Last week, New Hampshire Governer John Lynch signed legislation legalizing civil unions in the Granite State. Gay rights advocates have scored a series of victories in New England over the past few years. In addition to New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont allow gay couples to enter into civil unions. Massachusetts remains the only state in the country where gays can legally marry. Under Maine law, homosexual couples have achieved legal recognition as domestic partners - but they still do not enjoy most of the benefits enjoyed by married heterosexuals.
Governor Lynch defended the bill legalizing civil unions through a public statement published on the state government's website. He had this to say:
"Over the last several months, I have spoken with hundreds of people about this issue, and most of those people support civil unions. Some support civil unions, but feel it may be happening too fast, or too soon. Others oppose civil unions altogether and see it as a threat to marriage.
I've listened and heard all the arguments. I do not believe this bill threatens marriage. I believe this is a matter of conscience and fairness. And my view is that, it's never too soon to act to prevent discrimination.
People in committed relationships should not have to worry about visiting a loved one in a hospital, or whether their loved ones will inherit their estate, or the many other legal protections so many of us take for granted.
How could any one of us look into the eyes of our neighbors, our friends, or our loved ones if we continued to deny them these basic legal protections?
That is why I am pleased to be here today as we further the interest of fairness, dignity and the strengthening of families."
Reactions to the new law have been mixed. Some New Hampshire newspapers, like the Portsmouth Herald, published editorials praising the law as a victory for human rights and a defeat for descrimination. The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, also celebrated the passage of the legislation. HRC president Joe Solmonese said, "This is a major step toward ensuring equality for all families. The conversation about marriage and the rights and protections only it provides will continue. As we are doing across the country, we will continue to tell the stories of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families in New Hampshire so that soon there will be no need for two lines at the town clerk’s office — one for GLBT families and one for everybody else."
But many conservative groups have voiced anger over the bills passage. Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback condemned civil unions and gay marriage in the following statement:
"In nations that have embraced same sex unions, overall marriage has declined putting families in jeopardy. This is a massive social experiment whose early results have been quite harmful to families and children.
We know in our hearts and we know from all the social data, marriage is a the union of man and woman bonded together for life.The last thing we ought to do is redefine marriage out of existence."
Although a number of states across the country have granted gay couples new legal rights in recent years, the Defense of Marriage Act - passed in the 1990's - continues to bar gay couples from enjoying any of the legal rights and benefits offered to married couples by the federal government. In many states, conservative groups have attempted to pass legislation banning gay marriage or civil unions.
Proponents of gay marriage and civil unions believe that gay couples should be allowed to enjoy the same benefits and rights as heterosexual couples. What do you think?
Should gay couples be granted the same rights and privilidges available to heterosexual couples that choose to marry?
Should civil unions constitute the legal basis for recognizing relationships between homosexuals, or should they be allowed to marry?
Our World is a new column written by Gather Political Correspondent David Anderson. Our World seeks to explore the events that define our time and provide readers with an opportunity for discussion and debate. You can find all of David's correspondent articles under the tag "live from new hampshire".
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 71
NOW, after a deep breath, and self assurances that any thing I say here will be kept in the strictest confidence, Here goes. If Bill Cannot marry Bob legally, William Cannot Marry Roberta legally. Bob and Bill both have the EXACT same rights as Roberta and William. NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT. If Bob and Bill don't have the Right to marry, neither do Roberta and William. I say this, if two people are denied the right to marriage ALL people are denied the right to marriage.
Man and Woman are two types of Human. Denying the right to love honor and cherish another human to any human denies that right to all humans.
ALL Marriage is civil unions. SOME marriage is sanctified by a religion. No state recognizes a marriage that is not properly witnessed and recorded, and they require that at least one party to the agreement be an agent of the state. In order for a marriage to be recognized, an agent of the state must bear witness to the violuntary nature of the agreement between the parties being married. The Priest or Pastor or Minister or Justice of the Peace, or in some states, the notary public, acts as an agent of the state when signing and recording the marriage. There are already two kinds of marriage in the USA...one is the civil union, recognized by the state, and the other is the Sanctified Union recognized by the church.
It will take another generation, but the nation will have same-sex marriage.
It is a matter of fairness and honesty.
"ALL Marriage is civil unions. SOME marriage is sanctified by a religion."
The state's interest in marriage is about the acquisition of a shared identity, welfare of children, the legal transfer of property rights, etc.
Everything else is a matter of religious principle or belief.
Personally, I believe that marriage is a sacred union blessed by God, and I hope that all human beings can enjoy it.
On a personal level, i do not obsess about the marriage/civil union line of demarcation. But from a standpoint of civility, I understand that many americans are just not ready to cross the marriage line for Gays, but may be willing to cross the civil union line. On the other hand, the Republican Party has been absurd in its effort to slam shut the barn door just as the cows finish trotting through it. It is like the Pope putting Galileo under house arrest for pointing out that the Earth does in fact orbit the Sun. Saying that it does not will not make it so.
Civil Unions are conducted by legal authorities - a.k.a. governments.
Arguing over whether personal commitment between 2 people is a marriage or a civil union in terms other than these is rather pointless.
The equal protection clause of section 1 of the 14th amendment is unequivical: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Note that it says "all persons," and "any person" Even in a time when they could and would have written "all men," they wrote "all persons" and "any person."
Therefore as Karl correctly pointed out, if Sally has a right to marry Bob, then so does Robert. No religious philosophy has any say over that.
However what each individual religious institution wants to say, believe, and enforce within their own congregations is perfectly fine. The state has no say over that.
This whole 'issue' has been 'discussed' ad naueseam. It seems to be a manufactured issue to create tension and hate/anger between people.....to divert attention from important issues people want to avoid. Who was the republican presidential candidate that made that statement anyway, David?
What did your research on this topic uncover? What statistics (real ones) support what opinions? What do mental health professionals say about marriage....for anyone? Is it stabilizing, helpful, a 'good thing' for society and people? How does more people getting married threaten the 'institution of marriage?'
