I reluctantly agree...

[progressiveandproud]

...that the legal rights are what matters most of all.

It's just that, and maybe this is because I'm 20-years-old and idealistic, I want the whole hog. I fail to see the logic behind the notion of "traditional marriage"; it doesn't make any sense to me. I've looked at the issue of civil unions vs. marriage for more than a year, and I feel like I can argue convincingly against any rationale for not extending marriage to gay couples.

That is, until I hit upon the issue of pragmatism: maybe my desire to be able to marry is not pragmatic. It sucks, and I feel like it smacks of accomodating bigotry, to ask for civil unions. That's not necessarily true, but it's how I feel nonetheless.

But I wonder if it's any more pragmatic than what I want -- the right to marry another guy if I so desire, the federal government's recognition included -- to say that marriage should be solely a religious matter and civil unions a governmental matter? How is that going to happen any sooner than the government sanctioning gay marriages? I mean, is it really possible to divorce marriage (sorry for the pun) from its legal aspects in this country?

I don't know.

Jonathan

[judy]

1. All your points are well taken, pandp...

I believe that marriage should be extended to anyone who wants it, no exceptions, (maybe it could be limited to 2 human beings :) ) as "all men are created equal", etc.

But it's not going to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, millions of gay couples get insulted and abused by the system everytime they run into things that are considered so normal for "married" couples such as health decisions, inheritance, pension plans, health insurance, etc.

All I am saying, is that going for civil unions first is a way to get these benefits faster than it will take if we ask for marriage.
In France, where they have civil unions (called "PACS"), gay couples have all these benefits, and they can get married with vows and ceremonies any time they want.

Here, I have friends who got married in Church and all that jazz, but if one of them dies or one of them is dying, they have no rights whatsoever...I guess that's all I meant.

[progressiveandproud]

2. Thanks for the kind response. n/t

[HootieMcBoob]

3. being pragmatic is not always accommodating bigotry

in fact it may help to get us what we want faster.

It's more about playing smart.

When Wes Clark was running for president he said a similar thing. He wouldn't talk about gay marriage and said it was a religious thing and should be left to individuals and their churches. He went on to say that two people who love each other should be allowed civil unions and that it should be up to each individual state. He said two people who wanted to commit to a civil union should have all the legal rights that go along with that regardless of sexual orientation. Again - it's a matter of framing the issue.

Bush gave us some great ammo. Now, all we or any candidate has to say is something like "i agree with president Bush we should have civil unions and not discriminate against people. I think government should keeps its nose out of peoples personal lives. The less we have government nosing around in American's personal lives the better we are. That fits the "less government" frame while fulfilling a progressive initiative at the same time.

[progressiveandproud]

4. Ok, thanks.

I think I'm beginning to get a better understanding of the question of asking for civil unions vs. asking for marriage.

I'm still a little confused, though. In order for the civil union proposal -- what Wes Clark has been saying -- to take effect, wouldn't the legal definition of "civil union" have to be changed? To make myself clearer, I've read that state-sanctioned civil unions (from Vermont, for example) grant most, but not all, of the benefits associated with state-sanctioned marriage. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the case; and if that is the case, then how can citizens like you and me go about changing the legal definition of "civil union" so that it encompasses all those legal benefits?

Jonathan

[beyurslf]

6. The difference would have to be changed at the Federal level. Vermont

civil unions give the rights of marriage from the State of Vermont but do not give the rights of the Federal Govt from marriage. Congress would have to make this change. It is unlikely (impossible) to happen anytime soon.

I think a more important thing to focus on is hate crimes legislation, non-discrimination in work and housing, and health benefits from companies. Who cares if you can get married if you can still be fired, kicked out of your home, denied health care, and killed because you are gay? Whoopie! You got married and lost everything else.

[progressiveandproud]

7. Spot on.

Thank you.

By the way, have you been following the actions of Scott Bloch, Bush's appointee (in mid-2003) to head the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)?

I'd never heard of the man, or even the agency!, until 2004, when I read an article in the Washington Blade about what he'd been trying to do to gay federal employees: trash a non-discrimination regulation that had stood unchallenged for more than 20 years, on the grounds that it was a "redundant" protection against discrimination.

Well, I read up on the issue, and legal authorities, it seemed, were wondering if gay federal workers were still protected at all! Scott Bloch claimed they were; but since when is redundancy a reason for a bureaucratic official to undo regulation? God knows there must have been more pressing issues for him to tackle.

Under pressure from several Congressman, I believe, Bush issued a rebuke of his appointee, but it was toothless: our mealy-mouther Prez left the man in office and did nothing to force him to reinstate the regulation. Last time I checked on the story was before the election, in October, and the latest update was an article in the Washington Blade that came out in August, saying that the gay federal workers were still in limbo, maybe without protection against discrimination.

Boy was I pissed, as you can imagine! Leave it to the corporate media to fuck us over by dropping the ball to a local gay paper, making scarce a mention of a story that voters should've heard about before voting for their next President. And leave it G.W. Bush to appoint bigots like Scott Bloch and make a show of restraining them.

Jonathan

P.S. You may want to check out Bloch's profile on the OSC's website: http://www.osc.gov/specialcounsel.htm. Evidently, the Senate confirmed his appointment unanimously. Background checks, anyone?

[beyurslf]

5. I agree with you completely and can argue why gay marriage is right.

But, I can also argue why this was not the right time for gay marriage and we shot ourselves in the foot by forcing it into the national debate. Of course I believe that gay couples should be able to marry. I believe lots of things that most Americans do not agree with though. I think you take steps to make these things happen. And we jumped over a bunch of those steps and may have landed farther back than we were in the first place.

[progressiveandproud]

8. Yes.

I think it might have been different, though, if Democrats had done a better job of framing "gay marriage". In Don't Think of an Elephant! -- love that book! -- Lakoff introduces the issue as "the freedom to marry".

Don't those words feel better? And talk about stealing from Rove's playbook: hey Karl, Democrats can play the "freedom and democracy" game too!