interesting article...
http://planetout.com/news/feature.ht...nt/&sernum=820
kerry opposes gay marriage, but is in favor of civil unions.
step in the right direction or a brush off...what do you think?
Printable View
interesting article...
http://planetout.com/news/feature.ht...nt/&sernum=820
kerry opposes gay marriage, but is in favor of civil unions.
step in the right direction or a brush off...what do you think?
Can't be worse than Bush... at least i don't think so.
I'm totally up for a civil union. At least, let's start with the civil union then in a few years, start the marriage thingy.. but not the other way around.
Yep thats pretty much my take on thngs too Steve :)Quote:
Originally posted by Scorpio
I'm totally up for a civil union. At least, let's start with the civil union then in a few years, start the marriage thingy.. but not the other way around.
Whilst i dont agree with a gay 'marriage' not being legal i think by aiming for that immediately is the wrong way to go about things.
As it stands right now a fair amount of the general population seem to think that we are all being drama queens fo wanting this and, in all honesty, a lot of the media coverage is from gay individuals wanting the full blown marriage in fact, to date, i dont think i have heard any gay couple or individual stating that they would settle for a civil union.. kin of makes the mind boggle.. Rome wasnt built in a day as they say ;)
How long did it take before they let blacks and women have a vote? Same thing here.. lets just hope it doesnt take the same route as those two examples did because of all this drama being created.
Regards,
Lee
Oh and to append to my previous post..
IMHO this whole thing is just a smoke screen to take the countries minds off other things that in all honesty should be more important than whether two men or women can legally marry.. war in Iraq, children not being taught properly, election time, Osama.. IMHO they are far more important than whether Gary and I can marry $0.02
Regards,
Lee
I tend to agree with both of you.
As with most exchanges in life, you have to be willing to negotiate and compromise. If we get civil unions, it's a good step and we get more rights than we had before. If we say marraige or nothing, we may well end up with nothing...
I disagree....Civil unions are NOT enough why can't gay people marry? Do we love differently? Are we second class citizens that don't deserve the same rights as hetros? NO then let those gays who want to marry ... Marry! If you allow people to marry midgets and pretend millionaires for TV entertainment then what is the big deal about gay marriage....
I understand there are way more important issues... And I predict soon Bin Laden will be captured right before election but let's not say this isnt important this is about our rights...
Holly we're with you on that one... BUT you know exactly that we have to watch our steps... we can't just throw things and get them :( Unfortunately, this marriage thing started on bad feet and i predict it'll go worse for us.. this was not really smart to do, i'm sorry. little by little but surely. Right now it's Marriage or nothing :( and we're gonna get ...mmm.... nothing :(Quote:
Originally posted by Direct Holly
I disagree....Civil unions are NOT enough why can't gay people marry? Do we love differently? Are we second class citizens that don't deserve the same rights as hetros? NO then let those gays who want to marry ... Marry! If you allow people to marry midgets and pretend millionaires for TV entertainment then what is the big deal about gay marriage....
I understand there are way more important issues... And I predict soon Bin Laden will be captured right before election but let's not say this isnt important this is about our rights...
i'm not saying it's not important....i think the fight should continue. i'm just saying that it's more likely that we will get civil unions legal before marriage. it's a step in the right direction, but not the destination....
Right now it would just be too much of a politically risky stance for any candidate running for national office to come out in favor of gay marriages.
Al Sharpton's the only Democratic candidate to have done it, but he's not under any delusions of winning. He's only running to make his voice heard and speak out on the issues so he can afford to take risky positions. Which is why it's so fun having him in the race though he never gets more than a percentage point in any of the caucases or primaries.
I say let Kerry and Edwards call for civil unions until they're blue in the face. Either way, an investment in their presidencies is an investment in gay marriage eventually. Because they, as presidents, could use the bully pulpit for greater tolerance of homosexuals and an increased acceptance of the idea of gay marriages among the general population, they would nominate more liberal judges to the Supreme and other federal courts, they would speak out against things like Constitutional amendments and the like.