I'm sorry, David; but this reads like a Fox 'News' report.....bantering random opinions without facts. Regurgitating conflict makes for a bad taste in the mouth, eh? Even the idea of 'discussing' what 'gays' should and shouldn't do, objectifies humans for silly sound bytes. Hence, the article is hurtful in its very existence.....talking about people like they have no feelings, like they are objects or subhuman. When you don't seem to care either way, and just want to incite more 'discussion,' its using a very important life experience for cannon fodder.
There has to be a more substantive purpose here.....
Bottom line? What is the point you are trying to make David?
Thanks David, for laying out both sides of the issue dispassionately, objectively. It seems from the balance of the comments that rational humans are beginning to hold sway over the religious fervor we have been unfortunately suffocated with during the past 6 years of the bush administration and their "faith based" policies.
Patrick - Sam Brownback (Sorry - my internet is running slow so I could't fix the typo). Personally I approve of civil unions and gay marriage. The point of this piece was to present readers with some basic facts, and to give them an opportunity to discuss a rather monumental event in gay rights history. I believe that you do not have to editorialize to present people with information, which is to say that experience has taught me that allowing people to discuss issues and events is far more effective than standing on the proverbial soapbox.
I encourage you to write a piece representing the one that you believe that I should have written. Sounds like a good read, and you should pursue your own creative ideas.
Finally, discussion allows people to hear new ideas and reconsider their own. So I would tend to disagree that discussing this issue is in any way a problem or a way to overshadow bigger problems.
Should gay couples be granted the same rights and privilidges available to heterosexual couples that choose to marry?"
You know something, I've just finished studying the decline and fall of Rome's Empire.
Of course there was much more to it than just a general vacuous moral decay of earlier Roman values (high amongst which was the-then traditional Roman family, ie, man-woman, children).
The failure and collapse of Roman Society and the eventual fall of the empire itself was due to many factors - rampant immigration, assimilation, over-extension of Welfare (the "bread and circus" business) - as well as an overly extended and far flung military and a Nation at constant war; high taxes, and ect -
in and amongst all of the above was the moral decay, the destruction of tradtional values and fibre, the loss of the family (the youth) to debauchery, cynicism, drugs (of the day), alcohol, parental control ignored and the family debunked. One yard stick of the day was mentioned by Cicero (I believe it was him) - when he wrote a scathing review of the State of Roman Society as reflected by traditionally modest Roman families being bullied by lobbying groups as regard to one: The homosexuals whom assailed the Senate, demanding that they be allowed to wed and treated by Roman Law as legitimate "married couples" -
The only thing these homosexuals did not have to lobby for was the right to adopt children for by the time they were allowed to wed, and have these weddings attended by Roman High Society - the babies and young children of legitimate male and female unions were being left on the streets due to the average Roman citizen's inability to provide for them.
Yes, the GLBT community has had some victories, but it will be a steep uphill battle with those that are close-minded and think that gays should not have equal rights for marriage. Massachusettes, the only state that allows actual gay marriages, turned things around (and shook up the nation... which the nation really needed, anyways).
There will always be proponents against one thing or another. If we, as Americans, are supposed to be an example to the rest of the world.... then we should be by showing other nations that there is no prejudice (or I should say very little prejudice) in America.
An African-American friend related to me about the prejudices of African-Americans and white Americans not being allowed to get married and I believe that was just a little over 30 years ago. It is almost the same for the GLBT's that want to get married, albeit, it is quite different, as well.
If two people, whether they're heterosexual or homosexual, love each other then they should be allowed to get married. Kurt quoted from the 14th Amendment, but the Constitution gives all people, of the US, the liberty and right to, not quite the quote itself but my understanding, pursue happiness. If that happiness is with the opposite sex or the same sex, then who is the administration to go against what the founding fathers wrote in 1776?
I do apologise for being so long winded on this. Thank you, David, for a very interesting and good article.
Gina C. - Always interesting to see how similar our society is to that of the ancient western civilizations. I would note that homo-sexual relationships were fairly normal amongst males in ancient Greece - the same society that Romans modeled their own civilization after. Given that Greece and Rome flourished for centuries it seems doubtful that homosexuality resulted in the collapse of either civilization.
"Given that Greece and Rome flourished for centuries it seems doubtful that homosexuality resulted in the collapse of either civilization." (your response to a typical objectification comment; made by Gina above) Any knowledgable person would know for a fact that fags made those two societes fail ;-)
Gina, bless her heart, made the point for me.....that I didn't do so well to describe. Without facts, discussions like this turn into opinion fests. (Garnering Gather points, yet only inciting the issue further. Carl makes the same point: "Yawn, lets move on. It should be a moot point." The fact that it isn't, is a symptom of large problems. And, yes Gina, those are the things that sank the other "Empires"....not who people wanted to love, or how some people express that love. Frankly, I don't even get upset by ignorant remarks like Gina's....I just feel sad how cluless some people are.
Here is a thought, David. Come up with an article that has an objectified name for other groups of people...... Dumb blond, comes to mind. You have any? ;-)
For those of you who think this is a "non-issue". the above fact should speak volumes about the current status of gay marriage/civil unions. Does it matter? Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, the simple fact of the matter that the result of the battle over it will determine whether or not gay couples enjoy access to the benefits that heterosexual citizens enjoy when they marry. If you stop and think about all the benefits married couples enjoy, you will realize what is at stake (tax breaks, social security benefits, etc...).
Every American needs to own a copy of the Constitution and read it ona regualr basis.
The American Founding Fathers did have in mind certain rights for the African Slave as well as their owners. And this can be found within the Constitution on a rather limited basis. Some of these Founding Fathers wrote on the matter separately from the Constitution; in fact those that agreed, did so exclusive to the Constitution.
