My sexual orientation and my positions on gay rights

[CellarDweller]

Well, like I said, please understand that just as you attach importance to the word "marriage," so do others that disagree with you.  So while we may not agree, you should at least understand that it's not hard to understand that people can have just as much interest in blocking the attempts to redefine marriage as you have interest in redefining it.

As I said before, the definition of marriage was redefined when straight couples started cheating on each other and divorcing each other.

If people understood the importance of the word, they should have no problem sharing that word with people who want to experience that joy as well.

[CellarDweller]

[letxa2000]

As I said before, the definition of marriage was redefined when straight couples started cheating on each other and divorcing each other.

I don't even understand that comment.   Just because many people don't live up to their vows doesn't mean the definition of marriage is open to any interpretation for those that do live up to their vows.  You seem to be arguing that because some straight couples fail in their marriage that the whole word and concept doesn't mean anything anymore.  Obviously you don't believe that or you wouldn't be expending so much energy to try to get that word to be applied to you.

If people understood the importance of the word, they should have no problem sharing that word with people who want to experience that joy as well.

The conclusion you reach is not supported by the argument you make.

[serious crayons]

It doesn't effect anyone else's marriage.  But just as you want the word "marriage" to mean something to you--and apparently you think it's important enough to argue about--please understand that there are many others that want the word "marriage" to mean something a bit more conservative and traditional.  It's just how we use the word and it can be argued that it literally shouldn't matter to anyone.  But just as it is is clear that it does matter to you, please understand that it matters just as much to others that disagree with you.

Just as, in the '50s, it was very important to some people -- a majority, in certain areas -- to maintain a tradition school system in which black and white students were educated separately. But ultimately, that non-inclusive and intolerant segment of society was not allowed to set the standard.

Why should they be allowed to do so now? In other words, if there are two groups who both value the institution of "marriage," then why should the preferences of the conservative, traditional group necessarily prevail?

[CellarDweller]

I don't even understand that comment.   Just because many people don't live up to their vows doesn't mean the definition of marriage is open to any interpretation for those that do live up to their vows.  You seem to be arguing that because some straight couples fail in their marriage that the whole word and concept doesn't mean anything anymore.  Obviously you don't believe that or you wouldn't be expending so much energy to try to get that word to be applied to you.

You are talking of traditional marriage.  Traditional marriage vows are "for better or for worse, foresaking all others, until death we do part".  Yet straight couples are cheating on each other and getting divorced, and remarried to other people.  So it's ok for them to redefine marriage to suit their needs, but it's not ok to allow gay people to marry?   I do believe that marriage means something special, and I'm entitled to have it as well as anyone else on this planet.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'm a gay man and I believe in equal civil rights for all citizens.

I'm in favor of a federal constitutional amendment that provides for civil unions that have the exact same legal status as marriage.  If what you want is equal rights then that'll do the job and I support it.  If what you want is to intentionally offend people that have a more traditional view of marriage then, well, I don't support that endeavor and you shouldn't be surprised that others don't, either.

 

No, that won't do the job, because it has been decided in this country, in another context and at the national level, that separate is inherently unequal. If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read the decision of the California Supreme Court that legalized gay marriage. It's quoted somewhere here on Bettermost, but unfortunately I'm not skillful at searching and creating links. A "civil union" is most definitely a second class institution. I don't wish to offend people either, but those who have "a more traditional view of marriage" need to get over it or deal with it, just as their ancestors got over "a more traditional view" of the role of women in society (like, they shouldn't be able to vote) or that it is acceptable for some human beings to be mere chattel. It may not be easy and it may hurt a bit, but I have confidence that they can do it. 

