Are Civil Unions Enough?

RainGurl · 02-26-2004, 11:52 AM

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?

Scorpio · 02-26-2004, 12:40 PM

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.

**Lee** · 02-26-2004, 12:44 PM

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.

Yep thats pretty much my take on thngs too Steve

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

**Lee** · 02-26-2004, 12:46 PM

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

RainGurl · 02-26-2004, 12:47 PM

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...

Direct Holly · 02-26-2004, 01:36 PM

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...

Scorpio · 02-26-2004, 01:42 PM

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...

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

RainGurl · 02-26-2004, 01:44 PM

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....

BDBionic · 02-26-2004, 01:59 PM

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!

Direct Holly · 02-26-2004, 02:08 PM

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:

RainGurl · 02-26-2004, 02:29 PM

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....

Direct Holly · 02-26-2004, 02:33 PM

You are right I just get so mad!!! But I know Rainey one has to walk before we can run...

Jasun · 02-26-2004, 02:38 PM

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.

**basschick** · 02-27-2004, 05:04 PM

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!