Not one of them considered or mentioned the uprooting of the new American Society family, faith and values by granting specific and unique rights to homosexuals that were commensurate to legitimate marriage between a man and a woman.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote something along the line of (and as his opinion only) that the Constitution should be torn up every few years or so and rewrit.
People should not try to interpret what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers or, even, in the words they'd writ - beyond what was succinctly stated/recorded by each and all of them. They should not quote this Constitution and add to these men's vision of American as in agreement with their own views.
If American Society at large really wants to grant to homosexual the "right" to marriage as equal to legitimate and societally, as well as what is considered morally acceptable by Faith (the "Church") then, they should be allowed to create a new constitution.
To use the original American Constitution and the Men whom wrote it as validation is a rationlisation that makes no sense and is an inaccurate assumption of rights in this matter.
Instead of interpreting or mis-interpreting what these men wrote and meant, why not tear up the Original and create a new Constitution for the American People?
Because, the majority would scream bloody murder if anyone did so or suggested it be so.
Instead, special interests groups will be dishonest and haul out a Constitution that is NOT customisable according to the Founding Fathers and twist it like a pretzel until it means exactly what they would have it mean. This is dishonesty. This is nothing but cultural marxism.
My final 2 cents.
If homosexual couples are allowed to adopt how does this threaten families?
This is the same old right wing conservative fundamentalist viewpoint that they
have been preaching all to long. Why are civil unions of same sex couple such an
issue to the heterosexual community, why do you care. Isn`t everyone entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", or does that only apply to the religious
right. What happened to the separation of church and state or should there be a Christian state religion with oppsing factions similar to the Islamic state of affairs in Iraq. Why can`t we live our lives without one segment of society trying to force the
ideology down the throats of the rest of us? Peace!
Will R.
Did your study of the fall of the Roman empire include anything about the lead pipes used to provide the water supply to an ever-increasing percentage of the population? Lead, as I hope you're aware, can have devastating consequences on the human brain, even in small doses, over a long period of time. That alone could have been enough to cause the dissolution of that society.
And of course no one who brings up this argument ever mentions the introduction of Christianity into the Roman civilization -- and its mandatory adoption by the Roman citizens & the peoples under its rule.
Further, homosexuality was not labeled as such when the Founding Fathers were writing the constitution -- it didn't receive this label until at least late in the 19th century. The founding fathers couldn't have envisioned technology or commerce to be as they are today back then either, but still the owners & practitioners in both are provided protections for each within the framework of the US Constitution.
Now, to the primary thrust of your argument, that gay marriage amounts to state sanctioning of morally bankrupt or decrepit practices, well, the state has been sanctioning divorce since time immemorial. To argue against same-sex marriage as the failure of the institution of marraige, and as the downfall of society itself, without accounting for divorce is, simply, hypocritical and self-contradictory.
But nice try.
And btw everyone, NH is now a blue state!
Thanks, David, for your post - I really was not going to revisit this issue, but I noted in the comments that you'd addressed me specifically -
I realise that, as an outsider, I'm looking at, studying really, the American Constitution with different eyes - Including Britain and Ireland, there really is nothing quite like this document in "modern" Europe. Perhaps I am taking this Constitution rather literally - and am caught most by the way it's used by today's Americans - to take to it for approval a practise that has been rebuked and condemned for centuries - and to try and turn the practise into something 'mainstream' and acceptable seems a rather unorthdox and highly suspect use of it.
Not all laws imagined and writ by a group of people are meant to be given rights. Homosexual marriage, imo, should it become a "law" is one of these.
//Further, homosexuality was not labeled as such when the Founding Fathers were writing the constitution -- it didn't receive this label until at least late in the 19th century. The founding fathers couldn't have envisioned technology or commerce to be as they are today back then either, but still the owners & practitioners in both are provided protections for each within the framework of the US Constitution.//
A computer, aeroplanes, a cell fone- none of these things could be envisioned by your Founding Fathers - correct, but, I fail to see how any of these technologies can translate into what you have attempted to segue into...a rather strawman type argument, that one.
As for homosexuality - it certainly was not labelled as such by the Founding Fathers - though I would imagine in polite society of the time, it might have been used.
No, the Founding Fathers were Europeans, English - our version of the language has not substantially changed over the last few centuries - and the words used then by English speaking Europeans, vis a vis homosexuality, really cannot be posted here as they would now be considered far too prejudiced by modern Americans.
The Founding Fathers could envision a day when the African Slave might be freed and attempted to address the practise of slavery.
Due to their own moral standards and religious belief, They could not ever have imagined a day when, homosexuals would demand to be given the right to marry and assume the protections and rights proffered in the Constitution.
//Now, to the primary thrust of your argument, that gay marriage amounts to state sanctioning of morally bankrupt or decrepit practices, well, the state has been sanctioning divorce since time immemorial. To argue against same-sex marriage as the failure of the institution of marraige, and as the downfall of society itself, without accounting for divorce is, simply, hypocritical and self-contradictory//
Again you would presume that homosexuality is on the same level as heterosexuality in every way - it is not, and, it never has been. You cannot legislate this fact away.
And, again, you would draw a strawman argument - divorce - something which has nothing to do with homosexuality; yet it does have alot to do with the failure of families which does directly impact the foundation, both moral and otherwise, of a Society
Moral bankruptcy and decrepitude are as old as the Bible and even older than that - they are practisese which do not benefit any Society as a whole - but have ALWAYS served special interest groups - whether they concerned sexuality or not. A good long study of history - not just cherry picking history, but inclusive history, shows us this time and again.
If you find it reasonable to consider history itself "hypocritical" or "self-contradictory" , then do so to your heart's content - it still does not change history "as is" - ie, one cannot re-write it.
