Is like separate water fountains for blacks. and whites.
Is like separate water fountains for blacks. and whites.
|by Anonymous||reply 143||06/26/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 1||11/09/2010|
It's not equal. Don't settle for less than equal rights.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/09/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/09/2010|
Not even; at least the same tap water flowed out of segregated fountains, however demeaning the act of segregation was.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/09/2010|
I'm in the minority - give us the rights and I don't care about the label. Civil unions are fine with me.
I'm still salty about the whole 'gay marriage' label. I wish Urvashi et al would have called it something different - like freedom to marry. Middle America sees 'gay marriage' and they think 'gay sex' and that makes them uncomfortable. If it were freedom to marry, the freepers would have to publicly declare their opposition to freedom.
And yes, I know the big problem with 'freedom to marry'. It sounds like we're going to marry farm animals, gerbils and inflatable sex dolls.
That part of the story is over anyway.
Give me civil unions and equal rights now. I don't give a flying fuck about marriage.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/09/2010|
If it were truly equal, we wouldn't need a new category of relationship, would we? Besides, without federal recognition, it will always be inferior.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/09/2010|
But in America, civil unions don't hold the same weight as marriage. That's the problem. The government needs to be equal. Period!
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/09/2010|
[quote]Give me civil unions and equal rights now. I don't give a flying fuck about marriage.%0D %0D That's like a black person in the 50's saying:%0D %0D [quote]I don't care about where I have to sit on the bus, or where I have to go to drink water, as long as I get a seat and a drink.%0D %0D Do you get it now, imbecile? Just because YOU don't think you'll exercise marriage rights it doesn't mean that we all should be so deprived.%0D %0D I have a boyfriend in Italy that I can't be with, thanks to the stupid inequality of our marriage laws. If you got your way, I'd still be in this situation.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/09/2010|
Make civil unions the basis for all legal and contractural benefits (grandfathering existing marriages) and leave marriages as religious non-legally binding icing on the cake (for those who like that sort of thing) and I'd be more than happy.%0D %0D If you want to file a joint tax return, appoint beneficiaries, insure a partner, etc... make civil unions the underlying requirement. All in the same way that birth certificates --and not, say, baptismal records-- are the basis for establishing work identity, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/09/2010|
We should be saying full civil rights for all Americans NOT gay marriage.
It is all in how you ask the question.
Ask any breeder if all Americans should have the same civil rights and they say yes.
Ask if they support gay marriage they say no.
We don't call their marriage straight marriage. Marriage is marriage.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/09/2010|
I said it was my opinion, I wasn't trying to speak for you or the majority of gay men.
I said I am aware I am in the minority.
Is everyone who disagrees with you an imbecile?
There's probably a reason your boyfriend is in Italy - that distance probably benefits him from your concrete thinking.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/09/2010|
r5. Civil unions DON'T give the rights of marriage; otherwise I agree with you.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/09/2010|
what r10 said
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/09/2010|
No, R10, I don't think we should let homophobia continue to control the message.%0D %0D GAY MARRIAGE. It is what it is.%0D %0D What we should do additionally is get the message out that we are NOT requiring churches to sanctify said gay marriages. That's the problem we're having. We're letting the bigots and zealots control our message.%0D %0D And R5, you are indeed an imbecile, if your opinion is so clouded with what YOU want. Civil rights are, and should always be, a unified effort.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/09/2010|
If we are talking semantics, R10 raises a good point. Arguing for "marriage equality" might be more persuasive than arguing for "gay marriage."
The word "gay" is so negatively viewed in some circles, that some men who are exclusively homo in sex/relationships are refusing to self-label as "gay."
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/09/2010|
'marriage equality' is a term that's out there, but I agree, it's not as prevalent as 'gay marriage'. %0D %0D The semantics are important to consider, though. The term 'gay marriage' resonates louder, and gets people to the polls more quickly, for better or worse.%0D %0D I think our fight is only in the realm of 'better or worse', as that's part of what marriage is all about anyhow.%0D %0D 'Marriage Equality' as a term is too encompassing and intellectual, and could backfire. Remember the old argument that 'if gay marriage passes, then siblings will marry, as will pedophiles, etc...I could marry my dog, or my tree!"?%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/09/2010|
Yeah, but for you people, god just isn't in the mix.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/09/2010|
Yes, OP. The point is that the government eventually realized that separate is NOT equal, and so that should continue to hold true for marriage, and therefore gay people should have the right to marry. And call it a marriage.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/09/2010|
I dunno... People seem to think that changing terms will suddenly win the day.
The fact that this country is full of ignorant religitards is the problem, not the terms, not gay people. It's weird to imagine that changing terms is going to suddenly persuade ignoramuses.
I think this line of reasoning is somewhat harmful in that it seems to suggest that the "problem"--ie what's standing between us and equality--is internal to us, that we haven't stated the case well enough or chosen the right terms or something. I understand the impulse but it's wrong-headed imho.
Having said that, I think "marriage equality" is the best term. "Gay marriage" suggests we're going to start something new. We're not. We want to reiterate what the gov and courts have said a thousand times: citizens have the right to choose their own spouse, and the gov must have a substantial reason if it wants to limit or prevent that choice. In the case of someone choosing to marry someone with the same set of genitalia, they have not been able to provide a reason for preventing such a choice.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/09/2010|
Something we can finally agree on. It's the same thing. My parents (and I, obviously lol) are A.A., my grandmother was involved in the Civil Rights movement (though she's not much older than my own mom lol)and I see the same pacification tactics being used. Attempts to dictate our (the queer community's) agenda and say what's enough. Fuck that.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/09/2010|
I agree with R9 - Marriage is a religious construct first institutionalized as a way for men to take ownership of their wives property and offspring. The attached is a good read.
Give me civil unions - have the federal government attach right to these instead of marriage and let the crazy religious nuts have their unions blessed.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/09/2010|
Unfortunately it won't be better than saying it's as good as marriage. Why? Because marriage itself is a religious rite not a political one. If we wish to have "equal" rights we have to petition the government but to have equal "rites" you'd have to get the pope to welcome gays into the institution of marriage.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/09/2010|
Why R22? If marriage is a political rite (as you call it), I don't want any part of it. Our government is a secular one.
The first question: Is marriage a religious institution or not?
If yes, get the government out of it.
If no, have the government recognize that marriage is a right of all couples, no religion involved.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/09/2010|
r23, you misread my statement. I said marriage is a RELIGIOUS rite not a political right.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/09/2010|
R23 - If marriage is a religious right as you say, I said that our government needs to get out of the business of marriage. On what do you base your conclusion that it is a religious right?
See my questions: You would answer that it is a religious right.
If so, the U.S. government needs to stop using marriage as a basis for any rights, change all licenses to civil unions and attach all laws, rights etc. to civil unions.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/09/2010|
Huh, r23? Gays can't be religious? Gay-friendly religions don't count, but gay-hating ones do? The imaginary sky friend must by definition hate the gay and hate same sex marriage?
