board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

The Gay Marriage Discussion

Post Reply   Page 12 of 13  [ 256 posts ]
Jump to page « 19 10 11 12 13 »
What should the status of gay marriage be?
Never legally recognized; no civil unions
  
6% [ 3 ]
Civil unions only
  
12% [ 6 ]
Full marriage rights voted into force by the people
  
6% [ 3 ]
Full marriage rights implied by basic human rights, so courts enforce
  
76% [ 37 ]
Total votes: 49
Author Message
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 4:36 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I thought this thread would be a good place to note yesterday's referendum results.

A referendum reserving the word 'marriage' to designate the union of a man and a woman passed overwhelmingly in Texas. In Maine, a referendum to overturn laws guaranteeing rights for gay unions was defeated.

This doesn't prove anything, but it is consistent with the idea I've put forward that there is goodwill in American society toward the idea of legal protections and privileges for gay unions, while at the same time there is opposition to calling these unions 'marriage'.


Regarding Nin's observation above that the Swiss people decided to legalize civil unions, I wonder if they would have done so if the decision included calling those unions 'marriage'?


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 4:41 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Cerin--

That wasn't all the Texas language did, not by a long shot. The language:
Quote:
The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.


Italics mine, obviously. This puts into jeopardy not only existing rights granted in some jurisdictions to same-sex partners, but also rights extended to ANY unmarried partner.

Considering the purported straight-laced nature of many of the supporters of this thing, I am slightly suprised to see they harbor a white-gown-and-rice fetish.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
tolkienpurist
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 4:51 pm
Unlabeled
Offline
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 4:01 am
Location: San Francisco
 
Cerin,

With all due respect, I am not sure how much any of us has to add to this discussion, unless there are new voices with fresh perspectives.

I will just say this:

To call a union of two people of the same gender a "marriage" is a new idea. New ideas are often frightening to people. Many people do not even know any same-sex couples. At the same time, they have grown up dreaming of being a bride or a groom to a heterosexual marriage. This is comfortable and familiar to them. Even when they can theoretically support "equal rights for everyone", they are uncomfortable equating their comfortable, familiar, romantic dream with something they do not know, do not understand, cannot identify with, and have not seen.

Believe it or not, I understand their perspective more than you might realize. I was deeply homophobic as a young teen, in part due to questions about my own sexual orientation, and in part because that is what I had been taught by adults. When more progressive, tolerant college classmates began to sway my perspective, my first step towards non-prejudice was, "Fine, I support equal rights for gay people, but I don't support gay marriage because that would be going too far."

That is where the majority of the country is right now. But, make no mistake, it is a transitional phase born of discomfort with a new idea. As the idea of gay couples marrying becomes comfortable and familiar, allergic reactions to the use of the word "marriage" to describe the committed unions of same-sex couples will steadily decrease. I invite you to come visit my state, Massachusetts, and observe how - in just a year and a half - heterosexuals who hesitated before saying "marriage" to describe legally recognized queer relationships now talk comfortably about their gay friends marrying. I was here in November 2003 for Goodridge, and I have seen the amazingly rapid progress towards comfort with gay marriage in this state. Witness, too, the rapidly dissipating support for an amendment in this state - recently, attempts to put the issue on the ballot before 2008 were defeated.

I'm so proud of this state, and my city, for being the first in the country to demonstrate true goodwill towards all of their citizens, regardless of sexual orientation.

PS Texans would have acted differently than Maine's citizens did yesterday. Their voting has nothing to do with discomfort about a word and everything to do with anti-gay bigotry.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 4:56 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I wasn't aware of the rest of that language, Ax, that is really unfortunate.

I know there were a couple of other conservative states during the last round of referendums that also took the opportunity to include restrictions against civil unions along with defining the word 'marriage'. I think it's so unfortunate that (as I believe) the push for calling gay unions 'marriage' resulted in this backlash against civil unions as well. If only the focus could have remained on gaining acceptance for civil unions first, before engaging the battle to call them 'marriage'.


Edit

tp, I wasn't trying to revive the discussion (I agree that people probably have nothing new to add), but would like to keep track of developments and this seemed like the place to do it.

:)


Top
Profile Quote
tolkienpurist
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 6:40 pm
Unlabeled
Offline
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 4:01 am
Location: San Francisco
 
Thank you for the clarification, Cerin.

As someone who has ventured into the gay communities of three states confronting this issue, I have the following observation.

