ). in the case of 2) the courts and lawyers would have to litigate it. It would become an issue that requires money. Money that not all gays, depsite appreances have. it would penalize low income gays. Gays in red areas would be more effect, etc.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Follow up to comment below:

NJ and other states are demonstrating how much hassle is involved. When we get more states involved with differing laws, you will have even more of a mess. Whereas the law regarding civil marriage is settled. It's really the easier solution as to the legal questions.

timncguy · 11 months ago

no, it doesn't assume anything. That's just what you are reading into it.. There are churches right now that will perform gay marriages. She didn't say let Rick Warren's church keep marriage. She didn't say let the fundamentalist churches or the catholic churches. She didn't exclude any church from it's own idea of marriage.

islandmom · 11 months ago

Hi Timncguy,
You understood what I'm trying to say. Look. I want gay marriage to be equal and I am extremely frustrated by the fact it is not legal throughout the US. I realize my idea will never fly but I'm suggesting a different approach. A different marketing angle, if you will. I believe strongly in a separation of church & state. I do not want to tell any religion what they should do. I do however, feel that the state has an obligation to marry both straight & gay couples. So, I'm saying let's change the wording. States are to perform civil unions for EVERYONE. This way, everyone is equal under the law. Then if you want to have your union recognized by your temple or church, etc, you can do that (or not) but under the law, I want all "unions" to be viewed as equal.

Again, this is just a concept. Not likely to happen but an idea I have just the same.

Butch1 · 11 months ago

We do not need to revisit, " Separate, but Equal," let's go for equal rights of marriage, period.

NGLTF · 11 months ago

The whole "civil unions" theme is being used even by the Republicans and the Fundamentalists as a smokescreen. It has become a default response by politicians when confronted about equal rights. Yet journalists never follow-up with the obvious: how do any of these people propose to get each seperate 42,398 pieces of legislation passed that would parallel marriage? No one even kids themselves that this could or would ever be done. Think about it. It is a total impossibility. That is why the Right loves the meme so much.

rmichels · 11 months ago

First, you're wrong to think that civil unions as opposed to marriage is a meme of the Right. It's a meme of the mainstream Left. Unless you think Barack Obama is a gay bashing bigot, then maybe he's on the Right too.

Second, and to the point at hand, people don't win equal rights by pushing for second-class rights. Regardless of where American opinion is today, at this moment, gay and lesbian Americans and their allies must be pushing for full equality now, nothing less. Which doesn't mean that will be achieved immediately or even within the next 4 to 8 years. But you don't get equality unless you push for equality. To me it seems a no-brainer.

And that's spoken as someone who, on the other hand, isn't upset with the choice of Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation. The idea that you have to put other people down, publicly shame them, shun them, whatever in order to demonstrate your own entitlement to equal rights isn't something I identify with. I don't think it's something John Lewis identified with either when he was fighting non-violently for equal rights back in the early 60s. If you're strong in your principles, the Rick Warrens are to be pitied, not hated. We're going to win this fight because we're on the side of right and we represent a fuller realization of fundamental American values.

Push, push hard and for what we really deserve: full equality and nothing less, and that means marriage.

timncguy · 11 months ago

what is "violent" about objecting loudly to Obama placing an anti-gay bigot on the stage in a place of honor at the inauguration?

And, you don't honestly believe that John Lewis (and everyone else) wouldn't object just as loudly if Obama had placed a racist in that same position do you?

Of course Obama never would place a racist tere. And, therein lies the problem. Racism and every other "ism" is considered more important than anti-gay bigotry. Anti-gay bigotry is reduced to nothing more than a disagreement on social issues.

rmichels · 11 months ago

Wow. You read a lot into my comments. I wasn't suggesting that anyone today was acting violently or contemplating such.

But when John Lewis and others were pushing for equal rights in the early 60s they had to deal on a daily basis with people in positions of power who didn't recognize the full equality they were demanding. Some of these people were their allies, by the way. But Lewis and the young civil rights activists didn't spend their precious energy condeming ANYONE. Hey, at that time ALL of the ministers giving invocations at inaugurals and at ball games and many other venues were white supremacists of some degree or other. That was so beside the point. Lewis knew he had American principles on his side and that gave him the strength to push forward in the face of billy clubs and mace and the likelyhood of death. It's so not about the superior virtue of being persecuted in a way that others are not subjected to. it's about achieving full equality now, nothing less. Push for that and we will get there. Like that guy from Men's Warehouse says, "I guarantee it." :)

Gary SF · 11 months ago

Above you wrote: "The idea that you have to put other people down, publicly shame them, shun them, whatever in order to demonstrate your own entitlement to equal rights isn't something I identify with." Are you referring to Warren or to the posters here? If Matthew Shepard were still with us, I'd let him know that he needs to pity his attackers. Regarding all of the hoopla over this: Obama is very fortunate that we are making so much noise. If the MSM had instead focused upon Warren's anti-Semitic or other opinions, he may have actually had to disinvite Warren, which would have been a mess. As to your suggested approach, there was the Martin Luther King approach and there was the Malcolm X approach. Ditto for the feminists who were working within the system while others were in the streets, burning their bras. It all helps in the end and no ONE approach can succeed without the other. Good cop, bad cop. Black and white. Merry and Christmas.

rmichels · 11 months ago

I disagree with your view that it all helps in the end, preferring very much the NVCD approach of the early civil rights movement to the black power identity politics that succeeded it but, right or wrong, you and I and our fellow Americans, gay and straight, are going to get to the promised land. That I'm very sure of. And Merry Christmas to you too! :)

Akaison · 11 months ago

the point is that you can not know which approach worked in the end because both were a part of the mix. you are saying "but I prefer this"a nd he is saying "what you prefer is not historically what happened" and thus, you can not simply go on what you prefer. Nor should the gay movement because whaty ou prefer maybe in all likelihood not based on reality.

rmichels · 11 months ago

Well, to be clearer, I prefered the early civil rights approach precisely because of what happened historically. You know as well as I do that the civil rights movement, for all its gains, was not entirely a success. By some pretty important measures, 50 years later we still live in a society that is divided and very unequal in racial terms. Black power identity politics didn't 'cause' the abiding failures--double digit unemployment, single-parent and no-parent families, rampant illiteracy, etc-- but it took the movement down a dead-end path of self-righteous victimology that, perhaps, with the election of Mr. Obama, has finally begun to play itself out. Rightly or wrongly, I hear echoes of that victimology approach in what I'd call the over-the-top chest-beating about Rick Warren.

In any event, happy holidays to you and yours.

Akaison · 11 months ago

the legal battles mostly were won 50 years ago.

we have to win the legal landscape first. which the civil rights movement with its various arms did accomplish.

the problem with your hearing over rich warren is that you seem to hear whatyou want to hear. that's why i don't trust whatyou saying here.

rich warren is the opposite of victim hood. unles you are a conservative and don't understand what a victim is. a victim is omeone who takes a punch, and then apologizes for getting in the way of the fist.

a fighter is someone who says "fuck you" this is not going to happen. the "on warren is no big deal" crowd are the victims here.

not the hell no to warren crowd.

you speak of the civil rights movmenet but you seem to posses little understanding of it.

its like i am talking to andrew sullivan. he recently made some comment on his site about how interracial marriage was first condoned , and then made legal.

i was dumbfounded by how stupid he was there. the fact is the opposite happened.

Gary SF · 11 months ago

Here are a few observations:

1. The incorrect assumption is that the majority of people who oppose same-sex marriage would approve of civil unions for same-sex couples. I don't believe it for a minute. Many of those who are against same-sex marriage want to also make domestic partner benefits illegal. I can't see those folks voting for civil unions. The Vatican and other religious organizations will stir things up to prevent civil unions.

2. If civil unions are 'allowed' each and every right will have to be negotiated. We will definitely lose out on some of the 'marriage rights' - deals will have to be made with Republicans and 'Blue Dog' Democrats.


3. As others have said, getting every state to recognize civil unions will be a task more difficult than the Equal Rights Amendment, which if I remember correctly, never did pass.

4. Then there is the 'international' problem. I am in the process of having Spain recognize my pre-election marriage. There were already a lot of questions, but I don't know how 'civil unions' would have to be treated by international law.

In short, it will be a huge mess. Plus it is 'separate but equal' and that is always wrong.

timncguy · 11 months ago

you are right. There are already many on the right who use the "slippery slope" argument to battle against civil unions or ANY type of marriage-lite benefits for gays that don't even include ALL the rights. To think they would just roll over and go along with changing all marriage licenses for gays and straights to civil unions or even implementing civil unions for gays alone and leaving marriage for straights is pure folly.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Here's my view of the "civil union" crowd. What they really want is an easy way that does not require a fight. they want to find something that will placate the right. This is where they get it wrong. There is nothing that will placate them. This is the same crowd that just last week did not want to decriminalize homosexuality across the planet despite the fact that they know that gays are being executed for being gays. People, here in the US, confuse that we don't do this with where the limits of what he religous right wants on our rights.

timncguy · 11 months ago

I would agree with them on civil unions in theory IF THEY MADE IT APPLY TO STRAIGHT COUPLES AS WELL. Then it would be equal. But, we all know that would never happen.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Which is why what they describe is even more of an uphill battle. We are asking straights to change their relationship rights under the law if we did what the pro "lets all civil union" people had their way. I think its more likely for them to give us marrage than for them to give up their right to marry.

timncguy · 11 months ago

but, they could marry, in their church. It just wouldn't carry any legal weight. It would be just between them, their church and their god(s). It's exactly what they say they want. To keep the "sanctity" of marriage as a religious institution. We just know that isn't what they really mean. Because all the gays could go to their churches and get "married" too. That would really rile them up....

matty · 11 months ago

Well that pretty much sums up my view of your interaction in this entire debate... all you're really looking for is a fight. You're rightfully angry, but misdirected.

You want religion to accept us as homosexuals. You'll never get that. Give it up and just work for your civil rights. Take the simple path and separate religion from civility and maybe you won't be so angry all the time.

timncguy · 11 months ago

Here is a thought on a different way to approach this.

If marriage is considered a "states' rights" issue, what would happen if one state decided to ban marriage completely for ALL citizens gay and straight. Say, for example, that Utah finally got pissed off about the abolition of polygamy and decided to just ban all marriages. And, they also invalidated all the existing marriages already on the books in the state. And, they invalidate the marriage of anyone that moves to Utah from another state. And, in doing this they remove all the state rights and responsibilities that go with marriage. And, in effect, also remove all the federal rights and responsibilities of marriage from its citizens as well.

Would the Supreme Court look kindly upon a state not allowing ANY of its citizens to get legally married?

And, if they wouldn't look kindly upon it, then why should they approve of any state denying an entire CLASS of citizens the right and responsibilities of marriage?

davidi92260 · 11 months ago

We got married in the county courthouse. There was no church involved. What is the big deal with the religious aspect? There was no mention of God in our ceremony with the county clerk! This is all a smokescreen for our lives to NEVER be accepted in the eyes of these bigots. We were married in Ca. We have it and they want to take it away. We will fight to keep it. We are also registered as domestic partners, but it is NOT the same as marriage. We should be treated as equals, just as the Ca supreme court has originally ordered. We need to fight for the entire thing and not settle for less.

liberaldemdave · 11 months ago

ah...separate but equal...

unfortunately, it's always "separate"
but never "equal".

pass.

Jeff in Miami · 11 months ago

Yes. We can't wait forever with no protection in places like Florida. We must make this step first. Some of us aren't getting any younger, you know.

James · 11 months ago

The civil rights of minorities have never been granted by our elected representatives; civil rights have come first from the courts. We can protest and march and blog and decry "separate is not equal" till the cows come home. Let's put our money and our efforts into supporting those legitimate cases that can be argued and won in the courts.

timncguy · 11 months ago

gee, what was all that hulabaloo about civil rights legislation that was passed by congress and signed into law by President Johnson in the 60s? Those were elected representatives, weren't they? And, as I recall, public opinion wasn't on their side when they did it either. Now, if we had a set of elected reps with some balls today, they could do it again for the LGBT community.

DougStamate · 11 months ago

As long as any legislation that establishes such "civil unions" explicitly states that said "unions" are legally the equivalent of marriages, whether civil or religious, there is no problem. Of course, if the law is phrased that way, those who oppose civil rights for gays will still be against it; but at least they won't be unable to hide behind the word "marriage" anymore.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

Civil Unions may be equal in theory, but as we've seen in New Jersey, not in practice.
http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/1st-Interim...

AdamBlast · 11 months ago

We have seen that civil unions in NJ do not work--they are simply a way to continue denying rights peicemeal. That this is better than *nothing* is little comfort to the couple seperated by INS laws, the widower denied custody or a pension.

We have seen that the word marriage is NOT the real issue. In Arizona they voted against civil unions at the same time. In Arkansas they stripped our right to adopt children. This is about gay rights plain and simple, it's about human dignity, inalienable rights, and equality under the law.

Sadly, as far as gay rights is concerned, Obama has yet to show himself a leader of vision, conscience, or true American spirit. He's our best hope so far, and has offered us precious little to hope for.

A few months ago, the CA Supreme Court said that marriage equality was a fundamental constitutional right.

Then they let the public change the constitution.

Now they have to decide just how fundamental that right is. The Attorney General of CA is on our side. If Obama proved--right now--that he was on our side as well, a friend of the court, those judges would not have to fear recall.

The time is now, Obama, to take a step toward equality for all, Or, by sidestepping it, to let American freedoms step farther backwards--to let a class of citizens fall, on your watch.

Akaison · 11 months ago

Very good post regarding the adoption law issue. This was after Repubicans and others argued against the law. It still passed due to conservative evangelical lies.

VegasDave · 11 months ago

If civil unions conferred the same rights granted to married persons, I would be for it. But, we already know that won't happen. Until I can visit my husband in the hospital in all 50 states, get inheritance rights, make medical decisions, and all the other rights granted to married couples and indirectly to common-law couples, I won't support seperate but equal.

timncguy · 11 months ago

Doesn't marriage pre-date religion? Certainly it pre-dates Christianity. How did Christians claim ownership of marriage when the concept pre-dates their existence? Just because they published a book that claims to know the beginning of time?

AdamBlast · 11 months ago

No kidding. This is state-supported religious discrimination, not to put too fine a point on it. The gay rights backlash, while predictable, should never have been allowed to this extent if we were a nation that believed its own preamble.

Much of America seems to believe there's no such thing as "going too far" as long as they've got the marjority religious opinion. Persecution of gays must end, whether under the guise of religion, or the figleaf of political and social populism. Equality comes when we demand it.

timncguy · 11 months ago

it's religious discrimation on more than one level. They certainly won't legalize gay marriages performed by religious denominations that support marriage equality. So, the goverment is actually elevating one set of religious beliefs over another. And, I thought the goverment wasn't supposed to IMPOSE any religion on the citizens.

Akaison · 11 months ago

exactly right. the assumption that all religion agrees on this is also a false one. this is why I say we should be pushing for more religious involvement in the fight for our rights, not less. We ceed territory that is not their province alone.

timncguy · 11 months ago

I say we get the Catholics to demand the states stop issuing marriage licenses to divorced hetero Catholics. LOL

smugglerdurant · 11 months ago

I completely agree. And will go further to say that the word "marriage" shouldn't even be a legal term since it can only be applied to "one man and one woman". The fact that it is - is blatant disregard for the separation of church and state and should - and will eventually - be fought to the highest court.

timncguy · 11 months ago

you are wrong. CIVIL marriage is a legal term and can be applied to whatever the state wants to apply it to. It is different than religious marriage, that's why it is called CIVIL marriage. No church or no religion owns the word marriage. If it did, straight couples would be required to get married in a church and they are not. Legal marriage pre-dates Christianity. So, the Christians need to get over the idea that they own the concept. They don't.