We have freedom of religion in this country and anyone is free to believe that the imaginary sky friend loves the gay and loves gay marriage... and plenty of religions, churches, priests and believers do.
In other words, we do not let particular popes, priests, churches, religious texts, decide our public policy. Thanks.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/09/2010|
I am fully prepared to get raked over the coals for what I'm about the say.
It is not the same as separate water fountains and riding in the back of the bus. Being denied the right to marry is neither dehumanizing nor destructive. Its a silly, trivial comparison. DADT is something entirely different and is comparable.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/09/2010|
R26 - You can believe whatever you want. All Americans can believe or not believe. Exactly what "gay friendly" religions do you refer to. it makes no difference.
The government should not be involved in the business of religion, period. If you get a civil union license and have it blessed by a religion that is willing to do so, good for you.
We should not let any religion dictate our policy.
Again, If marriage is a religious institution, our government should not be involved in it.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/09/2010|
[italic]Being denied the right to marry is neither dehumanizing nor destructive.[/italic]
It makes you a second class citizen in the eyes of the law, numbnuts! Marriage has a lot of benefits, and I don't mean just financial, to the moral fabric of society. Not allowing gays and lesbians to partake in that institution IS destructive!
Marriage goes way back before religion, my dears. And besides, there are tons of churches who now marry gays. So, don't give me that bullshit!
And lastly, the government is NEVER going to get out of the "marriage business", so you can drop that shit right now. Not gonna happen. Accept the reality, and move forward from there.
Either we all get the same rights, or none of us do. It's a slippery slope.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/09/2010|
That was my point too, r28. We agree with each other but disagree with r22. My post should have been addressed to r22. That's the source of the confusion, sorry. Read my post again with that in mind, way sorryness!
|by Anonymous||reply 30||11/09/2010|
Wikipedia's entry on "Marriage". Read it and weep, fuck face!
|by Anonymous||reply 31||11/09/2010|
"Being denied the right to marry is neither dehumanizing nor destructive."
It's both dehumanizing AND destructive. Most people--including many gay people--don't realize this because it's about the gays, until very recently, and in some ways even today, a thoroughly dehumanized minority. If this were about Jews being unable to choose to marry Christians, or some such law, you would not imho be saying "Being denied the right to marry is neither dehumanizing nor destructive." It is both. That is the purpose of laws like Prop 8, to dehumanize and withdraw the dignity of gay relationships.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||11/09/2010|
I have full "marriage" rights in California with my registered domestic partner. But to the IRS we're single gentlemen with no connection to each other. Fuck that.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||11/09/2010|
Republicans in Hawaii won't even let us have civil unions. Forget marriage, the party of hate won't even let us have some equality.%0D %0D A reminder to those who vote Republican. They hate you and us. Never forget that.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/09/2010|
I think its about money and health insurance and having a big party. I just wish people were more honest about it. There are a ton of people who have been together for years, living together or seperately and their relationships are strong and healthy and no different from married relationships. If you're concerned about survivor rights and inheritances, make a contract.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/09/2010|
R34, What's that all about? I thought Hawaii was a blue state. I know the Mormons are there (Polynesian Cultural Center and the boarding college.) Is it like blue-dog blue state, or what?
|by Anonymous||reply 36||11/09/2010|
No comment on Jim Crow laws comparison. I think the marriage debate is more closely related to previous laws restricting marriage to two people of the same race. However, I agree that the only real way to make it equal is to tie the obligations and privileges associated with "marriage" to civil unions. Thus making the word "marriage" just that, a word. We know that the latter will never happen. It is the ultimate redefinition of social order. Order that has been sanctioned and codified by biblical ideology. Fighting this biblical ideology in a 'heterosexual Christian' leaning society was never going to be as easy as relying on the U.S. Supreme Court. Listen I never imagined several states would already allow same-sex marriage by 2010, but it's going to take the others a LONG time to catch up.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||11/09/2010|
R37 = the reason why gays get no where. Die in a grease fire, Uncle Tom!
|by Anonymous||reply 38||11/09/2010|
What do we want?! Gay sex! When do we want it?! Now!
|by Anonymous||reply 39||11/09/2010|
Hello Tarquin. %0D %0D Closet Republican Gov. Linda "lez lez" Lingle vetoed civil unions last summer.%0D %0D Closet cases win again.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||11/09/2010|
R34 and R40, IIRC Hawaii just got a brand, new, shiny Democratic governor in the recent election. Maybe civil unions can be revisited there. Good luck with that.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||11/09/2010|
Hope he pulls you into the fire, R38. You're worthless too, willing to have someone die because you don't agree with him.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||11/09/2010|
MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT.%0D %0D When you get a marriage license you get it from the STATE...NOT THE CHURCH.%0D %0D It is only a religious rite to the extent churches wish to make a buck and promote their brand. Period.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||11/09/2010|
Yet another reason "separate but equal" is a mess.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||11/09/2010|
LOL r38 you're simply adorable.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||11/09/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 46||11/10/2010|
Churches don't have the right to refuse people on skin color, so whats the diff?
|by Anonymous||reply 47||11/10/2010|
Civil unions are exactly the same as same-sex marriage in the eyes of the federal gov't...worthless. Until the feds gives us what we are due, it doesn't matter which of those 2 options you chose. But you should chose one of them to get whatever rights your state conveys.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||11/10/2010|
r14 it's bigotry not homophobia. If WE continue with that label then nothing will get done. I see it this way. Today in this country people are just fine with being called a homophobe but if you call them a bigot then it stings and stigmatizes that person to possibly stop acting that way. If you call them a bigot in public that's even worse. It's just like being called a racist. No one excepted for the KKK wants to be called that. At least in public. Shame these assholes in public and it will eventually stop.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||11/10/2010|
For some gay couples it's just a theoretical question that can be dealt with by contract. Or a dignitary issue that's insulting but has little practical effect. But for people like r8 and some friends of mine, it literally means that you have no right to live in your own country with the man you love, so you can be forced to choose between them. Immigration law recognizes Americans' right to bring spouses here, plus the spouses' extended family for "family reunification." But for gays, there isn't even the basic right to bring the spouse. That's the most fucked up part, and since immigration law is federal, no state law can change that.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||11/10/2010|
[quote]For some gay couples it's just a theoretical question that can be dealt with by contract. %0D %0D Gay couples get to pay thousands to a lawyer to draw up iron clad wills and powers of attorney, while str8 couples get the same thing with a $30 marriage license. Thanks America!
|by Anonymous||reply 51||11/10/2010|
R48 is correct.
Other than the name, all the problems with civil unions exist with "same-sex marriage" -- tax burdens are different, no immigration rights, problems of interstate recognition and so on.
On state law matters, they're equal -- both spouses.
Personally I don't get the hangup over the word. We're SPOUSES under the civil union law. I don't need to be called "married."