There's no way in heck that the current move to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages will ever climax before November. It needs to be passed by both the Senate and House and then sent to all 50 states for ratification. That'll be a long process. So even though Kerry and Edwards don't openly support gay marriage right now, either of them in the White House when a proposed amendment goes to the Senate and House floors and to the states if necessary - along with the message sent to conservatives that their incumbent president was defeated after submitting such an amendment to the Constitution - is vital.
Don't worry about the statements of Kerry and Edwards right now. Whichever one wins the Dem. nomination needs our full support with nothing held back.
And I'm a registered Republican!
Sorry did not mean to imply you guys didnt think it was an important issue... I know you all do especially ms Rainey who actually has a partner she could marry....
:cop: :bow: :worker: :construct :army: :bandana:
i understand where you're coming from, holly. i just think somethings have to be done one step at a time. i'm afraid it will otherwise fail....
You are right I just get so mad!!! But I know Rainey one has to walk before we can run...
See, I think that the issue has been pushed way too far way too fast. I mean, in some parts of America it was illegal to be gay only a few short months ago, and now, we're already pushing for full gay marriage. I think we've gotta let the folks in Virginia and Texas catch up.
Here in Canada, homosexuality was legalized about 30 years ago and we're only just now getting to full equal access to marriage.
As much as we all might hate it, I think we've gotta allow the process to go slowly. I think the reason for the proposed constitutional amendment was the fact that people are still pretty uncomfortable with the idea of being on an even playing field with gay people, and Dubya saw his chance to distract people from the real issues facing the country. If we just had let people get used to the idea slowly, it would have been a no brainer in just a few years. If this amendment doesn't pass now, it probably never will.
However, it's a little late now... the gauntlet has been thrown down, and we're gonna have to organize and mobilize fast. I just wish we had a few more years before we had to do this.
civil unions are NOT enough however if it's a choice between civil unions with kerry or trying to amend our laws to make gay marriage a crime, guess which way i'm voting. at least civil unions recognize gay relationships, and it ain't enough but it IS a start. the candidates pushing gay marriage aren't candidates with enough juice to win, and voting for them will keep bush in office.
but whatever your opinion, the bottom line - make SURE you vote!
bass, you are absolutely right.Quote:
Originally posted by basschick
but whatever your opinion, the bottom line - make SURE you vote!
Now I've voiced my opinion a lot on this. Yes I want to have equal rights on this issue, whether Lee and I do walk down an aisle is entirely a different matter. But having the choice to do it is my main point of contention.
One good point that the article Rainey first posted is that civil unions are not recognized outside of the state - in this case Vermont. In Vermont, at the moment, a couple in a civil union has all the same rights as a ‘married’ couple, on the state level (and only in the state).
At first we were fighting for legal acknowledgement of our unions from the states. While the word marriage wasn’t in play (but assumed) at the time, many seemed willing to take this route. It wasn’t until the Massachusetts court deemed there is a difference between a ‘civil union’ and a ‘marriage’ that the word ‘gay marriage’ was thrown into the mix here in the US.
I’m not talking about the politics at the moment, the candidate’s opinion or the farce of a constitutional amendment – put that aside for the moment.
If the federal government were to acknowledge a ‘civil union’, and not call it ‘marriage’, would that be enough to start with? Are we getting caught up in wording at the moment? Should the fight be to acknowledge our unions first THEN go after the words?
I watched Larry King the other night with Chad Allen, Gavin Newsom, Pastor John MacArthur and Marilyn Musgrave.
It was what Pastor MacArthur said that struck a cord in me. And it all came down to wording. (Again I’m not talking about the discrimination factors here – not at this moment) He placed the difference between marriage and civil unions into the words. He looks at the word marriage in a religious sense. He did say that gay people have a civil right to join together and have the state acknowledge it. His only concern was the religious sanctity of the word marriage, that it being between a man and woman and in the sense of joining for procreation. That is his only issue with the issue and seems to be one of the main issues at hand. He argued his entire point from a religious stance (of course I didn’t agree with it), but still acknowledging that we have the rights to a civil union.
Now Ms. Musgrave is the one introducing the legislature on the amendment. Frankly, she can kiss my big fat hairy ass. She is one of those people who confuse love with deviance. She kept comparing gay marriage to bigamy. I was quite pleased with Mayor Newsom’s retort that she had only a rhetorical red herring to throw out like that and one had nothing to do with the other. I believe he did a wonderful job putting Ms. Musgrave in her place.
