My sexual orientation and my positions on gay rights

[letxa2000]

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.

No, this is a different issue.

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.

The California Supreme Court is not the law of the land, it's the law of California.  The issue still has to be settled at a national evel.  But if there are two names for the exact same rights I fail to see how that will be held to be "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...

Or perhaps those that have "a more progressive view of marriage" need to get over it or deal with the fact that society doesn't agree with them. 

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.

So now not only are you expecting those with traditional views of marriage to recognize marriages of gay couples, you want to tell them that their church will no longer have the legal ability to perform marriages?  You seem to expect society to just drop centuries of tradition because you want it to.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

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.

Or perhaps the "marriage" of a gay couple should have no standing in law instead?

[letxa2000]

"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."

Then the law of the state was inadequately clear about civil unions being entirely legally equal to a marriage or that company needs to be sued.  Changes this big aren't going to happen overnight and I don't doubt there will be some lawsuits involved.  But this isn't proof that you need "marriage."  It just means that the law about civil unions must be absolutely clear that they are legally identical to marriage and that must be afforded the exact same legitimacy.

[letxa2000]

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).

Not the same, though, because it doesn't matter to Vermont if Wyoming lets women vote.  Voting is an entirely local issue and what happens in Wyoming stays in Wyoming.  However, marriage licenses from one state are supposed to be honored by all states, hence the inherent problem of anything like civil unions being implemented on a state by state basis.

[Brown Eyes]

Letxa, I'm still trying to understand why you think a heterosexual union should be called something different from a gay union.  Truly, I want to understand why you think there should be a difference.  Tradition for tradition's sake doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to me.

[Clyde-B]

The California Supreme Court is not the law of the land, it's the law of California.  The issue still has to be settled at a national evel.  But if there are two names for the exact same rights I fail to see how that will be held to be "second class institution."

The question would be:  "Why are there two different names for the exact same rights?"  What is the point - other than discrimination?

It would be a case of separate-but-equal legislation and it would be on very shaky ground.

[southendmd]

To me, the term should be "civil marriage".  Marriage is a legal contract, with a license granted by the state or locality.  One can choose a religious celebrant or a justice of the peace.  No religious tradition is forced to perform my marriage, nor should it be.  

In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Constitution (written by John Adams) required equal treatment under the law.  

Rather than grant same-sex marriage to the original plaintiffs, the Court ordered the legislature to come up with a solution in 180 days.  

The legislature has since failed to come up with even the small number of votes necessary to start the process to amend the Constitution.  Why?  Because individual citizens have described their real-life situations to the legislators.  

Several thousand same-sex marriages later, the sky hasn't fallen.

Former Governor Romney tried to invoke a "traditional" 1913 law, designed in the days of miscegenation, to disallow marriages from out-of-state couples that would not be allowed in their home states.  Now that law has been removed from the books.  

Tradition changes, and for good reason.  

[Brown Eyes]

To me, at least part of the issue with the difference in terminology has to do with general societal/ cultural equality as well as legal equality.  Maybe that's the heart of the matter.  It goes beyond the technicalities, the contracts, the insurance policies and other legal equality.  To call a gay or lesbian union a "marriage" really does signify to the rest of society that it's as good, as valuable and as significant as a straight union.

[Jeff Wrangler]

No, this is a different issue.

No, comparison to school desegration is not a different issue. We're talking equality here. In many places in this country legal segregation was what society wanted and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to give it up.

The California Supreme Court is not the law of the land, it's the law of California.

Sure enough, but not my point.

The issue still has to be settled at a national evel.

As before, I agree.

But if there are two names for the exact same rights I fail to see how that will be held to be "second class institution."

That's precisely why you need to read the California Supreme Court decision. It explains why a civil union is a second-class institution.

Or perhaps those that have "a more progressive view of marriage" need to get over it or deal with the fact that society doesn't agree with them. 

So now not only are you expecting those with traditional views of marriage to recognize marriages of gay couples, you want to tell them that their church will no longer have the legal ability to perform marriages?  You seem to expect society to just drop centuries of tradition because you want it to.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Or perhaps the "marriage" of a gay couple should have no standing in law instead?

And you seem to want society to maintain centuries of tradition just because you want it to. It's that sort of attitude that kept slavery alive in this country till past the middle of the nineteenth century, and give women no legal existence apart from their husbands until well into the nineteenth century. And these are not invalid comparisions if you are going to argue from "tradition" and "what society wants" or agrees or disagrees with. "Society" and the law eventually "dropped" the centuries-long tradition of slavery just because the abolitionists wanted it to and worked long and hard for many years to prevail because ultimately they were in the right.

No, I didn't say I wanted to tell them their churches would no longer have "the legal ability to perform marriages." I said the churches should no longer have the ability to perform legal marriages. The placement of the word legal in that sentence makes a difference, and I was very precise in what I wrote. I said nothing about forbidding religious or church marriages. By all means, let church "marriages" continue. I just said that it should no longer be the words of the clergy person and the clergy person's signature on a document that creates a legal union that needs a court action to be dissolved. It should be obtaining a license by oath or affirmation that creates the union that requires a court to dissolve it.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Letxa, I'm still trying to understand why you think a heterosexual union should be called something different from a gay union.  Truly, I want to understand why you think there should be a difference.  Tradition for tradition's sake doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to me.

The question would be:  "Why are there two different names for the exact same rights?"  What is the point - other than discrimination?

It would be a case of separate-but-equal legislation and it would be on very shaky ground.

To me, at least part of the issue with the difference in terminology has to do with general societal/ cultural equality as well as legal equality.  Maybe that's the heart of the matter.  It goes beyond the technicalities, the contracts, the insurance policies and other legal equality.  To call a gay or lesbian union a "marriage" really does signify to the rest of society that it's as good, as valuable and as significant as a straight union.

Exactly, Clyde and Amanda. In the end, lexta's arguments, like all the arguments against gay marriage, simply come down to one word: Prejudice.

I don't expect to live to see one equal legal institution for everyone in this nation, but that's all right. Lots of people didn't live to see the end of slavery or the legalization of equal political rights for women, either, but eventually both came because they were right.

[letxa2000]

Letxa, I'm still trying to understand why you think a heterosexual union should be called something different from a gay union.  Truly, I want to understand why you think there should be a difference.

I take offense at what I consider to be extreme arrogance of those in the gay community that presume to tell society that we must change our traditional definition and understanding of a traditional institution such as marriage just because they've decided to become vocal.  From an issue of rights in our country I understand the arguments and it's why I'm willing to go with the idea of civil unions which would extend all the same rights as are granted to married couples.  But just as I can acknowledge the arguments that gays want the same rights as married couples and I might need to bend my own beliefs to accept that my government will recognize these relationships when I might not agree that it should, gays should understand that that is a big concession in and of itself for a lot of people and that, perhaps, gays need to acknowledge a traditional definition of marriage.

This mostly needs to be a matter of give and take by both sides.  Again, it's the height of arrogance to think that you'll automatically get what you want just because you want it really bad.  I think traditional conservatives can give a little by agreeing to the concept of civil unions and gays can give a little by agreeing to let conservatives "keep" their definition of marriage.

Tradition for tradition's sake doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to me.

And change for change's sake doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to me either.