I want the rights. As long as we're treated EQUALLY as legally recognizes spouses everywhere, calling it a union is fine with me.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||11/10/2010|
You're right, r51, private contracting is absurdly burdensome, not always dependable, and can't possibly confer full familial rights. (What do you say to the nurse blocking you from visiting your injured partner in the hospital, "it's okay, we have a contract"?) But my point was that people may understate the perniciousness of marriage inequality because the majority are lucky enough never to encounter the issue it raises in immigration.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||11/10/2010|
You cannot be okay with one group getting a right, while the other group is segregated to another. It's un-American, and gays need to get this through their heads.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||11/10/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 55||11/10/2010|
The right is not determined by the name, R54. The fact that same-sex "marriage" is called marriage and still treated as inferior on a federal level proves that. Gay citizens have marriage in Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc. and those "marriages" are treated identically to civil unions nationally.
You need to get over the "separate but equal" analogy and focus on the rights.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||11/10/2010|
"Churches don't have the right to refuse people on skin color, so whats the diff?"
Er, yes they do.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||11/10/2010|
r56, the discovery of the civil rights era was that separate institutions to convey the same rights are INHERENTLY unequal.
Full equality is the goal. If the gov showers het couples with rights and marriage, then it must do the same for gay couples. Carving out a "civil union" status is done for NO OTHER REASON than to create an inferior, diminished status. There's no other reason for it than that.
It's fine as a stepping stone, and it's better than nothing (separate but equal is better than separate and unequal, which is what we currently have) but it needs to be understood for what it is. Civil unions are carved out as a lower status, a "less than" institution, something which doesn't (or shouldn't... people haven't quite made up their minds because it's the gays) sit well with our Constitution or our founding philosophy as a country. We pay the same taxes, we have freedom of religion, we should get the same thing from the gov. If some CHURCHES don't want to call it marriage, fine. Fuck 'em. But if the GOVERNMENT calls it marriage then it must be marriage for all.
It's also worth pointing out that the separate status is used, duh, as a means of denying equality. Duh. That's its purpose. "That benefit is for married couples only." etc etc. Read the commission report on NJ civil unions. Depressing.
To say that I don't want marriage equality would be a lie. I want full equality and saying "Civil unions will do fine" would be a lie. The ultimate goal is full equality under the law. Carving out a special status is not equality. It gives people a means to discriminate, which is its purpose.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||11/10/2010|
^^ and it should be pointed out when I say "status" I mean status under the law. ie Full equality under the law. Private discrimination will always exist. I'm talking about civil discrimination, using the law to withdraw status, rights, dignity and privileges from people, which is the SOLE purpose of laws like Prop 8.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||11/10/2010|
R58, that's a lot of rhetoric, drama and indignation toward gay people who DO want full equality just as much as you do but don't care about the name -- and you are contributing to the problem by demeaning spouses in states who have fought for those rights.
You miraculously keep FORGETTING that same sex marriage is NOT fully equal. Same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and Connecticut face horrible burdens on a national level. And the NAME that has polarized America and denied equality to many people who have been DRAGGED into the marriage or bust movement nationwide.
Gay couples in New Jersey and other civil union states have rights that couples in other states do not. And ANYONE who refuses to claim those rights to protect their partners because they only want to be called married are taking ridiculous risks with their partners' lives.
Even worse, your rhetoric is a distortion of history. The segregation that affected people of color through "separate but equal" was systemic and brutal. It had NO hallmarks of FULLY EQUAL rights under a separate name, and everyone knew it. It was a farce. The "equal" facilities were often squalor and the TOTAL segregation of people was stigmatizing because it was total. Giving people FULL spousal rights under a different name is not comparable.
Whatever you think of a label, if civil unions were truly treated equally and DOMA were reversed -- and government enforced that equality -- the message would be sent without calling it marriage.
We call ourselves "gay" not "straight." We don't call that "different but equal" and are more than happy enough to label ourselves "separate" from heterosexuality.
I have no problem being called "married" or "civil union" as long as we are all called spouses and have the same rights.
And you need to face facts. Calling same sex "MARRIAGE" that in Massachusetts has done NOTHING for those couples on a national level. They are treated as civil unions and might as well be called that.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||11/10/2010|
And here's another fact you keep forgetting.
Civil unions QUICKLY became "marriage" in Connecticut and Vermont -- and why? Because once the full rights were given, it exposed the stupidity of calling them by different names.
People who demeaned civil unions forget that it did exactly what their creators envisioned -- it set precedent for substantive equality that quickly transformed those jurisdictions into "getting over" the need to treat one coupling as superior to the other.
And it left Connecticut no defense to explain why the names had to be different.
You can call that trickery, or smart strategy, but the marriage or bust movement just got several justices removed from the Iowa Supreme Court and proved disastrous in California and Hawaii. Meanwhile, couples have suffered without the rights that civil unions provided.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||11/10/2010|
Asshole at r60, when I speak of marriage equality as being the ultimate goal, I mean full marriage equality at the state and federal level. Duh.
Read YOUR history. When the first cases challenging segregation came up, judges said that blacks were imagining the pain and degradation of separate train cars. What possible difference could it make if the train cars got you to your destination, it was argued?
"The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which %E2%80%98the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one%E2%80%99s skin or color or race%E2%80%99 are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs."
"got several justices removed from the Iowa Supreme Court "
Because all civil rights movements have proceeded without problems. Here's a fact for YOU: Civil unions were only brought to the table BECAUSE marriage equality loomed. Vermont created civil unions BECAUSE their Supreme Court said that marriage equality was necessary. These states are not blithely and happily passing civil union laws out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it as a stop-gap measure... BECAUSE we've brought our highest demand--full equality--to the bargaining table.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||11/10/2010|
re: Iowa... SSM is still legal there. Removing the justices was revenge, pure and simple. No law changed. Gay people in Iowa married today, I'm sure.
And one of the many things I admire about the civil rights movement was that black people and their supporters didn't just wither up and reduce their stance every time they suffered a setback or every time someone did something mean. They kept their eyes on the prize, the prize being full equality under the law. Admirable that, don't you agree?
|by Anonymous||reply 63||11/10/2010|
And before you shriek once again that the movement for gay civil rights and black civil rights are totally incomparable... There are many similarities. There are many differences.
This is a pretty simple set of circumstances (some aspects of the movements are parallel, others are not), but the complexity of even such a simple matter is far, far beyond the understanding of the average American, supporter and detractor, so they end up shrieking that they're totally, totally incomparable... which is ludicrous.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||11/10/2010|
[quote]You cannot be okay with one group getting a right, while the other group is segregated to another. It's un-American
You see, R38? THIS is how adults disagree. Please take notes.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||11/11/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 66||11/11/2010|
The irony is, even if the US gets full equal marriage, in like 2050 or later, it is still a fight to zero. Equality before the law doesn't not mean people will treat you equally or respect you. It means the law says they should. True full social equality is still much farther away. Having said that, the sooner we get to full legal equality (equal marriage) the better.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||11/12/2010|
It's not about making people like us, r67. It's about not allowing people to enshrine their hatred into law to relegate us and our relationships officially to a lower status.
I don't know where you get the idea that those of us fighting for marriage equality believe it's going to make us popular, and that that's why we're in the fight.
And it's not a fight to zero. Racism is not over in this country, but things got demonstrably better for black people once laws enshrining inequality were repealed and/or declared unlawful or unconstitutional. And this happened even for black people who did not take the bus, if you see what I'm saying. It matters. It will matter and make a difference even to gay people who do not want to marry. Not a fight to zero.
But, yes, agreed. The sooner we get full equality, the better.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||11/12/2010|
And btw: legal equality is even MORE important to those who face social inequality.
The marriages of, say, an Irish-American het couple and a Dutch-American het couple are legally equal, but they are unlikely to face any social inequality or social discrimination, so the legal parity is not as crucial.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||11/12/2010|
I really wish people would understand how far we were getting until the Mayor of San Francisco fucked us. It was working. We were getting traction in State Legislatures. We were moving in the right direction. Then it all went to shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||11/12/2010|
I live in CT and I am married.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||11/12/2010|
Movements are an art, not a science, r70. For every action there's a reaction. It's possible that some actions are too bold and cause a reaction which sets us back (I'm not sure I agree, but it is possible).
Once they're done, they're done, however. Criticizing our most out-spoken allies and saying "That's where it all went to hell" seems unconstructive. Eyes on the prize. Onward.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||11/12/2010|
What exactly is the point of comparing the struggles of Black Americans to the struggles of gay/lesbian Americans? It's a tired argument that's been hammered away at for years, yet for some reason nobody's listening to it....wonder why...
|by Anonymous||reply 73||11/12/2010|
R70, do you really think we'd have more equality in the USA, or at least more states on board, had Newsom stayed quiet?%0D %0D I think Newsom brought the dialogue to a tangible debate, and sped up the cause of BOTH sides...which ultimately is a good thing in the long run. Would you have preferred Rosa Parks to move to the back?
|by Anonymous||reply 74||11/12/2010|
[italic]What exactly is the point of comparing the struggles of Black Americans to the struggles of gay/lesbian Americans? It's a tired argument that's been hammered away at for years, yet for some reason nobody's listening to it....wonder why...[/italic]
For the same reason why people don't listen to blacks when they out sheer racism. The majority hates the minority, thus, they want to ensure the gays stay to the back of the bus. Everyone wants to feel superior.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||11/12/2010|
"For the same reason why people don't listen to blacks when they out sheer racism. The majority hates the minority, thus, they want to ensure the gays stay to the back of the bus. Everyone wants to feel superior."
So, with that said, it seems we may need to reshape the argument. We're not at the back of any bus, and most of us never have been. In jest, we already have the ability to marry. What most of us are, in this particular subject, is without the ability to marry a person of the same sex. This fight, a unique one, is ours to fight alone and I believe no amount of comparisons to Black struggles in America has/is going to promote resolution to ours. This is the American Gay Rights Movement.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||11/12/2010|
I have no interest in being "married" in the sense that I want to be like the straight people.
History indicates that marriage had its origins in the man controlling the property and offspring of the mate. I want no part of that.
At 47 years of age, I have fought long and hard for equal right for all people.
I don't give a crap what you call it. I want the rights that every other couple has. Let the religious wingnuts have marriage, give me and my partner the 1,318 legal rights that come from being recognized as a couple, whatever it is called.
Just my opinion, Flame away.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||11/12/2010|
r76 you may have been speaking somewhat in jest but you did bring up the flaw in equating the civil rights movement to equal rights for same sex marriages. All of us do have the same right to marry anyone of the opposite sex just as all of us are denied the same right to marry anyone of the same sex on an equal basis.%0D %0D Obviously same sex marriage is an issue where gay activist will always be the groundbreakers but I'm not so sure this has to be our fight alone. There's a compelling case to be made for same sex marriage for reasons other than being gay.%0D %0D I've recently been through a heartbreaking family situation where a beloved aunt was separated from her companion of 35 years by her utterly indifferent only child. My aunt's companion wasn't prevented from seeing her but had no voice and often no access to information as to her medical care. None of us did as her bastard (literally) son warehoused her in a nursing home with no real medical care beyond being bounced back and forth between the nursing home and the "treat 'em and street 'em" ER. Needless to say the companion also had no say or claim on property that they'd accumulated in their 35 years together even though my aunt had always told her she'd always be taken care of. Her companion has basically spent a year of her life and her own money of which she has little to spare maintaining their home and doing everything she could do for my aunt with zero thanks, compensation or respect for their relationship from the jackass. The kicker...they're not lesbians.%0D %0D Sorry for the personal vent here but that look into the jaws of hell has made me examine my own life as a childless person with no immediate family beyond said rat-bastard cousin who I wouldn't trust to water my plants and a brother who I get along with well enough but is not the person I'd entrust with my care and and critical life decisions should I be unable to act on my own. That would be my same sex best friend. Why should it even matter whether we're gay or straight to afford us the same legal protection and rights as any other couple who choose to make the same legal committment?%0D %0D I'm with r77. I really don't care what you call it as long as the same legal rights as well as legal obligations are there for everyone. In the case of my aunt and her companion, I doubt they would have wanted to self-identify as lesbians when they didn't see their relationship that way but I do think they might have legalized their partnership if there had been a simple legal option available to them that didn't get bogged down in the emotional baggage of religion or sexual orientation. I do think there is an valid argument for the separate but equal semantics on that score at least to open the door.%0D %0D I've told this story to many people as a way of making the point that equal rights for same sex couples whatever their reasons for wanting to marry goes way beyond an exclusively gay issue and is increasingly pressing as traditional families become smaller and more scattered. That argument seems to resonate. Who doesn't eventually wonder who will be there for them in sickness or old age? %0D %0D Everyone deserves the same rights and the same legal mechanisms to decide who that person should be. Sadly, my aunt didn't have much of a choice. I wonder what she might have done differently if she had. Maybe it's not so much civil rights as it is basic human rights.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||11/13/2010|
r78 are you SURE they are not lesbians (with each other, privately)?
|by Anonymous||reply 79||11/13/2010|
[quote]the flaw equating the civil rights movement to equal rights for same sex marriages.
And r78, you bring up many flaws in the counterargument.
When someone compares two things, they are not EQUATING them as you try to argue, ie they are not saying they are the same. They are saying that they share qualities. If I say "She moves like a tiger," I'm saying she shares some of the qualities of a tiger's movement. You'd be silly if you shrieked, "Well, she doesn't live in India. She doesn't weigh 200 pounds and live on deer and wild boar!!!"
The movement for gay civil rights and black civil rights share many qualities. You'd have to be blind not to see and understand that.
[quote]All of us do have the same right to marry anyone of the opposite sex just as all of us are denied the same right to marry anyone of the same sex on an equal basis.