My anecdotal experience is that those GLB individuals who are in same-sex partnerships are more likely to show an interest in receiving rights first, no matter whether you call them "civil unions" or "chimpanzee gatherings". This is especially true of older GLB couples for two reasons:
(1) They remember a time, pre-Stonewall, when civil unions were scarcely even fathomable. That millions of people nationwide are receptive to the idea of a gay "civil union" strikes some of these couples as nothing short of miraculous.
(2) They are more likely to have situations arise in their lives for which they NEED legal protections (e.g. end-of-life situations, medical decisionmaking, etc)

Younger GLB individuals and single GLB individuals, in my experience, are more idealistic, and are less likely to want to settle for anything short of full marriage rights. "Let's do this once and do it right" is a sentiment that I have oft-heard expressed. This is possibly because this group has less immediately at stake, and more of a stake in being able to dream of proposing to their loved one and marrying them.

However, there is a clear split in the community between those who say "Let's take what we can get and fight for more later" and those who say "Anything less than marriage is bullshit." I'm torn between the two positions; although I personally sympathize with the latter group most, the former group has Real Issues that need legal protection regardless of nomenclature.

I do feel that it is important that the community as a whole - as heterogeneous as it is - work to get behind one idea or the other. Internal splits are only going to make this harder to resolve for once and for all.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 6:58 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I wonder what the 'anything less than marriage is bullshit' contingent would say about the new Swiss legalization of civil unions that Nin mentioned? It's hard for me to understand how they could not believe that same-sex couples in Switzerland are better off now than they were before that referendum passed.


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 7:03 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
I am very disappointed with the vote in Texas. I can't believe that it passed with such a majority. :roll:

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 7:11 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Cerin wrote:
I wonder what the 'anything less than marriage is bullshit' contingent would say about the new Swiss legalization of civil unions that Nin mentioned? It's hard for me to understand how they could not believe that same-sex couples in Switzerland are better off now than they were before that referendum passed.
Better off does not mean equal, which is what many are actually fighting for.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 09 Nov , 2005 7:26 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
If 'equal' means 'the same', then they are fighting for something impossible. Same sex unions will never be the same as opposite sex ones (whether or not one regards the difference between them as significant).

If 'equal' means enjoying the same protections and benefits under law, then that can be accomplished with civil union legislation.

So what you seem to be saying, yov, is that the 'anything but marriage is bullshit' contingent isn't really interested in practical equality for same-sex unions but some kind of conceptual equality, and if they can't have the conceptual equality then they don't want the practical equality.

As I said, that's hard for me to understand, because I don't see how they could view same-sex couples in Switzerland as not being better off now than they were before that referendum passed, regardless of whether or not they consider that some kind of 'equality' has been achieved.

Or in other words, I would have been surprised to see Nin express disappointment rather than gladness at the results of the Swiss referendum, yet it seems that the extreme attitude would have to regard such an outcome as 'bullshit' rather than an advancement to be celebrated.


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 05 Jun , 2006 12:37 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
Is it just me, or is Bush's sudden revival of this issue a rather transparent attempt to exploit a divisive issue to raise his own poll numbers (and to keep people distracted from his party's failings during election season)? He's basically beating up the gay guy to make himself look tough, but on a nationwide scale.


Top
Profile Quote
Nienor SharkAttack
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 05 Jun , 2006 1:09 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 2:34 pm
Location: Norway
 
Am I the only one who gets up a Gay and lesbian wedding rings ad when reading this thread?

:D

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 05 Jun , 2006 1:11 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
What'd Bush do?


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 05 Jun , 2006 4:58 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
yovargas wrote:
What'd Bush do?
He's just been renewing his call for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 05 Jun , 2006 5:20 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
I can hardly imagine that even people who care care right now.


Top
Profile Quote
Lord_Morningstar
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 05 Jun , 2006 9:20 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia
 
I worry that you'd be surprised...

_________________

[Space for Rent]


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 05 Jun , 2006 10:14 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Americans have short attention spans. This was the rage a couple years ago but it feels like most people stopped caring once the next issue showed up.


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 05 Jun , 2006 11:48 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
I still care, except that I don't follow the issue when it isn't in the news. That's probably not so good on my part, but at least (my thinking) is that if it isn't in the news, they are probably not making any headway in either direction.

The Constitution doesn't need to legislate marriage. States should do this.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Jun , 2006 3:17 am
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
I heard on NPR that polls are showing people are more worried about the war and the economy than thye are about marriage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a constitution essentially a blueprint for a government? If I'm right about that, what the hell does marriage have to do with how a government is structured and run?

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
Lord_Morningstar
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Jun , 2006 3:22 am
Offline
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia
 
Nothing, but it is the only sure way the Federal Government can ban gay marriage nation-wide.

_________________

[Space for Rent]


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 06 Jun , 2006 3:56 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Well, it can be a constitutional issue because the constitution specifies that the states recognize the workings of the other states. That way, since Meril and I married in California, we're still married when we visit my in-laws in Arizona.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 12 of 13  [ 256 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 19 10 11 12 13 »
Jump to: