My positions are:
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This is the traditional and historical understanding of what marriage represents, both religiously and in a civic sense. There should be no pressure or expectation to change this time-honored institution, and no explanation beyond that should be necessary.
Civil unions are acceptable only at the federal level. I do not believe individual states should pass laws that institute the concept of civil unions, but I think it would be reasonable for the federal government to do so with a constitutional amendment--as long as that amendment also specifically states that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman.
Thanks to the Clinton administration, a bill was passed in congress (85-14, with a majority of the democrates voting for) defining marriage as between a man and a women. A majority of the people through their representatives have spoken. Done.
Do I believe in gay rights? I believe everyone should have the same rights. It's called equality. In most states, when an obviously gay man is walking down the street, is approached by a thug who smacks him in the face while calling him a "fag", that crime is deemed 'bias motivated' and is charged as a felony or has more serious consequences than a random assault on a person for no reason. If my grandpa is walking down the street, the same thug approaches and smacks him in the face, calls him an old geezer, it's simple assault. In this example, the penalty is stiffer (in prison sentence, etc) if the victim is gay than if he is my 90 year old grandfather. That, my friends, is not gay rights. That is special rights for the gay man, and I, as a gay man, don't think that is fair or a guarantee of equal rights.
In this country, marriage means something different than it does in most other countries. It is a tradition, and like I stated, has been sanctioned by the federal government in 1996, spearheaded by Pres. Clinton (same administration who gave us 'don't ask, don't tell'). I have been in a domestic partnership with the same man for 20 years. He is entitled to my pension if I die before he does. The city passed this legislation which entitles same-sex domestic partners this benefit. He is covered by my insurance as a same-sex partner. At this point, the only thing we don't have is the federal tax exemption based on married verses single. For me, that isn't a big deal. I don't care about saying "I'm married". Someone asks, I tell them I'm not married but I have a domestic partner.
Same-sex couples who seek recognition under the veil of 'marriage' is a
very small minority. At this point, a very large majority (especially in Congress) wanna keep 'marriage' as between a man and woman. This country is based on majority. Having said this, I believe we don't have equal rights, and while some local jurisdictions (or states) see to it that we are treated as close to equal as our male/female counterparts, there does need to be bill passed in the senate that allows us the same protection/rights as hetro's. I don't demand marriage. For me it's not about recognition. It's about rights. There is a defining line between the demand to be legitimized and the demand for equal treatment.
Brad