And back in the day white people were denied the right to marry blacks, just as blacks were denied the right to marry whites. Everyone was free to marry within their own race. This was the precise argument that was used. The point was that there was no legitimate reason for withdrawing the right to intermarry OTHER than withdrawing status and dignity from a particular group. Sound familiar?
I'm sorry to hear about the troubles with your aunt and her friend. If same sex marriage were legal, they could marry and share benefits, even if they're not lesbian partners. The gov does not come in and check to see if people are having sex. And the same would apply to you and your best friend. If you wanted to share those benefits, you could get a marriage license and marry today.
[quote]equal rights for same sex couples whatever their reasons for wanting to marry goes way beyond an exclusively gay issue and is increasingly pressing as traditional families become smaller and more scattered.
I agree. But this hardly seems a reason for our gov carving out a special status for heterosexual couples and relegating other couples to an inferior status.
And moreover, your criticism and energies seem directed at the wrong group: you're stomping your feet at fellow gays, who are taking a stand for full equality. They are many, many people who want to--in fact are CURRENTLY--denying us everything. I know in your heart you probably feel as though if only gay people phrased it differently or did this or that differently, some form of equality would be ours, but I disagree. They are people who want to deny us--and your aunt and your friend-- everything and they're the culprits here and that's where you should be devoting your energy and criticism.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||11/13/2010|
I've posted this before.
The message is getting lost through perception. We're not really connecting where it counts.
Whether this is true or not. Whether its real or not. For whatever reason the entire gay rights movement has been personified by an upscale, affluent, urban white man.
I think we all know that more often than not that isn't the case, but life, oftentimes, is about perception.
The movement is not connecting with the rank and file, visible minorities, Middle America, etc, because no one is buying that a bunch of rich, white guys are having a rough time by not being able to get married or serve openly in the military.
That's the big albatross around the gay movement's neck. And from what I see, everyone just wants to gloss over it and pretend that its not a problem.
Look at the NYT Sunday wedding announcements. Oh look another affluent white gay couple is having a big fabulous party and getting married.
For the record, I'm not trying to start anything and I'm not trying to bring race into anything, but you need to understand how people think, based on what images they're being fed.
The image of the fabulous lives of the urban, affluent white gay man. That's your first problem.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||11/13/2010|
[quote] has been personified by an upscale, affluent, urban white man.
has been personified AS an upscale, affluent, urban white man. If someone is too dense to realize that gay people are everywhere, every socio-economic group, every part of the country, every ethnicity, I'm not to blame.
[quote] from what I see, everyone just wants to gloss over it and pretend that its not a problem.
Recent articles in the NYT have highlighted the problems that poor and minority gay couples face. (Lack of marriage rights often have very profound and costly consequences for the poor and minorities). Blogger Pam Spalding of "Pam's House Blend" often covers such issues. And so on. If FoxNews isn't covering it, it's not really my fault.
Because all Middle America needs to be told is that it's BLACK and HISPANIC gays who are suffering the most and then they'll be thrilled with the idea of same sex marriage.
The idea that gay people are all rich, white, urban and male is not really mine, and therefore not really mine to change, if you see what I'm saying. Like other stereotypes about minorities, the stereotype is designed to harm and dehumanize and remove a complicated sense of our humanity by our enemies. Your plea has its heart in the right place, but it's a bit like saying "All Jews really have to do is explain to people that they aren't really all greedy. And if blacks had just fought the perception that they were oversexed and lazy... And if women bothered to counter the notion that they were overly-emotional and ineffective... " and so on. Silly.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||11/13/2010|
The problem isn't that gays are seen as a bunch of rich, urban white guys but, more broadly, as people that the majority can't relate to.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||11/13/2010|
That is the nature and essence of minority oppression, r83. Denigrating and "othering" a minority in a zillion different ways so the majority can proceed to steamroll over the dehumanized and stigmatized group.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||11/13/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 85||11/13/2010|
We're better off framing the whole "marriage equality" thing as just that: "marriage equality". The whole "gay marriage" thing, makes it sound as though we're creating a new type of marriage, which we're not. We're just extending the what's already currently in place.
The question posed to the public, is always framed incorrectly. Most people take it to mean that when you're asking them about "gay marriage", would they like to marry a gay person. The way you frame something, makes a big difference in the response you'll get from the public.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||11/13/2010|
[quote]is always framed incorrectly.
Most gay rights organizations use the terms marriage equality and freedom to marry. Mainstream news orgs and the like use gay marriage.
Moreover and more to the point: I'm pretty tired of this whole "The reason we're not equal is YOU'RE doing it all wrong" meme.
Get off your ass and do something. Fight our shared enemies: ignorance, prejudice, inequality. Frame the issue as YOU see fit. Frame it, be done with it... and then get busy. Quit it with the circular firing squad and the carping and nitpicking from the sidelines. If anything, THAT is doing harm, not the choice of terms or "framing it incorrectly."
|by Anonymous||reply 87||11/13/2010|
As I see it, the state needs to legalize civil unions. It's up to the religious community to sanction marriage. If my sister and her husband get married by a justice of the peace, that's a civil union. %0D %0D If she goes to church for a religious ceremony, it's a marriage. The state recognizes this. I can force the state to recognize my civil union, and give me equal standing with het couples. I can't compel a religious denomination to do it. %0D %0D If a church agrees to marry me and my Partner, then the state should also recognize it like they do with het couples.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||11/13/2010|
Civil Unions make us closer to equality than not having them and as such, I support them. But they're only a step along the way to full equality which is, of course, Marriage Equality.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||11/13/2010|
I think Civil Unions are a perfect first step, but everyone is so greedy and wants EVERYTHING immediately that they don't understand what it means to play the long game.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||11/13/2010|
The real problem is that the homophobes, though saying they're only trying to protect 'traditional marriage', are motivated by anti-gay animus. So ANY legal recognition -- marriage, civil unions, contracts, whatever -- of our dignity will cause them problems. They want our lives to be as stigmatized as possible.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||11/13/2010|
[quote]is so greedy and wants EVERYTHING immediately
r90, gay people understand that cu's are a stepping stone to marriage equality... I think you should realize that civil unions only exist because marriage equality loomed, ie BECAUSE we brought our highest demand to the bargaining table. Straight people did not create civil unions out of the goodness of their hearts and out of their desire to ensure that gay couples are cared for and respected. Civil unions were created as a stop-gap measure to circumvent equality.
Quit criticizing your fellow gays from the sidelines and start standing together for rights, whether in the form of civil unions or marriage!! Effin do something if it's important to you... and not JUST criticize your fellow gays from the sidelines.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||11/13/2010|
[quote]and start standing together%0D %0D %0D Right, tell that to all the cowardly closet cases that our community does absolutely nothing about. Who do more damage to us, than a hundred homophobes.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||11/13/2010|
I know that this might sound like a stupid question but what do you actually mean by marriage in this context? If, as in France civil unions were available to all, gay or straight would that not be equality? Or are you using the word marriage to mean something else in the US debate? The right to have a church service for instance.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||11/13/2010|
[quote]If, as in France civil unions were available to all, gay or straight would that not be equality?