Homosexuals are demanding to be considered as part of the 'norm' - and, history shows us that this is one thing they have never been - not in any Society - even Greek (which for some reason, homosexuals would hold up to everyone as some sort of proof that the practise was meant to be the 'norm')
Personally, I am not offended by homosexuals per se; for they've been around throughout history - but, I am offended by the current militancy and the lobbying and the demands they are now making on Society. I am offended by the demand that homosexual marriage be state and church sanctioned.
One thing I cannot understand is why homosexuals whom wish to live together and ensure legal protection for the relationship don't just go to a lawyer and draw up a legal contract that states who gets what should they decide to part ways; or if one outlives the other; make financial arrangements for the care of the other in a variety of circumstances.
For clarification - the first quoted portion is by David A. and my reply is to him.
The latter two quotes are writ by another of the same first name - David H. - those two rather lengthy replies of mine are directed to this gentleman.
Apologies for any confusion ---
Many Gays basically want all members of society to say, "You are just like us and we welcome you."
That isn't going to happen. What needs to be done is the development of civil unions that over time will test the needs and limits of gay unions just as marriage laws have done over time. It is very possible in the future marriage and unions will be equal, but that process shouldn't be given a short-cut or a cut-off. It needs to develop over time.
Who knows, in time it may be possible to have a social union with an alien. If this goes through the time tested process and is found to be of social benefit then it also will be accepted. This comment is NOT MEANT AS AN INSULT. I'm simply saying all social change needs to be time tested. History will judge our actions.
People can quote all the laws or rights they want. It's just talk. In the end the only true purpose of laws is the healthy continuation of a society. As an entity society should not be raped, as has been done in the past, but nurtured with love and kindness.
It is important to understand that gays and lesbians never asked for this problem. Society demands it. Marriage equality will be a reality some day throughout the USA. It will happen because it is the right thing to do.
First, that technology evolves is parallel to the society itself evolving. The concept of societal evolution is incredibly central to the Constitution -- if we are to be concerned with the intent of the forefathers, this should take supremacy over the black letters themselves.
On to strawman number two: divorce is a far larger & more widespread occurance than two men or two women seeking to marry each other. Hardly a straw man when gay marriage is brought to signify the downfall of western civilization. Realizing we won't persuade conservatives to accept (not merely tolerate) homosexuality, we are free to address the institution of marriage itself, with all its rights. And if the institution of marriage is key to the survival of society, conservatives have much larger issues to tackle than gay marriage -- divorce is the most obvious example.
Now, without much time to address the larger point, I will only say that most of the rights denied homosexuals are rights imbued to them through the constitutions of all the states, as well as the US Constitution. It's not that they're seeking to be part of the norm, they are part of the norm -- as long as you realize that we are all humans above & beyonnd our sexuality or gender. This is a point far too often missed by conservatives, on many issues.
Further, you can address the black letter of the law all you want, but if you ignore case law you've missed half of what the law really is. Ergo, a city ordinance won't trump a supreme court ruling. You simply overlooked an entire universe of information, including that which states that marriage is a fundamental right. And the machinations of how classes are deemed to be protected.
Finally, same-sex couples cannot achieve all the rights granted by marriage through drafting agreements between them. They often do draft such agreements, but many, many of the other rights are realized via third parties.
Making any more sense now? Same sex couples aren't demanding more rights, they're simply demanding access to the rights they already have, as humans, as citizens. Feel free to disagree with their "lifestyles" all you want, but don't further the cause that seeks to oppress these humans into second-class citizenry.
This is what Wills, Testaments and additional, binding legal contracts, drawn up long before they are needed, are for. This is what lawyers are for.
@David H.
Well, let's see, the world has homosexual politicians, educators, doctors, lawyers & ect.
If the homosexual is open about his/her sexuality and does not try to hide it behind a facade, ie, marrying the opposite for financial or political gain; fathering/mothering children to further the facade and such, then they are let alone and go about the daily business of life as do heterosexuals.
If a homosexual is beaten for being a homosexual, then the perpetrators of the crime are arrested, tried and convicted (Yes, I am aware that this was not always so- that, prior to the 60s and even up to the 70s such crimes were committed and justice was not swift; punishment not meted out) -
If they choose, and can afford to do so, homosexuals adopt children to raise (case in point, the celebrity Rosie O'Donnell and her partner's several adopted children) - although this is difficult; but, legal adoption is equally difficult for hetersexuals whom desire to raise children.
Actually, as you discuss your "oppression" by society and lack of lawful protection, your argument begins to fail when viewed in the light of day and under open, rational discourse.
I know several homosexuals - amongst them were two of my University Professors last year - lovely men whose classes and discussions I enjoyed. In one class, my Literature and Propaganda class, the issue of homosexual marriage came up and this Professor agreed that the push for it had little do with being denied rights or with fear of being - in your words, David h., turned into "second class citizenry" (or returned to such status).
He said it had to do with a deliberate and planned attack against American citizens - all of them; including homosexual citizens - and the essence of American Democracy itself. He referred our class to "cultural marxists" and marxism.
The motive of cultural marxists is as it's ever been - to destablise the foundation created by the majority so that Society is run by the minority. To create issues where none really exist. Why do they do this, because they are marxist; their notion of 'democracy' is not aligned with any actual democracy. Why do cultural marxists attack any Society? For power.
One of the methods cultural marxists and marxists use to devalue a Society and it's laws is the request/demand for 'special treatment' vis a vis the rights that their selected or " pawn group" already enjoys (in this case, homosexuals); and that these faux issues be given special and further enhanced rights and recognition above and beyond the rights and protection already granted to everyone - including the minority group. The work and order of Society is then derailed and distracted by being forced to deal with these "issues".
Cultural marxists rely on the inherent decency and goodness of people in order to achieve their goals - ie, if homosexual are not allowed the exact, same rights as legitimately married heterosexual and their family; then those whom would deny them this are, ipsp facto, prejudiced, ignorant and just not very decent people.
No one wants to be considered thus, as an unjust and uncaring person - whether or not the appeal to them is warranted - and so, under this sort of intimidation, the good People within Society will cave. And, they will do so whether or not it's in their own personal or Society at large best interests.
