Those of you who have seen me post on Gather, know me for the die-hard flaming liberal-and-proud-of-it that I am!
One issue particularly important to me is gay marriage. I'm not even gay and I think this is a very important issue in this country. For me, it appeals to my sense of justice. It seems wrong and immoral to deny rights from two people that love each other.
I know that not everyone feels this way. Clearly, a majority fo the people of this country disagree with me as bans on gay marriage have been passed in 28 states.
I am a strong advocate of gay marriage, but I also don't want to lose everything over semantics. It seems that the people are not ready for gay marriage (not yet at least.) I've always believed that in principle we had to fihht for gay marriage, but maybe it's time to set civil union as a more attainable goal fo rnow.
While civil unions seem like a compromise, they most certainly mark some progress. I have no doubt that the American conscious has already evolved rapidly regarding gay marriage in the past 5 years. "Two years ago we had 11 of these on the ballot, and in only two of them did we do better than 40 per cent," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "This year there were eight and in at least five of them we did better than 40 per cent."
Some more thoughts on civil unions. One reason I prefer marriage over civil unions is that, when Mass tried to pass civil union legislation, the court opposed citing that, if history has taught us anything, it is that the concept of Separate but equal is impossible. Separate is inherently unequal, therefore, the union of two people should be viewed and called the same thing. That is why I believe we nee to fight for gay marriage. But it just doesn't seem to be working and maybe we need to work for civil unions instead.
ANother thought. I simply found this interesting. In England, they have civil unions. Recently, heterosexual couple sued for the right to have civil unions, as opposed to marriages, but a judge turned them down, saying they had their own institution- marriage. I just thought this was very itneresting and more than a little ironic!
Finally, isn't this just a matter of semantics? Can someone explain to me why it is so important to call a gay marriage a civil union?
Anyway, I hope I have no offended the sense of any of my fellow lineral colleagues. I don't want to compromise my principles, and yet I want to see real change happen.
Above all, I want to see and end to the bitter divisions in this country. Gay marriage has been a wedge issue exploited by the Republicans to get people to vote against their economic interests. The sooner we can out our differences aside on gay marriage, the sooner we can work together on solutions for the economy, healthcare, and peace.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 23
But I will say that I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion. Those who wish to co-opt the "M word" as their own, should register it as a trademark. The concept of legally recognized unions, however, should be accepted like "a rose by any other name...".
None of the arguements against marriage for gays holds water, and we are only being bigoted and mean spirited by not allowing this.
Remember when it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry one another? Some still want us to always be separate. They are not going to ultimately win.
I believe True American is correct in that these unfair laws WILL be sent to the suprime court and overturned.
Here I disagree. It is an issue where social progressives simply "miss the boat".
Social Issues ARE economic issues. The vast majority of government spending expressed in federal, state, county and city spending is spending to mitigate the effects of catestrophic changes to social mores.
People who vote against Gay Marriage are voting against an "Anything Goes" ethic that has passing through western society for 50 years.
I wrote a Gather article titled What Is The Matter With Thomas Frank? that speaks directly to this issue.
There is a conservative case for Gay Marriage and Civil Unions. The case is simple, that marriage encourages monogamy, however to make the case for monogamy progressives and the gay community will have to embrace the concept.
Here is why:
- 440,000 Americans died of AIDS.
- 40 million Africans died of AIDS.
- Half of all Americans between 20 and 40 have some form of STD.
- The illegitimacy rate has climbed from 15% to 35% in 30 years. Among African-Americans the rate has climbed from 30% to 65%.
- In many zipcodes less than 5% of children live with their biological father.
Yes, there is a problem
There is a problem but it doesn't relate to gay marriage or even gay sex. AIDS is totally preventable but our country won't allow condom education in Africa because it encourages sex. (As if people will stop having sex because they don't know about condoms) The facts are that children are being born to heterosexual couples and the illegitimacy rate relates to heterosexual sex. The problems you cite here don't relate to the topic at all.
As long as society gets the bill, it will make the rules.
No fault divorce was not a Republican idea. It has been noted in some areas of the country that conservatives divorce more than those on the left.
True, but you have to be married to be divorced.
As for serial monogamy, statistically it is one hell of a lot safer than recreational sex as a hobby.
ALso, a lot of women in this country are infected with HIV because they are in "brokeback marriages" and infected by their husband who is on the "downlow." I think by allowing gay marriage, we could do a TON to reduce the number of HIV infections, as well as by, as the totally awesome Joe T pointed out, by providing people with actualy sex education and not abstinence only.
but we are getting off topic here. I wanted to discuss civil unions vs. gay marriage. not gya marriage in general. i've wanted gay marriage ont he book so badly and i beleive it will happen one day. However (and gain, liberals please forgive me if it seems like i'm pandering) maybe i've set my sights to high. maybe civil unions are a good way to start.
Why do Americans seem to find civil unions more aceptable than gay marriage when the only real difference is semantics?
Sure, that is why I wrote above:
Not really, there are more than semantical differences such as alimony and the assumption that a married person is the biological parent of the child.
Let's all back up a minute: we need to rethink this whole thing......
Most marriage benefits are fairly new to history. Things like family medical and dental insurance, tax deductions, etc. began in the late 1930's at IBM and were picked up first by government (IBM's sibling of choice), then by most corporations.
The assumption was that married people were going have children and the benefits of marriage were designed mostly to accrue to children and to parents burdened by the raising of children.
Then came Double Income No Kids (DINK) families. This turned marriage benefits on their head by accruing the most benefits to DINK couples. The common perception is that most gay couples are (relatively) affluent DINK couples.
This is reason enough to rethink the whole idea of civil unions and marriage by designing marriage for couples who have children and civil unions for couples who do not.
In addition, there is another problem, that of sexual libertine behavior. Like it or not, the LEATHER PRIDE attitude of sexual abandon has penetrated the general culture and it will take years for the memory of rampant AIDS and the memory of libertine sexual attitudes to work its way through the culture.
When Gay groups demand the right to marry, they are running counter to both the over-privileged DINK perception and the libertine perception.
Currently, there are 26 states with Marriage Amendments and it is going to take a long time to turn that around. The first step would be to push for civil unions for BOTH gay and straight couples as a tool to increase monogamy and fidelity.....then to push to focus the institution of marriage on those who are committed to raising kids.
It may be surprising how much support that approach will have.
Let's get something straight, I am not now nor ever have been a Christian. I was raised Catholic and can enjoy good music, a good sermon and architecture at family functions, beyond that I spend Sunday mornings with coffee and a long run.
What CDC site did you visit? Perhaps I can help.
Perhaps, but there is no religion more bound up in dogma and fundamentalism than that of a political progressive.