It's not a stupid question. We are not France where there's a basic understanding of "citizenship." Also French CU's are available to hetero and non-sexual couples. And they are a popular option as such. Marriage is for the religitards of which there are few in France.
Here, every opportunity would be (and is) used to differentiate and stigmatize gay people. Civil unions vs marriage would be just one more example of that.
But, yes, civil unions which offer the same rights are a better option than nothing. A far better option. But history in the US has taught us that separate institutions which offer the same rights to different groups are INHERENTLY unequal, indeed become the mode for stigmatizing, withdrawing dignity etc.
There is no purpose to Prop 8 OTHER than to withdraw dignity from gay people. I think French civil unions are different. Equality is better. Those who want to call their marriage a civil union should be able to do so, and vice versa. But if the GOVERNMENT calls it a marriage, then marriage it must be for everyone. In the eyes of the gov, satanists can marry, atheists can marry, etc etc. It is not religious. And many gay-friendly churches DO recognize and perform ssm's... So why does the gov not recognize these as equal, in a country promising separation of church and state? Hmmm?
|by Anonymous||reply 95||11/13/2010|
[quote] Right, tell that to all the cowardly closet cases that our community does absolutely nothing about. Who do more damage to us, than a hundred homophobes.
Maybe. (A hundred homophobes? I doubt it).
But you know what also does a lot of damage? People who stand on the sidelines and always blame someone else for their lack of equality and inability to do anything. Get up off that thing.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||11/13/2010|
R95. I still don't understand what is meant by marriage in the US debate. If all unions were civil would there still be a campaign for marriage? And if so what would marriage mean legally?
|by Anonymous||reply 97||11/13/2010|
No, r97, if all unions were civil it is unlikely there would be a campaign for marriage as you describe.
Many people hypothetically argue that the gov should "just be in the business of civil unions for everyone" and marriages will be left to the church. Such arguments remain hypothetical. Try telling a churchful of fundies that their marriages will now be civil unions in the eyes of the law and that this is being done to accomodate the gays. That is a TOUGHER sell than gay marriage imho, but anyone who wants to do it: I say... go for it. There's justice to it, but I just don't think it's realistic.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||11/13/2010|
If all unions were civil unions then marriage becomes strictly the province of churches. And there things would continue much as they are now -- some churches perform same-sex marriages, some do not. Because of the first amendment, it would be impossible to force a church to perform a same sex marriage.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||11/13/2010|
But, R98 aren't all marriages in the US civil? Doesn't the state have to authorise them in some way regardless of whether or not you have a religious ceremony? Can people undergo an religious ceremony without national paperwork and still be considered married by the state e.g. for the purposes of taxation, benefits, pensions etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||11/13/2010|
Has "separate" (civil unions) become equal yet?
Since it hasn't this thread was over after the OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||11/13/2010|
What do you guys think of the numerous gays who criticize the whole goal and process of trying to obtain equal marriage as misguided.
They talk of the true uniqueness of being gay when they were coming out and growing up, the pride in being "other" and see the whole marriage thing as desperate attempt to conform and reach all-most-like-you status. It's offensive to them, like the term "straight-acting."
|by Anonymous||reply 102||11/13/2010|
I am somewhat in that camp r102. Ultimately, I think you should be able marry whomever you choose.
But, I do believe that there is a belief that marriage means acceptance. They fight for acceptance, because they don't understand what makes being gay special and unique and fun and they hate being outsiders.
The cul de sac in some suburb, voting republican and driving an SUV is their ultimate goal.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||11/13/2010|
It is hard to take people seriously when they say that dropping the word "marriage" would not accelerate the pace of the fight towards achieving all of the rights and privileges accorded to heterosexual marriages on local, state and federal levels.
That's such bullshit.
The word "marriage" stirred up religious communities and drew them into the debate with full force.
We could have kept their focus just as much as on abortion and prayer in schools, but for a word.
Those that say it's all-or-nothing are the same nitwits who said that control of Congress would have no bearing on the overall fight for Equality.
This would all be so laughable if it didn't have real implications for people who suffer because incremental progress wasn't enough for those who can basically get along quite well without a total win.
Bloggers still have jobs. People at all of the activist organizations have jobs. Wealthy donors have jobs - plus they got tax cuts and saved lots of money this year because they opted out of political donations.
But some teacher in Bumfuck, Nebraska is fired from his job for being gay and a lesbian in somewhere is denied visitation rights to a dying partner.
But let's spend all of our energy focusing on a word.
If my partner and I had every right accorded to married couples, I wouldn't give a shit if it was called Domestic Partnership, etc. Rights first, titles second.
The rest is a load of crap.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||11/13/2010|
[quote]If my sister and her husband get married by a justice of the peace, that's a civil union. If she goes to church for a religious ceremony, it's a marriage. The state recognizes this.
What state do you live in that doesn't recognize marriages unless the church approves?
|by Anonymous||reply 105||11/13/2010|
Incremental steps are great, the progress has been great. Things are way better than they were even a generation ago.%0D %0D But full equality can't be achieved without reaching the goal of marriage. "Marriage" in the US is a specific set of rights that is universally acknoledged. Everyone knows what it means when you call someone your husband or wife, EG, the nurse at the hospital immediately realizes she has to let you see your partner, etc.%0D %0D "Civil unions" confer a set of rights that vary by jurisdiction and in many places don't even exist. Telling the nurse you are in a civil union won't make her step out of your way.%0D %0D Maybe civil unions can eventually confer full legal rights but social rights matter too. Without rights recognized by society, you have constantly litigate to realize your legal rights.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||11/13/2010|
[quote]If my partner and I had every right accorded to married couples, I wouldn't give a shit if it was called Domestic Partnership, etc. Rights first, titles second.%0D %0D Fuck off, Uncle Tom at R104.%0D %0D You are the problem with our struggle. You are only able to have this opinion thanks to the work of activists for equality. You are holding us back. You like that seat on the back of the bus, and you don't get why you should be allowed access to the whole bus, without a fuss.%0D %0D If and when we achieve marriage equality and you decide you don't want to get married, that's your right. And it's your rights that I'm fighting for, bitch.%0D %0D So, do fuck off.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||11/13/2010|
Actually you all or nothing queens are the real problem. Getting hung up on a word is counterproductive. Slow and steady wins the race, who care what its called. Moron at 107.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||11/13/2010|
Slow and steady is the result...and that's fine.%0D %0D Hard work toward the ultimate prize is the process.%0D %0D It's obvious you've never had to fight for anything.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||11/13/2010|
Moron at R108, who, if they're American, needs to the leave the country, PRONTO! I stand firmly behind the Constitution. You do not.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||11/13/2010|
"But some teacher in Bumfuck, Nebraska is fired from his job for being gay "
Marriage or civil union rights wouldn't protect someone from that. It sounds like you know shit all about politics and rights movements.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||11/13/2010|
Sorry, but bringing your highest demand to the table is what wins the day. Begging for the crumbs gets you nothing.
Civil unions would not exist if marriage equality had not been brought to the table.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||11/13/2010|
Thanks R112, that's what I'm trying to say to this dolt.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||11/13/2010|
Any lawyer or businessperson can tell you that bringing the highest demand to the table is the only way to get what you want.%0D %0D All success in life is a negotiation.%0D %0D If you like civil unions, fine. But you wouldn't have them without the big screaming Marys AND their more subdued counsel demanding the most of our rights at every turn.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||11/13/2010|
"I do believe that there is a belief that marriage means acceptance. "
As a strong supporter of marriage equality, r103, I can only speak for myself and say: Bullshit. No, it's not. I don't give a rat's ass about other people ACCEPTING me or liking me or accepting/liking my relationship.
It's about LEGAL EQUALITY. Say it with me. LEGAL EQUALITY.
When women fought for the right to vote, was it because they wanted men to like them? When black people fought to integrate buses was it because they wanted white people to like them?
No. It was about demanding that the country live up to its promise of CIVIL EQUALITY for all. It was about not letting one group USE THE LAW to deprive another group of rights and dignity. It was about not USING THE LAW to stigmatize a minority: it's unconstitutional and harms individuals and democracy itself.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||11/13/2010|
Funny, the rest of us are reading posts from only one person who continues to use expletives and name calling in their responses. You really don't seem mature or level headed enough to try to champion a debate such as this.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||11/13/2010|
Dan, learn troll-dar. There are several people on both sides of this debate.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||11/13/2010|
And grow a pair, Dan. Grown-ups use big, sca-wy, gwown-up words sometimes.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||11/13/2010|
Ah, the newest excuse of the "activist" crowd:
[quote]You are the problem with our struggle. You are only able to have this opinion thanks to the work of activists for equality. You are holding us back.
Yeah, I've been holding you back since we formed ACT-UP, GMHC and APLA. Then Lambda Legal and the rest.
Give a holler when you accomplish something because right now, you've done nothing.
Oh, I'm sorry, it's because not everyone shared your view? And that's why you were ineffective?
You have failed to win over fellow community members because you are shrill, humorless, condescending and ineffective.
[quote]Marriage or civil union rights wouldn't protect someone from that. It sounds like you know shit all about politics and rights movements.
Not terribly bright, I see. The fight for Equality includes Hate Crimes, DADT repeal, trans-inclusive ENDA and DOMA repeal.
Seems to me that "you know shit" about the big picture and the larger agenda.
The issue was the idiotic decision on the part of the "activist" crowd to penalize the Democrats for not enacting a full agenda in 20 months. Poor little you, all disappointed.
These issues are all linked; the political capital you waste on a single word - regardless of the rights that could be achieved with that capital - is asinine.
Framing it in all-or-nothing terms is already a failure. Congress is lost, but, lucky you, you can say it didn't matter because things were never going to work out anyway.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||11/13/2010|
I love how some of you morons equate the entire civil rights struggle to black people being upset about riding in the back of the bus.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||11/13/2010|
And, just for the record, in Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut, civil unions preceded same-sex marriage.
Guess that incremental progress really failed us in those cases.
And it took over seven years for the marriage fight to be won in Massachusetts.
So stop whining about the failures of incrementalism and about how long things take.
But, don't worry...while you believe that those of us who espouse incrementalism and can point to its success completely derail your efforts, we actually see some benefit in yours.
So, thanks for that.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||11/13/2010|
[quote]Give a holler when you accomplish something because right now, you've done nothing.
Er, yeah. Marriage equality in 5 states and DC plus several recent polls showing MAJORITY support nationwide for what was 20 years ago supported by NO ONE. That's nothing. It seems to be YOU who needs everything this second, and if you don't get it, if everyone in the whole movement doesn't think exactly as you do, if there are setbacks or if success is not instant, then you stomp your little foot, and shriek that the movement is a failure because people are not doing exactly as you say.
And I would respond to the specifics of the second half of your post, r120, but you really just fly off the handle, imagining a bunch of beliefs that don't belong to me or anyone I know or any point anyone on this thread was making. You actually start to sound a little crazy there, so I'm just gonna let that bitter, sleeping dog lie. Build strawmen, much?
|by Anonymous||reply 122||11/14/2010|
[quote]"And, just for the record, in Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut, civil unions preceded same-sex marriage."
For the record, the first civil unions were in Vermont and they were created because the state Supreme Court ordered the legislature to institute MARRIAGE EQUALITY because supporters of FULL EQUALITY were fighting for marriage rights in the courts. They were not created out of the goodness of heterosexuals' hearts or because gay people asked the legislature nicely for civil unions. They were a stop-gap measure, because FULL EQUALITY had been demanded and WON in the courts. Others were done for similar reasons... because full equality loomed. They were not done because gay people gave scouts' honor and said they were not interested in marriage rights or because gay people came to the table and said they wanted that crumb. They were done because we brought our highest demand to the table.
(And I also happen to think that many of the social gains of the past decade have been directly related to the fight for marriage equality: greater visibility; better understanding of us, our relationships, our families etc etc. These are not small things.)
[quote]And it took over seven years for the marriage fight to be won in Massachusetts.
Because if you can't get what you want in one second, it's not worth fighting for. Got it. It's actually you who seems to be whining about how long things take. Even our detractors admit now that marriage equality is inevitable. If we don't get it this second, then we should what... just give up?
And again, the second half of your post sounds crazy, r121. No one has chained you to a chair to prevent you from fighting for civil unions or stopped you from proceeding as you choose or stopped you from donating to or forming organizations that fight for civil unions in the way that seems correct to you. Go for it. (If you were actually listening to other posters here, you'd have noticed that people here SUPPORT civil unions. Certainly no one here fights against civil unions, so wtf??!)
But it seems if everyone in the movement doesn't think exactly as you do, you're going to do nothing but stomp your foot and call from the sidelines that we're doing it all wrong and that we should all drop everything and take notes on every word that comes forth from your keyboard.
I guess you can go on believing that. You imagine that if gay people gave up the fight for marriage equality and asked nicely for civil unions, it would be a primerose path (This is a lie of our enemies btw... "If only you asked for this, not that, you'd have it. If only you asked this way, not that way...")
You can go on believing as you choose, but history shows that minorities don't get anywhere by asking for crumbs or by staying quiet and waiting until a better time: those strategies are disastrous, even lethal. Minorities make progress by standing up and DEMANDING full equality. Even if they don't get it, the fight--the demand itself--is essential because when you're not fighting, not demanding full equality, the oppressor takes from you whatever they can.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||11/14/2010|
r123, and I mean this sincerely, get some sleep, hon.