AdamBlast · 11 months ago

I can't understand why both Christianists *AND* some libertarians claim the word "marriage" can only be religious and therefore shouldn't be applied to gays.

I guess the libertarians are so eager to disband big government that they're ready to hold gay equality hostage to convincing all Americans to give up the word "marriage" out of the generousity of their hearts. Or at least the ones that didn't get married in a church. Yeah, that'll go over.

It'd be funny... if it wasn't my bare human dignity and inalienable rights they're willing to sacrifice for their silly cause of no-secular-marriages-for-anyone.

Carlton · 11 months ago

We had civil unions in CA, but it was not until we the state legalized same-sex marriage before we decided to "get married". Civil unions seem made up.

AngelaChanning · 11 months ago

Part of me finds the pragmatic, piecemeal method of going for civil unions first and then marriage later, sounds appealing. But then thinking more about this....the evangelicals and their merry band will fight any kind of gay right legislation. Rick Warren and his crew say they are for civil unions but that does not always happpen. Otherwise, why don't the majority of states have civil unions right now? Let's see where Obama gets with the campaign promise of federal civil unions. Hmmm mmm.

timncguy · 11 months ago

Obama NEVER made a promise to fight for federal civil unions. I thought that was what he had proposed. So, I emailed his campaign to verify what he meant. The response from his campaign was that Obama supports giving full federal benefits to gay couples who live in a state that have legal recognition of gay couples. But, if you live in a state with no legal recognition, no benefits for you. Obama did also promise to use the "bully pulpit" of the presidency to press individual states to approve of civil unions. But, he in no way was prepared to try to implement federal civil unions.

Ivyfree · 11 months ago

I'm in favor of full marital equality, right now. I don't think it'll happen. I'm aware that civil unions aren't the same as marriage, but I think it's the next reasonable step to take. A campaign for marriage will fail; the fundagelicals are aware that they're losing their political clout and will fight it with everything they've got. A campaign for civil unions has a greater chance of being successful, and then some lawsuits, and then marriage.

It's not right, but it has a greater chance of success. That would seem to be the point. And for what it's worth, I'm straight.

coltergeist · 11 months ago

I agree. Civil Unions have the same legal effect as marriage. You get to inherit your spouse's stuff, visit them in the hospital, adopt, be covered under medical plans, etc. The tangible aspects of marriage are usually included in civil unions. Just not the psychological equality of "marriage."

Yes, the GLBT community deserves more, but part of scoring a touchdown is drving down the field and we can't all have Joe Montana throwing long bombs for our team. Sometimes you have to run the ball. Not so glamorous, but it gets the job done.

The religous wrongists will fight anything, but they would not have the the advantage of good marketing on their side. Fighting gays getting married appeals to the paranoid lot. Fighting civil unions will not have the same gut reaction. That's my take. Take what you can get, but don't stop til it's equal.

AdamBlast · 11 months ago

In what state, or community, do civil unions have the same legal effect? Only in your idealized imagination. It *doesn't" get the job done, as New Jersey has already proved.

That civil unions are, in theory, better than *nothing* will be small comfort when the INS is splitting couples apart or when widowers find themselves without custody rights or a pension.

If the word "marriage" was the real stumbling block, would state populations be denying us civil unions too, as they're doing? Or denying gays their adoption rights? This is about whether or not we have equal dignity and inalienable rights not subject to majority whim. At the moment, one religious view holds legal sway over the fundamental rights of many.

Obama shows every sign of sidestepping the renewed oppression of gay people. He could step in, in CA, if he understood and was indeed committed to the preamble of the US Constitution.

I was already going to avoid the invocation. Will I have to avoid the swearing in as well? You're not promising to uphold the constitution *sometimes*, Obama.

timncguy · 11 months ago

The domestic parternships in CA that are supposed to give gay couples ALL the same rights as marriage are not equal at all. You have to PROVE things such as that you live togther, both are residents of CA and have comingled finances in order to qualify to register with the state. Jst what do straight couples have to PROVE in order to qualify to get a marriage license?

Now, you may say, they need to prove this so that a bunch of gays wouldn't just sign up to get the benefits. And, to that I would say what is stopping straights from doing the same thing with a marriage? I imagine there are many straight marriages that are for convenience only and have nothing to do with love.

Akaison · 11 months ago

I have friends who got married in college (they are straight) because they wanted better financial aid. Married couples get better financial aid. This is the reality of the legal consequences. They divorced a year after graduating.

timncguy · 11 months ago

so much for that "sanctity of marriage" argument, huh?

Akaison · 11 months ago

Oh, I don't listen to that b.s. I know it's b.s based on the stats. The place where people are most likely to vote against gay marriage and civil unions are often the places with the highest rates of divorce and relationships out wedlock. It's not about marriage.

It's about bigotry. I have had guys who do not go to church, sleep with multiple women, etc, tell me with a straight face (no pun intended) that they are against gays getting marriage due to the Bible. When I point out they are sleeping around with women (including one guy with several strippers) their response is - but the Bible condones straight sex, not gay sex. I have had straights condone sex with under age girls or boys because it was straight sex, and those girls or boys knew what they were doing.

That's the real truth. The problem with the gay movement and many gays is we have so much baggage that we don't take the time to realize that the hets are full of shit. They could careless abou tmarriage. This is because gay sex is icky. That's it. End of story. The rest of bullshit raitonalization.

I leave you with this. In Ca, there was a proposition to require parental notification that failed while Prop 8 passed. If this were about the bible, why did the parental notification pass considering that would violate two things under the Bible- honor thy parents and murder. So, I don't listen to the lies.

I just wish more gay people would stop rationalizing it. I know why they do. It's because these peopla e their friends and family. So they can call them what they are for fear of losing them. So they start buying into the lies.

matty · 11 months ago

See dude/dudete... marriage for you is all about religious acceptance. That and you're full of "Het Hate". You're just an angry individual, which makes you a detriment to civil rights for all.

Take a chill, learn to integrate yourself into society instead of FIGHTING society, and you'll find that you can change a lot more minds along the way.

I don't think you're a 'bad' person... you just try to rationalize your opinion by using tactics actually pioneered by republicans and the religious right - you say one thing and accuse others of the same. Cheap tactics. I relate it to too much debate class in your younger years.

Akaison · 11 months ago

You don't know me. The more you post the more that's clear. I am neither for or against religion. My posts are about the rights, and how quickly we can obtain those rights given the political and legal hurdles we face AND comparing that against historical struggles of this nature. That's it. The rest is irrelevant to me. Including your idealogical issues about religion. I have the same views of Christians as I do atheists. I am a deist. Thus none of it really matters to me. If I thought we could call it mo-yaa-yoo-yoo, and have all the rights the quickest. I would go for that. If I thought civil unions had some real argument for it beyond fear, I would go for that. BUT, I know how the legal process works. I know history and I know politics. That's why I disagre with you. So, you conintue to post your assumptions with your baggage. I don't care. I am clear what this is about even if you aren't.

caphillprof · 11 months ago

Civil unions are not marriages are not marriages are not marriages. A civil union and a couple dollars will get you a cup of coffee. Even where they try, civil unions are never the equivalent of marriage. There are always distinctions. Really, it's marriage for us or divorce the lot of them.

tlsintx · 11 months ago

equal rights is not asking too much.

i should be able to marry who I love, no matter my sexual orientation.

BeccaMorn · 11 months ago

My wife and I have a 'domestic partnership' from California. Know what that means outside the state of CA? Bupkiss. Nada.

Separate is never equal. The only viable alternative is to chuck the whole 'marriage' term altogether and use civil union for everyone.

But then we end up in the same semantic swamp. Do I get to say 'my wife'? Or that I'm married? What is the subjunctive state noun of 'to be one in a civil union'? 'Unionized'?

Our real problem is we've let one group of religious organizations dictate what is and isn't a marriage in America -- and then they've pushed it through the government. There's supposed to be a Constitutional separation between 'church and state', and no laws concerning the establishment of religion.

Yet really, when you get down to it, the opponents of same-sex marriage (please, for the love of God, stop calling it GAY MARRIAGE -- you're leaving out the other half of us), their arguments are always religiously based. 'Tradition' (except for the Old Testament harems for David and Solomon...and don't get me started on the whole Handmaiden thing). And 'marriage is sacred'. If that's so, then why does government have any standing in it?

What about all those religious faiths that have no issue with same-sex marriage? Why does someone else's definition of what is 'sacred' and 'holy' to them have to mean that my wife and I don't get legal, secular recognition.

That is what's wrong with it.

timncguy · 11 months ago

No, you shouldn't call it "unionized". I always preferred to call it "civilized" versus married! LOL Then when asked by someone if you are married, you can say... why no, we're civilized. LOL

Now onto the other point. And, I don't mean this with any disrespoect, but aren't lesbians gay? Isn't gay a non specific term that applies to both male and female homosexuals? I never have understood why females get a specific term "lesbian" and males don't. Why is that?

BeccaMorn · 11 months ago

There's a reason why we use the acronym "LGBT". True, from a strict reading of older definitions of 'gay' it was originally intended to represent both.

But starting with the lesbian feminist movements of the 60s and 70s, we came to recognize we were not exactly the same as our male counterparts, and did not always have the same goals and needs. Moreover, there's a recognition that 'gay women' experienced not only discrimination for being homosexual, but also for being female.

This isn't a 'getting to decide' what's proper or not. It was a heartfelt request -- and expressed as a parenthetical aside, not some 'litany' of acceptable terminology.

AdamBlast · 11 months ago

You're certainly right that "same-sex marriage" is a more inclusive term, and one that I could use to have on the tip of my tongue at least as often as "gay marriage". For what it's worth.

Personally, I'm out to reclaim the word "gay" as being *perfectly* good enough to to describe the class of citizenry oppessed by this ongoing state-sanctioned religious discrimination..

BeccaMorn · 11 months ago

Good point that, Adam.

I'm also pleased we've reclaimed the term 'queer' and turned it into a badge of defiant honor.

Now if we could only do the same with "liberal" (which I happen to be as well...) ;)

timncguy · 11 months ago

actually, many people prefer to use the term "marriage equality" in an effort to stop the complaints from the right that we are asking for "special" rights as opposed to "equal" rights.

Bucky · 11 months ago

I'm with you Tim. I always use "marriage equality" as well. It removes that feeling that too many straight people get when they think about all things gay. And it reminds them that this is about civil rights and equality, not special rights and the "gay agenda."

akaison · 11 months ago

Actually just came up with a way to make it really work:

"Civil Marriage Equality"

That encapsulates the entire debate- both the civil rights equality aspect and the nature of the fact that this is a secular discussion

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

Another problem with "gay-marriage" is whether it's the proper term for when one of the participants is bisexual or trans.

Akaison · 11 months ago

It should be called civil marriage. This more accurately conveys to fence sitters what this is about. It's about civil marriage rights. We can learn a lot fromt he right about how to properly market things. Instead o asking yourself "what do I want to call it" ask yoruself what will make it easier to mass market the concept to the lowest common denominator? normally someone with very little time to understand the issues regarding the various subgroups.

timncguy · 11 months ago

but, you liked the "civilized" part, right. LOL

BeccaMorn · 11 months ago

Oh yeah. It was a hoot. *lol*

scottinsf · 11 months ago

Well some of us don't like the term same-sex marriage. Sex, sex, sex. That's all we gays and lesbians think marriage is about eh ;-)

AdamBlast · 11 months ago

You rock, BeccaMorn, and Merry Christmas! That said--while we're touching on soft spots--you don't get to decide that the word gay doesn't include lesbians or must always be followed with a litany of other terms for valid discussion. You'll find plenty of lesbians with different ideas on those topics as well.

Josh · 11 months ago

19 states already ban civil unions. The Religious Right is against civil unions as well.

Dagobert2nd · 11 months ago

Separate but equal (civil unions for gays) is never equal.

jeff · 11 months ago

Being in a binational relationship. I will take any legal recognition that allows me equal immigration rights. I agree that smaller steps may be the way to go.

Anna · 11 months ago

I, too, am in a binational relationship and would like to fight for full Federal Marriage rights, because nothing less grants us the opportunity to sponsor our partners for greencards...we are desperate for a solution. Come summer, when my partner's visa runs out, we will probably emigrate to Canada so as not to be torn apart, again...

AltonDarwin · 11 months ago

Feathers will undoubtedly be ruffled, but here goes...

Marriage is an ancient institution that has had many forms and definitions. The passion displayed here and elsewhere is indicative of the psychological and spiritual yearning that loving couples wish to share in matrimony. However, in those myriad definitions of monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, arranged marriages, yadda yadda yadda, I have yet to see a single spiritual text that endorses SAME-GENDER marriage.

98%-99% of the world population believes in some form of spirituality. Marriage is exulted in most of those faiths. It's an extraordinary uphill battle to expect that folks will turn off their "faith" because marriage has been co-opted to include a whole host of civil advantages. And it's because of those advantages that this whole debate is more complicated.

To me, the civil bit is ALREADY separate from the actual marriage. When my wife and I married, the minister lost our paperwork, so we weren't registered as married with the state for years. Still, people came to the wedding; my wife changed her name; she was covered under my insurance as were our kids.

Whether civil unions become the de facto standard for everyone, or a temporary "holding pattern" for GLBT couples, GET THE RIGHTS ASAP, by any means necessary. Calling it "marriage" may come later, but having the rights will offer much needed protections. As an aside, no one can legislate your invitations. Put what you want on them and share your commitment and love with your family, friends and community. At the end of the day, that's what I hope matters most.

AdamBlast · 11 months ago

Most of us believe we *ARE* fighting for those rights ASAP--not to mention our common humanity--when we say civil unions are little more than a way to keep *denying* us our rights peicemeal.

State after state has proved this isn't about the word marriage, it's about the idea of gay rights. Civil unions are a way to make sure that the vast majority of legal rights associated with marriage *ARE NOT* transferred to us. We'll take every peicemeal local and state law that grants us any equality, but we'll continue to demand the inalienable rights we deserve.

kladinvt · 11 months ago

98-99% of the world's population are spiritual? Since when? That means that only 1 or 2% are agnostic or atheists? I don't buy those figures. Americans love to claim to be "religious", but if that were really the case, every single Sunday, in every state & city, there would be reports of "rush hour-like" traffic jams as the "people of faith" run off to their places of worship. It doesn't happen, why not? I think it's because Americans in particular, feel it necessary to 'claim a belief' in something or other, but that's as far as it goes.

Religion is used, as always, as a tool in the "marriage VS civil union" debate, in order to mask some people's homophobia, just as it was in the past to mask racism or misogyny.

AltonDarwin · 11 months ago

Not to nitpick, but "believing in some form of spirituality" is not the same as being openly religious, worshipping every Sunday, etc. That's the same sort of false equivalency that plagues the major debates of our day. As long as there have been gods to worship, those gods have shared in marriage.

Look, from an intellectual standpoint, it's easy to see that marriage offers rights and protections that should be shared by all people. All arguments about excluding same-gender couples those rights fall apart with only modest pressure. However, regardless of the contradictions of high divorce rates, multiple marriages, infidelity, etc. the vast majority of Western civilization has an irrationally romanticized vision of God uniting two people in a sacred bond. Right or wrong, that's an awfully tough nut to crack.