However, The first action is to convince the minority group that there is, indeed, a problem; that somehow they are being persecuted and denied "full" rights and status when, in fact, they are not.
In some cases, these cultural marxists have been right (just often enough to lend their case legitimacy) ; ie, African Americans were, in fact, being persecuted - on all levels, including the right marry whomever they wished. Women were being abused, under-payed and ect. But, when cultural marxism has been proven right about one thing, and real wrong is addressed by Society, they do not stop there. So we end up with a plethora of non-specific and specific special interest attacks against Society - and, armed with the facts of having righted one or two wrongs, cultural marxism continues to move through Society, feeding off it like locusts.
However, this is simply not the case when it comes to state sanctioned homosexual marriages, not in the America of today nor in any future America that can be envisioned.
And, not every - in fact, I would say the majority of homosexuals are cultural marxists. They are decent men and women being led around by the nose, after having been deceived and convinced that they are now, again, being persecuted because the millenia old rights inherent in heterosexual marriage are not being proffered them. "Inherent" rights do not need to be legislated. They exist and occur - as others here have stated- as part of an evolutionary process.
Evolution cannot be made aritificial and crammed down the throat of humanity. I would state that this is particularly the case when it comes to definitions of homosexualty and gender. (more on this later)
I'd also like to clarify the issue a bit. Gays have more to gain than new rights when it comes to inheritance. Married couples in America have access to numerous tax breaks and other benefits. For example, when one spouse dies the other can continue to benefit from the deceased spouse's social security benefits. This benefit is especially important in cases where one spouse earned more than the other over the course of their life.
So, why can't people with homosexual preferences choose their own lifetime companions and have the same benefits, for themselves and their families, as the rest of us? Why do they get some substandard substitute frighteningly reminiscent of "separate but equal" IF they get that.
Now, I'm talking about churches accepting homosexual unions. The government doesn't have control of religion and vice versa (in theory), so they can be as prejudiced as their rules require. But the government does not have that luxury and we, in my opinion, should not stand for making any citizen substandard, certainly not for any reason I've heard of yet (which usually boil down to religion). Let 'em marry or take the married privileges from the rest of us.
"That all men are created equal..."
Now for some meat. Gina, the fall of the roman empire was a result of the Christianizing of the Roman Government. The Roman empire grew to its great stature in the world under a polytheistic religion, and with the practice of homosexuality as a constant. It can be argued that the Christian Prejudice against Homosexuality was a major cause of the downfall of the Roman Empire.
I know this goes against what has been taught for centuries in the US and UK. But the facts are there. Rome was an empire before the birth of Christ. Rome was the central government of "The Holy Land" when the call went out for the registration that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. IT IS FACT...CHRISTIANITY DESTROYED THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
I am not revising History, I am not changing the realities of historical fact. I am challenging the conclusion that the roman empire fell because of immorality. I am, in fact, challenging the claim that Homosexuality is immoral.
Just because one professor said one time that the demand for gay marriage was based on social marxism does not by any means qualify such a statement as absolute truth.
And how the ensuing diatribe against marxism passed as "open, rational discourse" on the topic of same sex marriage is beyond me. At this point, you've begun to sound like a conspiracy theorist. To avoid that next time, try to include premises that support such an outrageous conclusion.
In the meantime, I'll simply point out that the states that make up this great nation of ours were allowed to criminalize sex between two members of the same gender until 2003. Criminalized sex. Forget marriage, in some states you could be arrested simply for making love to the person you've dedicated your life to.
And that's exactly what many people did -- forget marriage. Then, finally, in Lawrence v. Texas (US, 2003), sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional. With this decisive blow against discrimination based on sexual orientation, it was only natural that the movement for same-sex marriage would gain momentum -- and it did. Accordingly, the backlash resulted in many states passing "defense of marriage" acts and, in many states, constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man & one woman. Whatever your prof may have said, the real impetus behind the resurgence in the gay marriage movement was a decision made by the US Supreme Court in the summer of 2003.
Now, my guess is that you view homosexuality as a choice -- which is why you support the rights of African American people to marry whomever they choose, and support the rights of women. But did you choose to be heterosexual? If so, pinpoint when, many researchers would be interested in this information, as would we.
Further, it's clear you seem to be under the impression that once a will is drafted that's it, as if wills are always clear, valid, & dispose of all property. Nothing is farther from the truth, which is why wills, trusts, & estate planning are often incredibly difficult even for lawyers.
But it's clear you're not envisioning the complexities of estate planning, so how about this. The person you love is hospitalized, let's say he was involved in a car accident, and that's all you know. You rush to the hospital, demanding to see him, but they won't let you. You demand they let you again, and again, and they won't let you. They should at least tell you the nature of his condition -- but they won't. Because you're not family. But damn it you signed a healthcare directive that allows for your visitation, among other things, as consented to by him. You're frantic by now, impressed with yourself that you remembered that document, & relieved you'd signed it. You've got proof, thank god. Unfortunately that healthcare directive was never filed at this hospital, at least that's what they tell you. But you know it was. Well, the records department must have lost it, they tell you. So, you call your lawyer to have a copy faxed over immediately. Unfortunately it's a Sunday, or late in the evening, so it may take a while to actually reach anyone at the firm, & if you do, it will probably only be when that person calls you back, hears you out, lets you know he or she is headed into the office & will fax it as soon as possible...
Or, if you were married, you could just tell the hospital that you're his wife.
Does this make any sense to you?
There's a lot more involved here than the police arresting someone for assault.
Polarization.....and some of us wanting to add fuel to the fire.
Nothing I, nor David H or Karl, says is going to shake Barbie from her tree of stupidity. (Remember, ignorance is temporary; but stupid is forever. We can 'fix' ignorance by trying to learn; but are Really stupid when we don't want to ever learn or eliminate our ignorance)
Sorry so harsh, but its the same ole drama.....thumping a book, or a constitution; with the threat of risk being: "throwing the baby out with the bath water," All going to hell, or whatever dark age crap narrow minded people can scrape up.
I don't even consider it "a nice try," David H.....you are too kind; and also, I'm too tired of a pooling of ignorance. What stage side show is all of this?
Sorry so cranky, and so mean to Barbie.....but maybe I'd do better, and treat her like a person deserving respect, if somewhere it was written in a book or scrap of paper that "Blond-ness" is a protected class of life form. Frankly, I find all homo-phobes, hate mongers, and racists kind of tiresome.
Barbie is from Ireland.....hence all the cutesy words (its an act, btw). Remember, Ireland only legalized condoms....for anyone....just a few years back. My ancestors are from Ireland; I attended Notre Dame Univ......and I was raised in Catholic schools, which were, btw, great experiences. I "get" Catholic. Barbie is a walking talking case of bloated ego, ignorance, and supremacist 'ideals'....she feels right at home in the current 'culture' in America that says "Hate thy neighbor; but pretend Luv in Church."
We are never going to change Barbie's twisted beliefs.....nothing we can say can do that. Only when she has a close friend or relative kill themselves over being hated by their closest 'family'&friends will she 'get' it. Why did they deserve to die? I'm sure Barbie could give us a multitude of good reasons. Mostly, thought, it would be for being true to themselves, and others, by being open and honest (two totally unknown attributes of the sub-human group she belongs to)
How does it feel Barbie? To be slammed because of the color of your hair? That's what you do when you treat humans like objects....simply because God made them with different attributes of race, orientation, eye color, etc.. In all of your above comments you are simply intellectualizing your revulsion for people different that your 'standard;' and thereby rationalizing whatever derogatory pseudo-academic tripe you can manufacture. Yes, they are different. By definition that means you can't really know them; but if you try, you might understand them.
But again, we are back to the ignorance vs. stupid conundrum.......woe is me...
So, back to David A.. What I am saying to you, and you choose to ignore....or pretend to not understand.....is why do this? I think you are smarter and a better writer/researcher than to foster a 'pooling of ignorance' thread. There are many sincere people who have commented on your article; and they sincerely believe that you wanted to resolve an issue, elucidate, educate, and intelligently discuss something useful. I don't believe this is true. I believe that you got what you wanted.....a cattle prod on an important issue, only to generate a canned 'discussion.' There are Barbie's everywhere......even on national TV (i.e. "The View", where Barbie #1 did not support her co-worker, allowing her to be publicly disrespected because she was "a big fat lesbian" and she didn't want to be associated with her...unless it served her purpose. Well, "big fat lesbian" Rosie called her out on it.....hence the VERY public verbal fight between them on the show. Barbie #1 wanted to pretend that anything different from her clearly 'defined' world was militant.....simply because it threatened her delusional view of the world. This Barbie tries to do the same......so give up guys...But, like Rosie, don't let her off the hook. For that, I commend you all....especially your patience, which I am lacking these days ;-)
Back to topic......
David A.....what I would expect of a political correspondent, or any correspondent on Gather (which, btw, is higher than most writers on the site), is that you write articles that don't promote a soapbox for hate mongers like Barbie. See, they are the worst kind....the ones that show a smiling face and cute appearance, but have dark souls inside. Only a dark person can preach hate so much, in such a sugary way.....its worse than the obvious vitriol spewing "Christians".....because at least they aren't pretending to be nice.
What does this mean, David? Do research on your topic, pick ones that you can tie to facts.....not just blue/red state bias maps. There is nothing new here. Only a rehash that further serves to divide people and create conflict (you even got me slamming Barbie ;-) My point? It's a moot point. People are humans, and under the founding principles of our country are entitled to equal rights. End of story. What would be a better take on the story? Examining the objectification of humans....that would even lead people to discuss others like 'those ho-mo-sex-uals' or 'dumb blonds.' Examine why supposedly unalienable rights are only allowed for some? What is the disconnect in people's minds that they can convince themselves of their 'wonderfulness' on Sunday, and do vile things like Barbie attempts to do? Still convinced of their "personal relationship with God." That is the real issue, David. By posing it the way you have, you simply continue the wallowing in ignorance that has frozen our nation from positive growth.
Sorry for being so blunt David, but I think you could have avoided all this conflict...not added to it. I look forward to your future articles; hoping that they will be more based on facts, than creating drama none of us need.
I believe that three specific issues should be excluded from the national debate.
Gay Marriage because it is a privte matter involving ONLY the couples or groups involved.
Abortion because properly settled law. And legal or not it is going to happen, and legal it is safe, illegal it is dangerous.
Third is the specific religious status of the candidates. Any religion will do, including Secular Humanism. I want politicians of excellent character. (that is a can of worms) I want politicians who choose what is best for us, not what will benefit them and their cronies. I want a government that rewards good and discourages evil. I want people in authority who "question authority" and eschew authoritarianism.
The gay rights discussion is very predictable. I suspect in time civil unions and legal marriage will be the same. I just question the excess anger about the issue. Small groups on both sides are so busy yelling they can't think.
As I said before, time will resolve this issue.
I'm a nurse and have never seen a gay person denied anything. I've seen family members denied entry and encombered by legalities more than any minority group member.
I think a lot of people want special rights to suit their desires and all the discussion about it proves only one thing: A whole lot of people selfishly think about themselves to the exclusion of others.
As I mentioned in my last post, the recent frenzy around the issue of same-sex marriage transpired from the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). With such a fickle media (remember how quickly the Gonzales testimony went away after the Virginia Tech shootings?), this is not something that can or should just be let go to work itself out -- in so doing, much of the necessary support may be lost, and things like constitutional amendments (including one to the US Constitution) may continue to be pushed through -- and even passed -- before much can be done to stop it.
Alternatively, is this what you would have told the activists in the Jim Crow south in the 1960's -- that racial discrimination will just work itself out?
Karl, I agree, the issues you mentioned shouldn't be matters of political debate since they're so fundamental. But it is for the very reason that some find cause to debate such fundamental issues that they are such large issues worthy of much political discourse -- to ferret out those who would threaten such basics due to some irrational animus.
This may come as a surprise to some of you, but I'm not gay. I just hate knowing what passes as acceptable collateral damage when it comes to such fundamental rights. I used to think very little of it, but then I was exposed to some of the case law & gained a more fundamental understanding of the issues at stake, I couldn't believe how egregiously some people are denied their fundamental right to marry, based on absolutely nothing legally viable. But it persists, and affects very real people every single day. And I don't think you have to be gay to understand that.
Has gay marriage been politicized? Yes. Does that mean we should stop talking about it? No. If we simply stop talking about it, do you really believe that homosexual Americans will make any gains towards equality? Those who would deny homosexuals the right to live their lives as they see fit would love for the issue to be cast into the dark hole that contains all of the problems that we as a society tend to ignore.
I publish correspondent pieces that present an issue or event in a neutral manner and allow my readers to discuss them as they see fit. All too often these discussions turn into personal attacks based upon partisan disagreements. It is precisely those types of attacks I try and avoid when writing a correspondent piece. And in general I think people appreciate that. I have received a number of comments detailing how tired readers are of the endless stream of hate filled, factless pieces that are posted to Gather on a regular basis.
I do also post pieces of the sort you are looking for from time to time - as I feel that many causes are worth fighting for. I have just spent enough time in politics to realize that you only aggravate your opponents when you engage in personal attacks - like calling them "Barbie". How does that solve anything?
Facts one might have learned from this piece - Civil Unions exist in only a few states. Gay marriage exists in only one. A federal law passed in the 1990's denies homosexual couples the legal benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. Readers also were exposed to a full statement on the issue by NH's governor Lynch - as opposed to the watered down, one sentence version presented in most media coverage of the event. I also presented the views of a gay rights group and a politician opposed to unions of any kind between homosexuals. I chose these comments because I felt they represented the opposing viewpoints well.
Is this the best piece I have written for Gather? No. I will take your criticisms to heart and try to present better articles in the future - namely ones with more substance. I would still note that readers looking for a specific type of article should write it themselves. Use those creative juices, don't waste them belittling the work of others! I am sure that I could write a book length account of the history and state of gay rights in America that would satisfy your demands. But in my role as a Gather Correspondent I am limited by a number of factors - namely a lack of time for research due primarily to a lack of money (I am a grad student who spends most of his time studying and working).
I just felt like giving Barbie a bitch slap for her "arrogance in ignorance." After seeing so many sincere folks trying to reason with her un-reason-able-ness; it seemed like a wake up call was in order. Sometimes, unfortunately, the only way to get through a thick shell is to help people see it from their perspective. I'm not the first to call her Barbie, I'm sure. Nor, on a personal level, do I like inflicting any pain on anyone. BUT, when they are spewing pain and hate.....more drastic words are required; in order to stem the flow, so to speak. If she knew how much pain and hurt she caused folks, I'm sure she wouldn't do/say half the things she does. I just tried to help her see that.
David H: I really admire your efforts.....and appreciate them! I am gay. You misunderstood my point. My point was to ask David A. to go a step further than the standard low shot 'article' to stir up 'discussions.' Gather is new, and learning too....as we all are. A real solid discussion can be on any topic, but needs to be sincere. I could do this article, since I am gay (yes, he said it again, and is officially "OUT" on Gather now ;-), but what I am saying is the premise of the article is wrong. Not to beat you up, David A (cuz I do think you are good, and smart, and a good writer :-), to make it clear.
The issue isn't "Why Gay Marriage?" The issue is "Why are we even talking about it?" Its an inalienable right under our constitution. By allowing the hate mongers to even question it is wrong. You can't win the argument: "When did you stop beating your wife?" can you? The minute you let people put you into a corner before you began a discussion, you are screwed to a 'desired outcome.' Boring, lame, and cheesy…and not so clever, eh? You'd think after all these years of the Bush cabal, people would have gotten that by now, huh? ;-)
The masters of spin and fear-based politics get you all asking the wrong question. Its a set up from the beginning. On Gather, its a question of:
1) Possible content management by posing 'losing' questions
2) Web-hit addiction, to be satiated at any cost, or
3) Just not knowing.
Seems to me that David A, just didn't know. That wasn't clear at first; but his honesty ultimately showed through....when he stopped worrying about perceptions, and just laid it on the line. David H. has obviously done work on this issue. Me? I lived it. And, am sooo over it. I raised four kids, "out," open, and in healthy relationships (think of the Movie "American Beauty", and the only 'normal' people in it....hint: the gay couple. That director/writer is from Marietta, my home town.) My first marriage was totally with a woman from "Desperate Housewives." Which is healthier for all of us? The present situation. I lived in this community for many years, and was well respected....before I came out. But I defied people to treat me differently after I disengaged from that twisted relationship/person. Many did, but I still brought my boyfriends (the serious ones, not just the hottest ones ;-) to school functions, football games, band performances, etc... I've had joint legal & physical custody since 1994 (ancient history in the 'gay rights' world ;-). The kids have traveled with my partner and I, all over the world. I did it. I lived it. Let the laws catch up when people wake up. Meanwhile?
When my partner reads this whole thread, I think he will agree with me that its just better to get married in France (his home country), and wait a few years until all Americans 'get it.'
My current book I am writing is about the old south. Like David H says, Jim Crow laws didn't go away by themselves. But I refuse to lower myself to a rigged game....whose ever it is. And, I like to challenge people to look waaay beyond the surface to see the games behind the games, and the agenda driving all that, before they commit their lives and hard earned work to someone or some organization that may be using it for other than honorable purposes. Or, lacking a clear view of what all that mess is? JUST GO DO IT. Let them get over themselves..... because thats what its really about. Americans waking up from a deluded state of reality, eh? In all senses....
Its time for Americans to wake up. My Fav bible quote?
"Take care to do all these things, for you know the time in which we are living. It is now the hour for you to wake from sleep..."
-Epistle of Paul, Letter to the Romans 13:11
Hand that to the Rev Phelps; let him put it in his pipe and smoke it.
And, "lets go Barbie. Lets go party......" has to be replaced by something like Liz Rice-Sosne's reflective depth. BTW, have you noticed that Barbie changed her Icon to one of her acting roles? She's just been messing with you all.....don't cry for Eva Perone. Feel a bit used? A bit deceived? Then push the point with Gather Admin to help make all members real people.....make voting/ratings transparent like comments; and anonymous people clearly anonymous (i.e. for health issue discussion, financial issue discussion). Be unique on the internet....be real. Like it used to be....before we let the posers, propagandists, and gamesters rule)
Justa thought.....
:-)
The comment on the Cultural Marxism, was quite disturbing... I understand the slippery slope of trying to put forward a seemingly persecuted minority to change the balance of power. But are we really there yet? I don't think so. Otherwise gay marriage wouldn't be such an issue. It's again the argument of the Secret Gay Mafia!!! And maybe it does exist (I remember seeing a report on TV about that actually - well at least that's how the report tried to represent the gay community when really it was just a support groups - if the gays don't support each other who will??)
So, yes, in an ideal world the topic is a non-issue, but we live in a world far from ideal and we all have to deal with the prejudice of other social groups. Blacks, Jews, Catholics, Man , Woman, Gay, Straight. The world is a mess, but it's not gonna change any time soon.
So what can we do? Educate, educate, educate. It's really hard work. I find myself prejudiced against all kinds of things all the time. It feels so good, it's so comfortable. Nobody wants to feel uncomfortable or have anything taken away from them. The tyranny of a minority is a scary idea. So people fight it. Even though it isn't there yet. That's how wars start... Very sad.
Self examination is the key. But everybody achieves it at their own pace. Some start farther than others. Disparities will always exist. That is the reason why submitting social issues to the popular vote doesn't seem the right thing to do. But keeping a ruling minority (be it Rich catholics or anything else) isn't promoting equality either.
a lot of rambling on my part. not even sure it makes any sense to other readers.
Now about France, (I am French as my odd name may indicate)... well I am afraid Patrick (my partner BTW) wil be a little disappointed. France is ruled by a homogenous majority and many minorities are banging their heads on the wall right now. Thus all the problems France has with immigration. And gay rights in France are very good but not perfect. We have civil unions, they don't quite offer all the rights of marriage. And gay marriage as of last time I checked is out of the question. Maybe giving all the rights of marriage will happen in the near future (although with the current administration I doubt it). And adoption rights are still very much in a grey area.
So maybe the laws are a little more progressive in France than in the US. But I'm afraid the general population is just as prejudiced as it is here. I'm really not sure that the French population 'gets it' more that americans do.
but that's just my sorry old depressed self talking.... :-)
Its not all that dreary...or hopeless. Just takes time, and lotsa patience (or absence....That works for me! :-)
Thanks Maxime for "weighing in."
My two cents.
On the other hand, that's why I don't go to church or have a "formal" religion. I refuse to believe in any God less tolerant than myself. Or any God that would require my brain to be shut off. I sometimes wonder if God is more offended at these so-called aberrations (like homosexuality) or at the people who use them to promote hatred. At least, any God I'd be willing to respect.
Did you just invite me over here for your "Coming out on Gather party?" :)
I'm confused. Above ~ you say the issue is, "Why are we even talking about it?" Yet you are the one who started the talk about it on this thread.
If it was to garner more and varied opinions on Gay rights, then you know an issue that has been beat to death and look where we are. Everyone will say, "I'm for Gay rights!" But it is all the unresolved underlying issues that cause it to get sticky, and ignored, and so the beat goes on.
Many objections to gay rights have religious roots. Most major religions oppose homosexuality as a violation of the law of God, citing gays do not produce children - thereby ending the species, and whether or not homosexuality is a choice or an innate characteristic with which people are born.
This remains an emotionally charged issue, and it will continue to have ramifications not just for public policy but for American society as well.
I think Maxime was right when he said the answer is to educate, educate, educate. Long held prejudices don't respond to fighting, demonstrating. They're forced to respond through a process that educates. Look how long it took the country to come to grips with it's errors with regard to racial segregation.
Gays are still seeking better protection from discrimination...Partner's benefits ... along with other unresolved's that are still out there on the table. An uninformed public can be a detriment because they don't know how to deal with the behavior, and/or acceptance of an alternate lifestyle. Are they mean and stupid? Maybe not, maybe scared and in need of information.
There are many who are calling for tolerance today, and that is a step in the right direction. There are many, gays included, in need of a better understanding and education on the entire subject and how to successfully deal with it. Until then voices of lack of knowledge will continue, from both sides.
Going to a lawyer and having such a contract drawn up is expensive and unless a homosexual couple is well off they can't afford it and why should they have to pay that extra money to do what heterosexual couples can do for considerably less, and such a contract would not affect the tax advantages that are granted to married couples who have a legally recognized relationship.
Out of curiosity, does anybody know how long it would take a lawyer to draw up a contract that conveys the contractual obligation and rights associated with a legally recognized marriage?
Hello to you, again! ;-) Thanks for joining in the 'party' :-)
You'd like Maxime.....
c u 'round
:-)
David A; where r u???
Checking in here from Connecticut, in my opinion gay/lesbian marriages should be allowed in "any" state. And one of these days, I think they will be. Marriage for two people who are in love and trust each other is wonderful. And a Civil Union isn't the same thing.
Marilyn