another "changing my mind on gay marriage"

[thesquanderer]

Yes, I used to think that gay marriage was an unnecessarily divisive issue... but I've changed my mind.

I had thought, as long as "civil unions" that provided all the same legal rights were available, what difference did it make what you called it? Once the rights are there, it's just a word.

But if we are going to say it's okay for the religious right or other conservative groups to get all upset about the use of a word, if we deem it mere unimportant semantics and so concede that ground to them, then why should not the gay community have *just* as much right to get upset about the use of a word, whether we "pragmatists" feel it's important or not?

Moreover, words do matter, they do affect our perceptions. It's not all about logic and pragmatism.

And what really drove home to me how perceptions sometimes need to trump pragmatism? It was a post by DUer nichomachus, commenting in another thread on this topic. He made the analogy to blacks having separate water fountains. "Hey -- water is water -- what does it matter where it comes from." So simple, and so right on the money.

The old argument against separate-but-equal was often that you couldn't assure that separate -- education, for example -- really *would* be equal. But water. Yes. Fed from the same source, it is absolutely equal. And it's still obviously wrong for the fountains to be separate even if they are indeed clearly equal.

Similarly, in giving gay people "equal but different" terminology for their rights, we are perpetuating a mindset that divides "us" and "them" just as water fountains would. So ultimately "gay marriage" isn't divisive... to the contrary, insisting that they have "their own" equivalents for what the rest of us enjoy -- THAT is what's divisive, by definition.

[peace13]

1. After listening to all of this ...

I think that all marriage should be banned. Make civil agreements between any two people of age and do away with the rest. Our government should not be in the business of telling religious organizations what to do and religious organizations should not be able to tell citizens what they can do. All civil unions with a clear method of dissolving them when the love wears out.

[helderheid]

2. That's how it's done in the Netherlands. Civil unions. If you want a religious ceremony too, that's

fine but it's separate and has nothing to do with what the government recognizes. The government only recognizes civil unions there.

That's how it SHOULD be, however I am also of the opinion that so long as the government here is in the marriage business, then gay marriage must also be a right.

[mondo joe]

3. If you really think that enough to do something about it, you've got a big job ahead of you.

Let us know how it works out.

[helderheid]

4. I'm afraid you're right. Marriage for all, so long as the government is in the marriage business.

[mondo joe]

8. "Just make them all civil unions" is a standard armchair warrior idea that gets tossed out.

There's NOTHING wrong with in principle. But it's not a viable idea, IMO, and I have yet to find a person who proposes it who is actually doing anything to make it happen.

[Gormy Cuss]

6. We already have civil agreements. They're called civil marriages in this country.

There's also a clear method of dissolving them for whatever reason -- a civil divorce.
Nothing about civil marriage requires religious organizations to do anything. Period. That's why it's a hollow argument.

Expanding civil marriage to include any two people of age probably isn't a bad goal. Let's start by moving the goal post closer a bit and expanding the current narrow definition to include any two adults whose only legal obstacle at the moment is that they're the same gender.

[thesquanderer]

9. Well, that's another way to go

Yup, that would be another way to achieve equality. Doesn't matter what you call it as long as everyone gets to call it the same thing.

But I think it would be even harder to civilly eliminate "marriage" for straight people than it would be to add it for gay people!

[Starry Messenger]

5. I took a similar journey a few years ago.

I never thought gay rights were divisive, but I thought civil union covered all the bases and that would be that. Reading here at DU was very informative and links provided showing that "marriage" as we know it here in the USA confers more rights than domestic partnerships easily tipped the scales for me. It's also very simple: separate but equal is unconstitutional. Thank you for your post. And thanks for all the posts by patient gay DU-ers who post all of the info!!

edit: additional props.

[tech3149]

7. You make two important points

I think they convey the fallacy of the arguments. First "words do matter". They do matter and they have meaning. If you allow the meaning of words to be distorted and misconstrued, they lose their meaning.

There is no such thing as "equal but different" or "separate but equal". If you're equal, there is no differentiation between you and anyone else for ANY reason.

I see the big problem to be the ideologues and mindless fundamentalist's who can't look at reality and see what is truly going on. Their conception of the world is so blindered, they can't perceive or process any information that conflicts with their world view. I don't consider them stupid, uneducated, or mindless. They are just susceptible to the perception management that the PR industry has done such a good job of selling.

Enjoy the rantings of this tired old drunk.

[JerseygirlCT]

10. Exactly

So long as we insist on separating people, we divide... so very simple!

If people are uncomfortable with marriage, that's really just their problem, and something they'll grow out of - or they won't. But it shouldn't determine civic policy, should it?

So I'm glad to read your post!

[prayin4rain]

11. I believe gay people should be able to marry

However, I do not think the water fountain situation is analogous to the gay marriage situation.

I see the gay marriage thing as a labeling issue. I am a white female. I cannot choose to label myself as male hispanic on government forms. People are categorized by the government. Married or unmarried, black or white, male or female. Now I certainly think gay partners should have the right to be categorized as married by the government. I think traditionally marriage centered around reproductive rights and creating a family and it was important to be able to legally sort of create a family for tax, inheritance, distribution of wealth reasons, so on and so forth.

Marriage has changed through the years and should be opened up for everyone but I just don't equate it to what the African Americans suffered. Americans are having a problem conceptualizing gay people as being married. They are not having a hard time conceptualizing them as people as opposed to animal based sub humans that we all have to tolerate and try and make a place for like they did with the African Americans.

I think gays are suffering from bigotry, I think women still suffer from bigotry and I think minority races still suffer from bigotry. But fortunately not the extreme de-humanizing bigotry that the African Americans had to suffer through.