The psychology of reconciling "sinful" homosexuality and one of "God's greatest sacramental blessings" may forever exceed the grasp of all interested parties. Either way, there will be significant push-back from the radical right as marital rights are insured for all citizens.

Nakhone Keodara · 11 months ago

Traditional Marriage Perverts Tradition of Marriage
by Jeff Goode (Californian)


About a decade ago, as a young playwright, I was hired to write a script for the Renaissance Festival of Kansas City. It was a period piece about knights and jousts and intrigues of the court, building up to a lavish royal wedding between a prince and a princess, restoring peace to the troubled land.


This was one of my first professional writing assignments, so I was really excited about doing all the research and making sure that everything was historically accurate, especially the royal wedding which needed to follow all the traditions exactly.


Over a summer of research, I learned a lot of surprising facts about the history of marriage and weddings, but by far the most shocking discovery of all was that the tradition of marriage-as-we-know-it simply did not exist in those days. Almost everything we have come to associate with marriage and weddings - the white dress, the holy vows, the fancy cake and the birdseed - dates back a mere 50 or 100 years at the most. In many cases less.


And the handful of traditions that do go back farther than that are, frankly, horrifying. The tossing of the garter, for example, evolved from a 14th Century tradition of ripping the clothing off of the bride's body as she left the ceremony in order to "loosen her up" for the wedding night. Wedding guests fought over the choicest bits of undergarment, with the garter being the greatest prize. Savvy brides got in the habit of carrying extra garters in their bodice to throw to the male guests in hopes of escaping the ceremony with some shred of modesty intact!


It turns out that marriage, in days of old, was a barbaric custom which was little more than a crude exchange of livestock at it's most civilized, and a little less than ritualized abduction at it's worst. That's why you'll find no reference to white weddings in the Bible, or the union of one man and one woman. Because up until fairly recently, there was nothing religious about it.


You will of course find plenty of biblical bigamy, practiced by even the most godly of heroes - Noah, Abraham, David, Solomon - because that's what marriage was in those days. Even in more enlightened New Testament times, the only wedding worth mentioning (the one at Cana) is notable only for the miraculous amount of wine consumed.


In the 21st Century, we've heard a lot about the sanctity of marriage, as if that were something that has been around forever, but in reality the phrase was invented in 2004. Google it for yourself and see if you can find a single reference to the "sanctity of marriage" before the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions in that state. The proverbial Sanctity of Marriage sprang into being because opponents of gay marriage needed a logical reason to overturn an established legal precedent. And the only thing that trumps the Constitution is God himself. Unfortunately, God is still pretty new to the whole marriage game (or he might have made an honest woman out of the Virgin Mary, am I right? Try the veal!)


The truth is that marriage has always been more a secular tradition rather than a religious one. Up until the early Renaissance, in fact, couples were traditionally married on the church's front doorstep, because wedding ceremonies were considered too vulgar to be performed inside the building: After all, there was implied sex in the vows and shameless public displays of affection. No clergyman in his right mind would have allowed such an unholy abomination on the premises.


But as times changed, ideas and attitudes about marriage also changed. So when people became religious, matrimony became holy. When people became nudists, clothing became optional. And so on throughout history.


And the wonderful thing about the institution of marriage - the reason it has remained strong and relevant through thousands of years of ever-changing times - is its unique ability to change with those times.


Marriage is, and always has been, a constantly evolving tradition that never fails to incorporate the latest shifts in culture and climate, changing social habits, fashions and even fads. (Because, seriously, that chicken dance is not in the Bible.)


Thus, in the 1800s when the sole purpose of marriage was procreation and housekeeping, marriage between an older man and a hard-working tween girl was considered perfectly normal. Today we call it pedophilia.


For thousands of years marriage was essentially a business transaction between the parents of the bride and groom. But in the last century or so, we've finally seen the triumph of this new-fangled notion that marriage should be about a loving relationship between two consenting adults.


Followers of the Mormon faith can tell you that the traditions of their forefathers included a devout belief that polygamy was appropriate and sanctified. But modern Mormons generally don't support that vision of happiness for their daughters.


And during the Civil Rights era, when opponents of interracial marriage tried to pass laws making such couples illegal, we came to realize that they, too, were wrong in trying to redefine marriage to prevent those newfound relationships.


Always marriage has triumphed by becoming a timely celebration of our society, rather than a backlash against it. It's strange, then, to see "tradition" used as a weapon against change, when change is the source of all its greatest traditions. Just ask the white dress:


In 1840, Queen Victoria of England married Prince Albert wearing a beautiful white lace dress - in defiance of tradition - in order to promote the sale of English lace! The image was so powerful that practically overnight the white wedding gown became de rigueur for the well-heeled bride. And then it became de rigueur for every bride.


By the dawn of the 20th Century, the white dress had also inexplicably come to symbolize chastity. (Even though blue was traditionally the color of virginity - "something borrowed, something blue...")


And the new equation of white with virginity eventually achieved such a rigid orthodoxy that older readers may remember a time when wedding guests who happened to know that the bride was not perfectly pure would have felt a moral obligation to demand that she change into something off-white before walking down the aisle.


Fortunately, as cultural norms eased during the Sexual Revolution, a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy took hold where all brides were required to wear white regardless of their virtue and the less said about it the better.


In recent years, as a generation of divorcees have remarried and a generation of young people have entered wedlock with some degree of "experience", the pretense of a connection between literal virginity and the bridal gown has become entirely obsolete. A colorful journey for a custom which has always seemed iron clad, even as it was evolving over time.


And not all traditions have to do with changing sexual standards. The long-time custom of pelting the newlyweds with birdseed did not exist before the 1970s when animal-lovers realized that songbirds were bloating on dried rice that they found on the ground after the former custom.


Economic times have caused families to rethink the age-old convention of the bride's father paying for the entire ceremony - a last vestige of the days of dowries when a young man had to be bribed to take a free-loading daughter off her parents' hands - that well-established custom has gradually given way to a more humane approach to sharing the financial burden.


Even religious traditions of marriage have experienced constant metamorphosis over the years. As more interfaith couples have wed, we have seen the emergence of multi-disciplinary ceremonies where couples have chosen not to follow the out-dated tradition of rejecting one or both of their faiths as a prerequisite of holy matrimony.


One of the most beautiful weddings I ever attended was between a young Jewish fellow and his Catholic fiancé, whose mother was born in France. The ceremony was performed by both a rabbi and a priest with intertwining vows in English, Latin, Hebrew and French. A perfect expression of the union of their two families, yet one which would have been unthinkable just a generation before.


But, again, marriage has such a long history of changing with the ever-changing times, that the last thing we should expect from it is to stop growing and changing. We know today that marriage is not a rote ritual handed down by God to Adam & Eve and preserved verbatim for thousands of years. It is, rather, an expression of how each community, each culture, and each faith, chooses to celebrate the joining of loved ones who have decided to make a life together.


Christians do not expect Jesus to be central to a Buddhist wedding, nor do Jews refuse to acknowledge Lutheran unions because they didn't include a reading from the Torah. Marriage is what we each make of it. And that's the way it always should be.


Perhaps the greatest irony of the traditional marriage argument is that it seeks to preserve a singular tradition that has, in fact, never existed at any point in history.


Because, honestly, which traditional definition of marriage do we want our Constitution to protect?


* The one from Book of Genesis when family values meant multiple wives and concubines?
* Or the marriages of the Middle Ages when women were traded like cattle and weddings were too bawdy for church?
* Since this is America, should we preserve marriage as it existed in 1776 when arranged marriages were still commonplace?
* Or the traditions of 1850 when California became a state and marriage was customarily between one man and one woman-or-girl of age 11 and up?
* Or are we really seeking to protect a more modern vision of traditional marriage, say from the 1950s when it was illegal for whites to wed blacks or hispanics?
* Or the traditional marriage of the late 1960s when couples were routinely excommunicated for marrying outside their faith?



No, the truth of the matter is, that we're trying to preserve traditional marriage the way it "was and always has been" during a very narrow period in the late 70s / early 80s - just before most of us found out that gays even existed: Between one man and one woman of legal age and willing consent. Regardless of race or religion (within reason). ...Plus the chicken dance and the birdseed. Those are okay.


But there's something profoundly disturbing about amending the Constitution to define anything about the 1970s as "the way God intended it."

AdamBlast · 11 months ago

A very nice and comprehensive piece. Sad the people who need it most will never read it.

It amazes me that in 2008 it is okay for a class of people to have their fundamental rights stripped away in more states than not--based in large part because religious jingoists have played fast and loose with their own history, and spoon-fed lies to a citizenry too ready to hear of their own superiority

timncguy · 11 months ago

This an excellent post. Very well documented.

But, I have no doubt at all that the right wing fundies actually want to protect the "traditional marriage" of the 1950s and if they could would re-institute bans on inter-racial marriage and add a new ban on inter-faith marriages to go alomg with the ban on same-sex marriages.

Joel · 11 months ago

Civil Unions create a separate but equal status for Gay men and women. The concept of "separate but equal" was proven inherently unequal when applied to race. What evidence is there that separate but equal will magically work better when applied to gay men and women?

Civil unions would not be a stepping stone to full equality, civil unions would be a roadblock to full equality. Separate facilities existed for blacks starting sometime after the end of the Civil War, survived as least one Supreme Court case and wasn't struck down until 1954 with Brown vs. Board of Education. Settling for half measures will only postpone what is rightfully ours, do we really want ot accept a half measure that will only prolong our inequality? I don't know about you, but I do not have 90 years to spare.

If you are looking for a stepping stone, take a look at lifting the ban on Gays serving in the military. According to the regulations, Gays cannot serve because they are morally unfit. You could commit nearly any crime and get a waiver to join the military, but being gay is a permanent bar because you're morally unfit. This injustice can not be allowed to stand even one minute after Barack Obama becomes the President of the United States, but Barack Obama will not even consider it.

Having the United States Government stop calling us too immoral to serve our country would send a clear message that Gay men and women are honest and trustworthy human beings..

skeptic49 · 11 months ago

Settle for separate but equal now and get full equality later?

No thanks.

hallam · 11 months ago

There are two issues here, one is practical, the other is symbolic.

The practical benefits are real, but only if you are one of the relatively few gay people who want to get married. It is pretty easy to hold out for no compromise if you don't want to get married yourself.

The symbolic issue is also important, but only if it is won in the right way. Overturning prop 8 in the courts is a pyrhic victory, The only way to beat the bigots is to overturn prop 8 in another plebiscite. Which the haters understand, which is why they are currently trying to lose the court action. There is no way that retrospectively canceling marriages that were adjudicated to be a right under the CA constitution cannot be a major revision to the constitution.

The only way to win the full symbolic victory is to win a plebiscite.

But winning any victory that is resisted by the hate brigade is victory. So national recognition of civil unions would be a victory as it would be resisted by the haters.

akaison · 11 months ago

It's not symbolic.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

It's more than just symbolism. Look what's happening in New Jersey: http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/1st-Interim...

hallam · 11 months ago

Symbols matter. John wants gay marriage precisely because it is the final black eye for the hate brigade. That is a pretty good reason to go after it.

Same thing happened with MLK day. After MLK day was established in pretty much every part of the US the segregationists like Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond and Jessie Helms had to hide their racism under codes.

What John is asking here is whether it is marriage or nothing or if civil unions that have exactly the same legal protections &ct as marriage would be acceptable. The key here being exactly the same, obviously civil unions that are relegated to second class staus are not acceptable.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

We don't want marriage just to piss off the right. My parents have been together for more than thirty years. The world has to acknowledge what they have. I want the same thing.
New Jersey's civil unions are theoretically equal, it's when you try to put them into practice that the idea falls apart. It's a specific tenant of the New Jersey law that they have all the same rights as marriage, but put into practice, it's costly and time consuming. The symbolism is important, but the word itself is much more than that.

Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas · 11 months ago

After reading all these posts, I still believe the answer is the Euro system...all marriages are civil contracts done at the registry office. You are married. End of discussion.

Now if you wanna go over to church or schul or mosque and have a RELIGIOUS ceremony, fine.

BUT YOUR CLERGYMAN HAS NO SIGNATORY POWERS RELATING TO TAXES OR INHERITANCE RIGHTS.

The issues here are not spiritual or religious. It's fairness of government status of citizens.

Todd Tyrtle · 11 months ago

Seriously? I want to see civil unions for everyone, gay *or* straight. If the fundies are so concerned about the sanctity of their marriage, let everyone who wants a marriage go to their church and ask for it. If your church won't grant it it is a problem between you and your church. Meanwhile no matter who you are you are granted a civil union. Voila - your marriage is safe not only from gays/lesbians but from adulterers, people who use contraception, and any other crazy stipulation your church decides to enforce. But those that don't go to church or those who go to more progressive ones are not subjected to religion institutionalized as "traditional marriage"

Bob · 11 months ago

Semantics is everything.
Forget “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships”. Those imply gay unions and this isn’t a gay vs straight thing, it’s religious vs secular thing.

Use “Religious Marriage” and “Civil Marriage” and make it apply to straights as well as gays, true equality.

Heteros who are either in a hurry, or who are atheist, or for what ever reason go to a justice of the peace to get married in city hall instead of choosing for a religious marriage are recognized by the government as being married. It is pure discrimination not to make that “Civil Marriage” open to all.

Alexander Englander · 11 months ago

To me, marriage is a religious ceremony and a covinent between God and the people involved. I believe that all state "marriages" should be be civil, straight and gay. When someone mentions marriage they instantly think of religion, you take the relgious aspect out of it, people have less hang-ups. So, make civil unions the law of the land and keep marriage to the churches.

killer · 11 months ago

If we define Marraige as a legal status, there is no way to restrict it by sex. The Constitution mandates the free exercise of religion. As such, I'm sure that there are churches out there that perform and recognize same-sex marraige (Johannan Dyonisus comes to mind)(SP). While the Federal constitution allows the individual states to support or favor a particular religion (look it up), some states have free exercise of religion clauses and the Federal Constitution says all states must recognise marraiges from other states, IIRC. If we sauy that any one group of people cannot have marraige, but are limited to civil unions, then why should marraige be a legal status at all? If we say that one group cannot have any particular legal status, why can we not restrict any group from entering any legal status? Imagine the restrictions we can place on genetic conditions? IQ tests, phisical ability tests (handicapped drivers anyone?). How about if we say far-sighted people cannot act as officers of the court (lawyers, judges, peace officers)? There is no logical reason for this kind of restriction, but it's the same for same-sex marraige.

Macdaffy · 11 months ago

Secular governments issue marriage licenses. As long as two consenting adults pay the license fee and pass any medical tests, there is NO LEGAL REASON to deny those two people a license. It's a pure-and-simple equal protection question. If the state issues a marriage license and the couple can find someone to perform the ceremony, whether in a church or a civil entity, that couple is MARRIED. Period. Not "civil unioned." Under that logic, states should change them from "marriage licenses" to "civil union licenses."

This is the weakness in the church's argument against gay marriage and it's why they're fighting so hard to keep the issue out of the courts where--decision-by-decision--jurists are rubbing the religious right's noses in this inconvenient truth.

Proposition 8 was an attempt to render constitutional a distinction that is expressly forbidden by the California state constitution. It will be overturned.

therepguy · 11 months ago

OK.… If gays can't have equality in marriage than by all means lets have civil unions for one and all!