I've gone on at some length elsewhere here on Bettermost that what I believe is that government needs to get out of the "marriage" business altogether, and clergy or religious authorities of any faith need to be deprived of the power of concluding legal "marriages." "Marriage" should be left up to religious belief. Only the government should have the power to conclude the civil contract of legally binding two people together. We're halfway there already in the requirement of obtaining a marriage license. And it should be obtaining the license on oath or affirmation that creates the legal union, not the words and signature of a pastor, priest, rabbi, or whoever concludes "marriages" in other, non-Judeo-Christian religions. So if you hold "a more traditional view" of marriage, that it can exist only between a man and a woman, fine, go ahead and believe it, and let it be your religious authority figure who conducts your "marriage." That ceremony should just have no standing in law.

The reason I don't support these efforts at the state level is because if you get into a situation where different states have different rules regarding the matter than you have a headache such as one I read about somewhere where some state (RI?  VT?  Don't remember) couldn't grant a divorce to a gay couple because the state where they wanted the divorce didn't recognize the marriage in the first place.  To avoid that kind of incompatibility, any legal changes should be at the federal level.

You may find it strange, but I actually agree with you here. A state-by-state standard is unacceptable. There needs to be a national standard. What is needed is a court challenge that goes to the Supreme Court of the United States, which will have to rule, under the "full faith and credit clause," that a contract, even a marriage contract, entered into in one state, must be legally binding in other states.

[CellarDweller]

No, that won't do the job, because it has been decided in this country, in another context and at the national level, that separate is inherently unequal. If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read the decision of the California Supreme Court that legalized gay marriage. It's quoted somewhere here on Bettermost, but unfortunately I'm not skillful at searching and creating links. A "civil union" is most definitely a second class institution.

Civil Unions don't give us the protections that marriage does.

I read an article (God I wish I could remember where) that was focused on a state that allows civil unions.  Perhaps my state of NJ.

Gay couples were registering for civil unions, and then those couples were going to their employers, showing their paperwork that they had registered.  It was done for the purposes of adding a partner as a beneficiary to health benefits.  The company replied with:

"Our handbook and bylaws state that we offer benefits to a spouse, which is someone you are legally married to.  Since you have a "civil union" and not a marriage, we will not allow you to list your partner as a beneficary on your health coverage."

I'm fortunate that the company I work for allows same-sex partners to be listed as a beneficary on health coverage whether or not you've entered into a "civil union".

[letxa2000]

Just as, in the '50s, it was very important to some people -- a majority, in certain areas -- to maintain a tradition school system in which black and white students were educated separately. But ultimately, that non-inclusive and intolerant segment of society was not allowed to set the standard.

This is a false comparison.  Those were separate but un[/n]equal.  I can agree with civil unions which would be legally identical in every respect to marriages. 

Why should they be allowed to do so now? In other words, if there are two groups who both value the institution of "marriage," then why should the preferences of the conservative, traditional group necessarily prevail?

Why should gays prevail?  If red has been red forever and now someone wants to call it green, why should everyone else be forced to adapt to that?

[letxa2000]

You are talking of traditional marriage.  Traditional marriage vows are "for better or for worse, foresaking all others, until death we do part".  Yet straight couples are cheating on each other and getting divorced, and remarried to other people.  So it's ok for them to redefine marriage to suit their needs, but it's not ok to allow gay people to marry?

Again, no-one is redefining marriage.  They're violating their vows and it's a shame.  But that doesn't mean the definition of marriage is automatically changed.  2 + 2 = 4 even if lots of people can't add and get 5.

[Brown Eyes]

Jeff, it's interesting that you brought up the issue of women's suffrage and the state-by-state issue has become part of this overall discussion.  For the majority of the suffrage movement, it was a state-by-state campaign with some states granting women the right to vote well earlier than others.  Wyoming being the first!  Yeehaw!  (As with many western states).  But, it wasn't until the early years of the 20th century when the emphasis and pressure within the suffrage movement were focused on the federal amendment that the women's suffrage struggle came to a successful conclusion for all women in the country, regardless of race, etc. (even though Susan B. Anthony had written the wording of the amendment in the late 19th century).

Clearly, with gay rights issues, including marriage, everything would be far simpler if it came down to a general, nationwide law.