My sexual orientation and my positions on gay rights

[Marge_Innavera]

Yes, if the two pieces of legislation are the same, then what's the reason to have two pieces of legislation?
 
And, please, a real reason.  Not a made-up justification.

If we buy into the fantasy of civil unions being the same as marriage, sooner or later there will be various kinds of lawsuits involving the legal protections of marriage and the question will come up as to why two identical institutions, varying only with the gender mix of the couple, are given two different names.  That's when the fantasy falls apart.

Not that it's kept a former President and both of our magnificent Dem candidates from using it as a dodge. That's why regardless of who's elected in November, we advocates of marriage equality will have to keep holding their feet to the fire.

[Marge_Innavera]

I never said people are restaurants! What are you talking about?

Apparently, there's a certain difficulty with analogies.

I don't think that analogy makes sense at all. People are not restaurants, and no one is excluded from restaurants.

The claim that "no one is excluded from restaurants" is either disingenuous or the poster has zilch interest in history, even fairly recent history.  Plenty of people were excluded from restaurants, which were labeled "White Only" instead of "Marriage", and guess what? we heard exactly the same arguments about tradition and the same intransigent opposition from powerful religious institutions.  To the same end, there's the same aggressive promotion of the notion that the whole issue could be avoided by a separate-but-equal approach -- which our Democratic candidate considers plenty good enough for gays, although he obviously would find it inconvenient if applied to himself.

The analogy was a very apt one.

[Jeff Wrangler]

But, it seems by most that the uncompromising need to carry the word 'marriage' on a legallly equal certificate is just a finger in the eye of traditional families who have every right to be traditional if they choose to be.

Here we go again. The same old beside-the-point tripe trying to pass as argument. As if gay people being married somehow prevents straight people from having the traditional marriage they want.

But will we ever get an explanation of how this is so? No, of course not. All we ever get from the Opposition is assertions. And as someone, I think maybe it was Louise, has already said on this thread, just to assert something is true does not make it true.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Take insurance policies, for example. They vary from state to state and are not transferable across state borders; a totally new and different contract would be required.

Yes, but if, say, you have a car, and it's insured in say, Pennsylvania, and you have an accident in Ohio, your insurance is not invalid because you crossed state lines--unless, of course, your contract stipulated that to be the case.

So this insurance policy analogy is an invalid comparison to marriage.

[southendmd]

"Tradition" -- that's the way it's always been.  That's no argument at all.

"Tradition" says the definition of a "voter" is a white man with property.  Gee, that's changed, and things are fine.

"Tradition" says a white man could only marry a white woman.  Gee, that's changed, and things are fine.

"Tradition" will always beg to be changed. 

[brokeplex]

Difficulties have already been had.

give me details, on how "full faith and credit" would not apply if say the Cali Supremes ruling stands after Nov 4th?

[brokeplex]

And you have yet to establish a need to for the union of gays to be called marriage of civil unions provide the exact same rights and benefits.

You may have a point that a well drawn up civil union contract can give the benefits of marriage (taxwise, benfitwise, etc)

But there is another intangible benefit - a statement of equality. In the long run this is the most important change brought by same sex marriage. The statement of equality moves the society as a whole towards an equality of treatment more than anything else can. And I am not thinking so much of myself, or even Dusty, I am thinking of the newest generations of gays, they need that statement of equality that I never was given. On this particular forum, we have been drawn here because of the effect that the movie and the short story BBM had on us, the story shows the tragedy of the effects of homophobia and denial on the lives of two men and their family's. The statement of equality that marriage brings takes us much further down the road towards the goal of the ending of the occurrence of real life stories of men and women like Ennis and Jack. For that reason alone, I am delighted to live in times when same sex marriage will become a reality in the near future.

[serious crayons]

Hey brokeplex, well put. It's nice to be on the same side of an argument with you for a change! 

[brokeplex]

Hey brokeplex, well put. It's nice to be on the same side of an argument with you for a change! 

treasure the moment, I'll meet you over in Jess's virtual "cooling off" bar she has set up. I think she mixed up a pitcher of martinis just for me.

[Brown Eyes]

Yep, I agree too, well said brokeplex.

And, I keep coming back to the question... if civil unions and marriage are meant to be exactly the same, as letxa has suggested in numerous posts, why would there be a need for two words or two systems for identical things?  And, I think it's exactly what brokeplex says here... that the word marriage implies much more in terms of placing all relationships (straight and gay) on an equal level in terms of societal acceptance and recognition (and respect).  There's clearly something very threatening about the word "marriage" (the word in and of itself) being extended to gay people from the traditionalist perspective, as we've seen articulated throughout this thread.