By that I mean lets repeal all existing marriage documents and replace them all with civil union documents... what could more fair than that... everyone has a contract and those who seek marriage can run down to their church of choose and the local what ever and get married.

And should the far right, christian fascist not like this idea... well it shows the world just how really hateful they really are and proves the fact that their bigoted to the core and anything but christians!

yawn · 11 months ago

The "Civil Unions for everyone" thing sounds great and all, but I think that is nearly an impossibility. Even if we were able to change every nuance of Federal and State law, no one understands it internationally. We would all just end up saying marriage anyway, so it's a lot of work because some stubborn people feel like they have ownership over some word.

I think that we push for marriage full force, and if some Civil Unions laws get passed along the way, fine. But let no one be misled into thinking that that is simply enough. While we may have to fight some public opinion and upsetting some religious bigots along the way, I think we have a powerful weapon on our side. I think that we have the US Constitution on our side. We aren't running for prom queen or class president, these are real people's lives we are talking about. We are going to bump heads with Warrens and Scalias. We are going to lose some battles like Prop 8 and endure some bad rulings like the ones in NY and WA. But ultimately we have fairness on our side and we have the Federal Constitution. If America works at all, it has to work with this.

ncsenior · 11 months ago

I understand that the LGBT community considers civil unions to be a half a loaf solution. But life is full of half a loaf situations. As a senior citizen I appreciate my Medicare medical protection. I do not care for the fact that some medical providers refuse to accept me as a patient, because they can't make enough money off of treating me. So I settle for half a loaf and keep fighting for change.

timncguy · 11 months ago

the difference of course being that OTHER seniors are not getting the full loaf while you have the half.

Pete · 11 months ago

as a secular married hetero I personally don't care for the marriage label and chafed at being married in a church, particulary a catholic church but went along b/c it was important to my wife and her family. it was really difficult for me to do that since it required me "agreeing" to raise our kids (if and when we have them) catholic which I have absolutely no intention to do. all that to say that I would have liked to have a civil union option b/c to me marriage is more about 2 adults agreeing to share their lives together rather than some "spiritual" connection.

the fundamentalists are warped if they feel that 2 adults agreeing to live together should be based in some subjective spiritual belief. marriage was not based on religion but was developed as more of a business merger--two families coming together to share financial resources otherwise why would a brides family offer a dowery to the groom?

my father has been with his partner for 20 years who is a federal employee, as they both near retirement my preference would be to see federal recognition of civil unions now so that my father could share his partner's benefits. It makes sense to push for federal recognition of civil unions as a starting point and from there prove that it's not the end of the world.

think of it this way, the fundies are using the fear of gay marriage as a way to establish and maintain their power base over their sheep (oops, I mean congregations). if civil unions become the law of the land it will prove that gays living together will not be the end of the world and will help to erode the power of crazy, bigoted fundies like warren, robertson and the catholic bishops

if the movement keeps pushing for full recognition of marriage it will give the opposition something to fight against. take the fight away, accept civil unions then go guerilla, develop a long-term strategy to use civil unions as the base to move towards full marriage.

at this point think of the movement towards gay marriage as the iraqis and the fundies as the us occupying forces. when the iraqis fight the us forces it results in an overwhelming surge of opposition firepower. however if the iraqis are playing the game and going along with the us forces it reduces the defenses allowing the more radical elements to continue chipping away with the occasional bombing or ambush. not a perfect scenario but given that the fundies are the same idiots that got us into iraq in the first place it's a somewhat relevant analogy.

timncguy · 11 months ago

don't we already have proof that same-sex marriage is not the end of the world in MA? I don't recall any news reports from Boston about it raining fire or frogs there, do you?

SouthernYankee · 11 months ago

I think civil unions would get all the same benefits as straights get. Personally I wish everyone would have a civil union. That would set all legals rights for everyone. If the couple wants to get the blessing from the church than go ahead. A civil union makes it legal.

AdamBlast · 11 months ago

Obama keeps saying he's *everybody's* President, but he sure looks eager--like most polititians, to be sure--to sidestep the ongoing and increasing legal oppression of gays. I guess he's only swearing to uphold the constitution *sometimes*.

akaison · 11 months ago

CIVIL MARRIAGE EQUALITY

So that this does not get lost. I think part of the issue with the marriage debate is how we allow the right to control the terms of the debate. Even in terms of branding. We call it gay marriage when in fact it's not technically right. We say marriage, but then that's not technically right either and allows for confusion.

this seems to be more of a question of "doing business as"

Therefore, we should be going for marriage equality (fully equality, not civil unions) , but how we describe it to people is that the debate is over civil marriage equality.

This starts to reinforce overtime what we seek. On top of this, we really start to fight- meaning we show real gay couples and what they face by not having the rights. We don't way until some election, but realize that this will require years of concerted marketing and branding./

I love the idea that in CA- right now- there is this grassroots effort to start running ads right now, rather than latter regarding the impact of a lack of full marriage rights on gay couples. They use real families talking about real issues.

Before we settle on less. My point is- why don't we actually try to win for a change rather than like the No on 8 campaign do things half ass?

SouthernYankee · 11 months ago

They should make everyone wether they are straight or gay have a civil union first. Than they could have a church blessing. In Italy when my mother and father married back in 1945 they first had to have a civil union first by law and later that morning they had the church blessing. I am not sure if they do it that way still but it isn't a bad way. I wonder how the rest of europe does it. If you think about it having a church blessing really isn't really a big deal for financial reasons. I could see it for civil unions.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

After reading all the comments thus far I must say that there has been a lot of very intelligent discussion on the subject. While I respect the very often stated opinion that we should go for something separate called "civil unions" rather than partake in the same "marriage" that mixed-gender couples have, I disagree. Many seem to feel that we should separate religious marriage from civil marriage, granting civil marriage to all and a separate religious marriage to those who choose it. It is a great idea, and works very well in other countries, but I feel confident that such a change will never happen in America. I think our best hope is to leave the institution of marriage as it exists in our country unchanged, and simply permit same-gender couples to partake of it by marrying. Our goal should not be the creation of a separate but equal state of union. Gays should be free to partake in the same union as straights. I understand the argument that so-called civil unions might be more palatable for those who oppose us, and might hasten the granting of rights to those who are currently denied. They might also pave the way for full equality later. On the other hand they may be used to blunt the drive for full marriage equity and offered as an excuse to deny marriage. As our goal we should seek full equality, not separate but equal. We should also keep in mind all the hurdles required to change laws to create or include civil union rights. We also do not know how other nations would regard our civil unions. And we should not honor bigotry. Separate water fountains for blacks resulted from the notion that blacks would somehow dirty white drinking fountains. And they reinforced the notion that blacks were inferior and of a lower status. Gay people do not dirty marriage by embracing it, nor should we reinforce the notion that our relationships are inferior by accepting the separate water fountain of civil unions while being banned from marriage. The goal must be full equality.

akaison · 11 months ago

Uhm - let's try thing once again. We already have civil marriages separate from relgious marriages in the US. What are you people talking about? Are you sure read what other peo said because this has been repeated multiple times. Once more you online, and if you found this site, you could easily google the subject. So what are you talking about? Do you know?

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Akaison, yes, I know. I understand the distinction. I understood it well before I read this blog. Obviously when I refer to "civil unions" I am referring to the proposed separate civil unions for gay people as opposed to the all inclusive "marriage" for straight people that is both a religious and a civil union.

I would like to tell you that I find your posts most informative, and clearly you are a most intelligent person. Therefore it completely puzzles me why you resort to bullying tactics so often. You have the force of intellect and logic on your side with which to sway people. You needn't be sarcastic or rude.

mirth · 11 months ago

^5

timncguy · 11 months ago

there is no "all inclusive" marriage for straight people. And it is not BOTH a religious and civil union. It's not a union at all.