I am a very strong believer in the separation of church and state. But if this is the REAL issue at hand, and out of all of this we could get civil unions acknowledge by the federal government isn’t that a valid first step?
I’m not basing my entire opinion on this one television show. But the points made and the way they were made, enticed more questions for me.
So for now, I will continue to watch, read and listen to find the answers. I can only hope that the votes this November will be votes in the right direction.
My best,
Gary
Yes mam! But don't wait until the elections. Let those in office as well as those running for office know how you as a tax paying, voting citizen feel about the issue. Write your representative and senator asking them NOT to support the Federal Marriage Amendment. Remind them that there are far more pressing issues to spend their time on -- the issues George W.'s trying to take the country's attention away from with "save marriage, protect families" rhetoric. He's failed on education, jobs, terrorists, Iraq . . . don't let him win with this.Quote:
Originally posted by basschick
. . . but whatever your opinion, the bottom line - make SURE you vote!
Pay special attention if one of your elected representatives is a sponsor of the Amendment. These indiviuals need to be reminded that we vote and, as of now, our votes still count. They don't hold office forever. Let them know they have constituents that disagree with what they are proposing.
AGAIN . . .
Write your representative: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Write your senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm
I did: http://www.gay-empire.net/brownback.html
In Defense of Equal Civil Marriage Rights
It's those against who threw those words. No one I know that's for equal rights in civil marriage laws defines it as 'gay marriage' -- that's a label designed to stir up the folk that don't understand, or don't want to accept, the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage.Quote:
Ouotes Originally posted by Gary-Alan
. . . It wasn’t until the Massachusetts court deemed there is a difference between a ‘civil union’ and a ‘marriage’ that the word ‘gay marriage’ was thrown into the mix here in the US.
BIG IF! There are over 1100 separate laws within the U.S. Code that relate to the status of being married or being a spouse of a marriage or the child of a marriage.Quote:
If the federal government were to acknowledge a ‘civil union’, and not call it ‘marriage’, would that be enough to start with?
And, sorry to say, that civil right is called a civil marriage, requiring no religious group or official to perform it, accept it, respect it or honor it. Marriage is not just a religious term. It is a term that defines both a religious act and a civil contract and one does not 'require' the other. Furthermore, not all religions say marriage is a sacrament or that it's purpose is for procreation or even that it is limited to different-gender couples.Quote:
. . . He looks at the word marriage in a religious sense. He did say that gay people have a civil right to join together and have the state acknowledge it. His only concern was the religious sanctity of the word marriage, that it being between a man and woman and in the sense of joining for procreation. . .
JAY JAY
Hey Jay Jay!Quote:
Originally posted by jonjayw
And, sorry to say, that civil right is called a civil marriage, requiring no religious group or official to perform it, accept it, respect it or honor it. Marriage is not just a religious term. It is a term that defines both a religious act and a civil contract and one does not 'require' the other. Furthermore, not all religions say marriage is a sacrament or that it's purpose is for procreation or even that it is limited to different-gender couples.
JAY JAY
Just for the record I'm not in love with Pastor MacArthur LOL
And I agree with whole heartly on the all religious factors you mentioned above... But the main religious opponent to this is the conservative Christain based, who do define it in terms of procreation, man and woman.
I think what I'm trying to figure out (amidst all the political rhetoric and opinions that are flying around my head) is, at this moment in time if a gay couple wanting to legalize their relationship can do so if a word is changed, will they? Or is this an all or nothing situation? And I love your big IF ;) BUT IF it were to happen would we be compromising by accepting it? I still wonder.
Let me add, I'm often an optimist in many things. This time I'm not. I really think that nothing will come of this except more heart ache and disappoint. I, unfortunately, feel that once the elections are over this will go to the back of the shelf because it's all meant as political rhetoric and posturing for the moment.
My best,
GA
What I want to ask is what we can do about it.
1 -- See my prior post re: contacting your elected officials and -- do the same for any candidates for office. Drop a note to George!!Quote:
Originally posted by DigitalJay
What I want to ask is what we can do about it.