You're all over the map.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||11/14/2010|
[quote]I mean this sincerely
No., you don't. You just can't answer any of my points with reasonable discourse so you drag out the old DL canard about getting sleep. (It was funny when the first 60 or so posters said it btw).
|by Anonymous||reply 125||11/14/2010|
All or nothing, usually gets you a big fat nothing.%0D %0D Civil unions are fine. Stop getting trapped by a word. You're sounding ignorant.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||11/14/2010|
[quote]You just can't answer any of my points with reasonable discourse so you drag out the old DL canard about getting sleep.
As dear Barney Frank said, I might as well argue with a dining room table.
r126 has it right; the rest of your ranting is bullshit.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||11/14/2010|
[quote]All or nothing, usually gets you a big fat nothing.
Except for, as I've pointed out again and again, this is not the case. The reason that civil unions exist is because marriage equality was brought to the table. The Vermont Supreme Court ordered the legislature to create marriage equality because people fought in court for them and won, and they created civil unions. Civil unions were not created out of the goodness of peoples' hearts or because gay people modestly asked for them instead of marriage. Same for New Jersey and other states. They passed these things because equality loomed, not because they thought it was nice or because gays in those states behaved.
These are historical instances (not even a parallel issue, but the exact issue we're discussing!!!) which demonstrate that you're wrong, and you just ignore them. Arguing with a dining room table indeed!
But you don't want to hear it--even when the actual history disproves what you're saying-- you just want to stamp your foot and say everyone but you is wrong, and if everyone listened to you, it would all be wine and roses. Ludicrous bullshit believed only by a couple lonely, bitter queens on DL.
If you think civil unions are the way: go for it. Really. Do it. Now. No one is standing in your way.
But of course, you'd actually have to get off your ass and do something. Much easier to sit on DL and complain. The people who are actually taking the initiative are fighting for marriage equality, so I guess it sucks to be you.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||11/14/2010|
[quote]as I've pointed out again and again
Nearly 25 times on this thread alone.
[quote]But of course, you'd actually have to get off your ass and do something. Much easier to sit on DL and complain. The people who are actually taking the initiative are fighting for marriage equality, so I guess it sucks to be you.
It seems to me that you're the one doing all the complaining here, mostly about what others are not doing while you are out fighting for our rights.
It is not only offensive to those of us who have been on the front lines since the advent of AIDS, it also demonstrates your immaturity, regardless of age.
The reason which the new generation of "activists" is viewed with great wariness by those who have been fighting for our rights for decades is that for every good idea and intention you have, you say or do two or three incredibly stupid, arrogant, misguided, poorly-planned, poorly-executed or condescending things which work far more against us than for.
Even worse - and this is far more troubling - at the first sign things weren't going your way you cut and ran.
You go your way, and I'll go mine. You never get to the Gandhis if you don't have the Gokhales.
The groundwork for revolution is done far in advance of apparently sudden, dramatic change.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||11/14/2010|
[post]at the first sign things weren't going your way you cut and ran.
Um, wtf are you talking about?
As Sandra Bernhard said: I'm still here dammit.
And the problem of your generation of activists was constant in-fighting, circular firing squads, and blaming gay people themselves when things didn't get done in an instant or when we suffered setbacks. There is no more ActUp, and that's why. It was an effective organization done in by circular firing squads.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||11/14/2010|
I like the French system. Everyone has a civil ceremony. If you want then you have a religious one. But everyone who is married is in a civil union. Puts everyone in there place.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||11/14/2010|
[quote]As Sandra Bernhard said: I'm still here dammit.
I bet those old-timers Stephen Sondheim and Yvonne De Carlo wish they had thought of that line.
[quote]And the problem of your generation of activists was...blaming gay people themselves when things didn't get done in an instant or when we suffered setbacks.
Wow. So now we've gone from not getting things done fast enough to not persevering when things didn't happen according to plan?
You are all over the map.
[quote]There is no more ActUp, and that's why. It was an effective organization done in by circular firing squads.
More than anything else, ACT-UP was "done in" by the arrival of effective treatments for HIV in the mid-90s. Its primary mission was accomplished.
The split between the Action Committee and TAG in 1990 was generally viewed as a positive. It was a natural evolution of the organization.
But if you want to point to a breaking point within ACT-UP, it was over the protest at St. Patrick's Cathedral.
But that is another long story, and I am certain that you are already expert in the history of ACT-UP activism.
I mean, you knew how to spell it and everything.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||11/14/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 133||11/15/2010|
I love people who try to ignore all of the good work that was being accomplished on a state by state level. Things were happening, but not fast enough for some, so they pushed and it blew up in their faces. Now, those same loons are hung up on the word marriage. Marriage. Civil unions. Tomato. Tomahto. Eventually it would have all worked out. I hope you're happy with nothing. Now with republican majorities in most state legislatures, you still won't get anything.
So this has all worked out so very well for you.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||11/15/2010|
[quote]If you're concerned about survivor rights and inheritances, make a contract.%0D %0D How do I make a contract to allow my partner to receive survivor benefits on my social security and pension? What contract can I draw to tell the Federal and State government not to apply inheritance and estate taxes to my partner or I when one of us dies?
|by Anonymous||reply 135||11/15/2010|
[italic]I love people who try to ignore all of the good work that was being accomplished on a state by state level. Things were happening, but not fast enough for some, so they pushed and it blew up in their faces. Now, those same loons are hung up on the word marriage. Marriage. Civil unions. Tomato. Tomahto. Eventually it would have all worked out. I hope you're happy with nothing. Now with republican majorities in most state legislatures, you still won't get anything.
So this has all worked out so very well for you.[/italic]
You are a fucking idiot. Leave the board!
|by Anonymous||reply 136||11/15/2010|
That's all you have r136? No hands on your hips or sashaying away in a huff?
|by Anonymous||reply 137||11/15/2010|
R131 That's exactly how it would be in my perfect world. If straight couple have a problem with being "downgraded" to civil unions then they might want to think long and hard about how equal they really are for same sex couples.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||11/15/2010|
"Under the current tax code, employer-provided health care benefits for employees, their spouses and dependent children are exempt from federal income and payroll taxes; however, health care benefits provided to unmarried domestic partners are subject to both payroll tax (for the employee) and to income tax (for the domestic partner beneficiary)."
|by Anonymous||reply 139||11/15/2010|
It's time to end religious marriage. All marriage should be civil. Marriage was always a civil event, long before KKKristians took it from the state. If churches want to have a wedding, it should not be a legal joining of two people. Marriage and divorce belong with the state, with no religious involvement.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||06/26/2013|
It's separate but it's not equal.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||06/26/2013|
They both serve water.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||06/26/2013|
Civil unions act as a stepping stone in many cases. I believe that civil unions over here allowed people who were previously against gay marriage to realise that it wasn't the end of the world and didn't affect them personally. We now await the legislation for full marriage equality to pass which because of how the process works seems to be taking forever but will happen. Civil Unions may not be the ideal but use them as a way forward if necessary.
Softly softly, catchee monkey.
|by Anonymous||reply 143||06/26/2013|