What straight people currently have is a civil marriage (not union) and if they feel like it, they can add a religious marriage cerimony to their civil marriage, but it is totally unnecessary. The civil marriage and religious cerimony are two separate items, have nothign to do with each other (legally) and are not inclusive of each other at all.

That is the message we need to keep sending to the people. That civil marriage has nothing to do with HOLY MATRIMONY.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

I had no idea that marriage is not a union. Live and learn, I always say. By the way. Do you find yourself drinking a lot of coffee? Perhaps mixing it with high-sugar holiday foods like fruit cake? I notice that when I combine too much of the two I tend to get a tad obsessive.

akaison · 11 months ago

The religious ceremonial aspect in the U.S. is separate. It's just the illusion of being the same that's at stake here.

This is why people are able to get married by going to a justice of the peace. The only relevant portion for the state is the civil marriage. Thus no religious aspect is required even for straights. That's why that analogy is often mentioned. To point out that we are discussing separate concepts. Its poorly done communications, but that's the basis of the argument.

Nor can the state require that churches marry gays because of freedom of religion. What the state can do is to provide civil marriage equality outside of religion. So renaming it 'civil union' is stupid because it makes the result is inequality in terms of rights and changes nothing substantively regarding religion and state functions.

In other words, little if nothing would have to change for private individuals because the law would protect both the faithful in their practices and would provide a pre-existing structure for which gays could easily already fit, but-for the right wing spin on the subject.

The Christian right plays off people's ignorance about what is actually occurring. They think that the government is supporting a religious event, but the state is supporting through its laws the civil marriage element.

The government, in reality, has nothing to do with the religion. It's been an illusion until now because there was no reason to clarify the confusion.

Indeed, let me put it to you this way. There are situation in which the religion may say that the person is still married, but in which the law has divorced the couple.

For the purposes of the state, the only divorce that matters is that of the state based laws. What religion believe are valid divorces are completely irrelevant. That's why this whole conversation in the U.S. is really bogus. It's just a sign of how ignorant the public is over its own laws.

I don't just blame the right for this alone. I blame the advocates for civil marriage equality. They allow the right to define the debate or they bring their own baggage to the conversation. Often that baggage is about being against religion or marriage (as they see the religious institution, not the civil laws) or any number of other things that has nothing to do with the legal aspects of civil marriages.

That's why I am frustrated along this thread. The conversation is so out of whack with the legal process that people don't understand what they are saying is not reality.

timncguy · 11 months ago

if you think the use of the word "marriage" for gays causes a problem for many who oppose it, why would you want to throw further confusion into the mix by claiming that "civil marriage" is a "civil union". You didn't just refer to the term marriage as a union as you suggest in this post. You called it a religious and "civil union". Please reread your post before attacking me. You seem to want to be able to use the word union generically here but at the same time are unwilling to apply that same standard to the word marriage which is a generic term not owned by any religion. In fact when combined as in "civil marriage" it becomes a term owned in whole by the state and as rightly pointed out has nothing to do with religion.

RitornaVincitor · 11 months ago

Attack you? Heavens no! I was merely referring to your comment that marriage is not a union. I quote, "there is no "all inclusive" marriage for straight people. And it is not BOTH a religious and civil union. It's not a union at all". Of course I'm sure you didn't mean to say that. It had to be the coffee and the fruit cake. And I'm not accusing here. I'm recognizing.

ShirleyGoodnessanMercy · 11 months ago

I'm all for going the way the Brits did... getting civil unions that are exactly like marriage except in name. Straights just are not ready for marriage yet. We shouldn't make ourselves wait 10, 20 or 30 years for marriage when civil unions can be won nationwide almost instantly.

RainbowPhoenix · 11 months ago

They're trying that in New Jersey. It's not working. http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/1st-Interim...

akaison · 11 months ago

IGNORANCE

You know after reading this thread and responding to multiple points o ignorance here about what the law says- I got to say I am amazed how little people understand what the debate is about. Nothing personally, but if this site is representative of understanding civil marriage law in the U.S. , then no wonder voters vote the way they do.

Seriously, you have had poster after poster say some patently false thing that it would take them 10 seconds of having read comments and/or googling and yet they persist in their ignorance.

I think the real question is not civil unions versus marriage, but how do we combat willful ignorance.

timncguy · 11 months ago

If I were you I would just give up. The commenters here seem to be unwilling to understand that the US already has two separate institutions. One called CIVIL MARRIAGE and one called RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE or holy martrimony. I'm not even sure that the commenters here understand that CIVIL MARRIAGE (legal marriage) does not require any religious cerimony at all for it to be legal and it has nothing to do with a church. Why they insist on wanting to change its name from civil marriage to civil union when neither one has anything to do with religion is beyond me. All it would do is needlessly complicate our existing laws.

And, the original posting that asks us all to weigh in is rather vague in that it doesn't really say whether "Reader Dave" is suggesting we go for civil unions for GAYS only, or change civil marriage to civil unions for ALL gay and straight. One is separate but equal. The other is equal but would require changing thousands of laws throughout the country at every level of government.

Besides, I tend to think that as soon as we were to suggest civil unions (with all the rights) for gays we would find out in a BIG hurry that those who say they only oppose marriage would find new objections to civil unions as well.

akaison · 11 months ago

Well, I think part of the problem is that people bring a lot of baggage to what are clear concepts when you leave that baggage behind. I understood early on the debate is about civil marriage rights, not religious issues. Not because I am for or against religion but because i have a legal background. I blame some of this confusion on a) gay radicals who don't want gays to be like heterosexuals so they are as crazy as the right about creating confusion b) the right's manipulation of language and c) ineffectual leadership and communication by gays on this subject.

James McConnell · 11 months ago

Merry Christmas, John.

Analysis: That's a false dichotomy.
Reasoning: Civil unions didn't become "acceptable" to the public until the very real prospect of gay marriage occurred and the public began to understand the very real injustice to us of being unable to access the benefits of marriage. So people rightly figured they had to give us something, but still could not overcome their shock and revulsion over the image of two guys at the 'altar.' That will come as the shock wears off and people understand there is not necessarily an altar involved, and it will wear off a lot sooner the more gay marriages occur and the sky doesn't fall.
Conclusion: There is a synergy between gay marriage and civl unions. The more gay marriage we see, the more people will find civil unions as OK in some precincts, and the more civil unions we see, the more the next step will be possible. So logically we should push for whatever we can get wherever we can get it.

timncguy · 11 months ago

The more I think about this "compromise" the more it makes me think back about the congressional fight over ENDA.

That went something like, well if we just leave out the transgenedered we could get ENDA signed into law now and we would PROMISE to come bacl later to add the Trans back in.

How about this compromise instead:

We all know one of the major roadblocks for equal rights for LGBT is the "ick factor" of man-on-man sex. So, how about we compromise and just go for marriage rights for lesbians to start out. I'm sure we would get that much faster than for gay men. You never hear the opposition complaining about woman-on-woman sex, do you? We could promise to come back later and add on rights for gay men later. But, let's go for what we can get NOW.

Buck · 10 months ago

I'd never accept a "civil union" as it denigrates my relationship by officially making it less than the marriages of my straight friends. I do not minimize my love for my partner and I will accept no "compromise" that forces me to do that publicly.

Beyond that, I would prefer not to be blindsided by the myriad pitfalls of "Civil Union" as have been documented in the recent New Jersey Commission on Civil Unions report. In essence, it shows that Civil Unions are actually not "moving the ball forward" but moving it backward by making people complacent and allowing them to get caught off guard by arcane rules and regulations that don't apply to "Civil Unions" but do apply to marriage. Therefore, they think they are protected legally when in fact they are not. It's a sham and an insult and I think gays who think it's just great are doing us all a disservice. ONLY FULL EQUALITY.