For more ideas checkout this 'Planet Out' page
2 -- Follow the very sound advise of HRC President Cheryl Jacques:
brief quotes
" . . . the majority of us don't talk to family, friends and colleagues about the impact of discrimination on our lives. We are depriving the people who love us most of the opportunity to fight for us, to vote for us and to end the discrimination against us.
"This silence is a barrier to our equality. . .
"Poll after poll shows that people who know openly GLBT people are far more likely to support our equal rights -- in the workplace, in marriage rights and in all the areas we lack critical protection. Some may say that our greatest enemies are extremist groups like Focus on the Family -- who are dangerous, loud and well funded. But at this moment, our greatest challenges are silence, ignorance and apathy."
Who outside the gay community have you talked to about any of our issues within the past week? If your answer is "NOBODY". Change!!
3 -- Keep informed. Read and pass on the information in this article:
Anthropologists Give Bush A Failing Grade on Understanding Human CulturalCheck out these three organizations and what they have to say:
Soul Force
Freedom To Marry
Interfaith Working Group Online
4 -- Be sure you really understand the underlying issue here, which is the separation of church and state. Yes folks, the issue may be equality in civil marriage rights, BUT, the fight against it has been taken over by those who actually think/believe that the United States is a Christian republic/democracy. Take This Quiz. You may get a real surprise!!
Jay Jay (no sig, this is personal!!)
IF (still a damn big one) every state and federal law, regulation, etc. that uses the term marriage, in some form, could be changed to read 'marriage or civil union' and the feds still allowed states to define what is 'marriage' and what is 'civil union' . . .Quote:
Originally posted by Gary-Alan
. . . if a gay couple wanting to legalize their relationship can do so if a word is changed, will they? Or is this an all or nothing situation? And I love your big IF ;) BUT IF it were to happen would we be compromising by accepting it?
I'd say YES! So would any 'couple wanting to legalize their relationship' (regardless of gender/sexuality/etc.). And there'd be no compromise for any gay couple.
The only question I'd have is 'Who's got the magic wand to wave and have all those words change???' Answer: eventually it'll be the Supreme Court!! (Unless GWB wins on the amendment and re-election.
He'll stack the Court and have the Constitution changed so we'll never see the light of day for years and years. Remember -- well not really -- prohibition. Same song, different verse.)
Jay Jay
Gary-Alan - i wholeheartedly and very sadly agree with you. this is all about the election. besides, even if actual marriage were granted to same-sex unions, why would that be any harder for the religious right to take away than civil unions?
i live in l.a. and we have a lot of strikes. nothing ever even begins to get solved without compromise. just my opinion, but taking what is offered can strengthen your later position. right now, they say "gay marriage is wrong. gay couples shouldn't be together".
if civil unions became the law, and continued for some time, the average people would become accustomed to the idea of a gay "couple" instead of thinking of gay people as only perverts (as many do). at that point, wouldn't it be easier to take it to the next level?
Jay Jay! Thank you for sharing those links.
basschick,Quote:
if civil unions became the law, and continued for some time, the average people would become accustomed to the idea of a gay "couple" instead of thinking of gay people as only perverts (as many do). at that point, wouldn't it be easier to take it to the next level?
That's how I felt about this going in. A move like this is a step in the right direction. Now it seems it has moved quickly to an all or nothing situation. At first I thought it was just the press. Now, I'm seeing it everywhere.
And in seeing and hearing it like this, it has clouded any middle ground idea in my mind. Now I don't think this is a horrible thing - the fight for desegregation and the fight for women's suffrage were both 'all or nothing' arguments. And those fights had no compromise to make... there was no middle to them, the decision HAD to be all or nothing.
I think, honestly, I'm trying to look inside myself and figure out if I'm willing to compromise for the moment... Am I doing a disservice to myself if I decided I would compromise? And is that compromise still there?
Again, let me add I am not deluding myself on the politics or the possibilities of the moment. I still feel that this is a Washington game.
But when it does come to light, I want to fight this fight! I just need to understand, in myself, how far I'm willing to go. And everything posted here is helping me realize it.
Thank you all!
My best,
Gary-Alan