Marriage equality is one thing that should not be up for debate.

[originalpckelly]

There are so many things that are debatable about LGBT rights, but feeling that people are not deserved of this basic respect is not.

If you feel it's up for debate, I'd like to ask you if you think interracial marriage should be up for debate. There was a time when it was a mainstream viewpoint to think it was.

Civil unions and domestic partnerships are, in a way, our separate but equal.

"Yeah, um, you can't use the word marriage, but you can have everything that comes along with it."

In this regard, you cannot be separate and equal, for the separation is a form of alienation. Of a lack of basic respect for people like me.

It is bad enough we have to go through being called the gay equivalent of the n word all the time, a word people have heard before being killed for something they could not choose. A word that can be a warning of lesser violence. A word that is discriminatory and meant to be in itself a form of intimidation. A word that is a sign of disrespect and cuts us down in one or two syllables.

But we don't just have to go through that crap, many of us cannot even dream of being married in the way straight couples can. That even when we find people who love us, we cannot have the slightest respect that comes along with simply saying that we are "married" and not "partners".

If you cannot give us a word, then I sincerely doubt you will give us our inalienable human rights. Don't tell me you're our ally, and then say you only support civil unions or partnerships. Because if you do, then you truly do not understand us.

The word is a symbol of your acceptance of us, an affirmation that you believe our love is equal to the love you feel.

There are people in this nation, and a LOT of people around the world who want us dead. They would kill us without blinking. This time we are in is still not safe for LGBT people.

Every time someone accords us the respect to call us "married" and to give us marriage, it is a notice to the people in this world who hate us that their hate is not acceptable any longer. That we have allies. That we are going to be equal everywhere someday. That the most powerful nation on Earth thinks we are worthy of being protected, just by respect. Respect and showing solidarity with us is the surest way to protect my people from violence everywhere someday.

And it gives hope to those people who might be tormented in their youth, that yes, there are good people in this world who will help us, and that we are not worth less than a straight person. That our love is not worth less than a straight person's love. That they believe we are equal to them.

Little kids, if they so wish to think about it, should be able to hope they can grow up and get married someday. Not civil-unioned or domestic-partnered, but married.

Would you have ever accepted civil unions or domestic partnerships for interracial couples? Why not? And when you answer that, you'll know why you shouldn't for people like me.

[dkf]

1. You've got it backwards. States should be in the business of civil unions not marriage.

Marriage is about religion and in a country where we believe in separation of church and state, it should not be tied.

[originalpckelly]

3. Yeah, whatever.

Odd how no one brought this shit up when they legalized straight interracial marriage.

You're buying into a tactic that only supports the notion that marriage will come to an end if LGBT people can be married.

[nashville_brook]

4. precisely.

[Blecht]

55. The ignore function here is your friend

I am blissfully ignorant as to what "Ignored" said.

[nichomachus]

6. Says who?

Then fine. All social benefits, tax breaks, property rights, adoption rights, which are all civil benefits, should be tied to civil unions -- not marriage. Anyone who wants any of these things -- gay or sraight -- should have to enter a civil union.

Then, if you want a holy "marriage" you can go to your poobah of choice and have him or her do all the magic tricks in their bag. However, none of those magic tricks get you anything in the way of civil benefits. Clergy should not be the gatekeepers of tax breaks, property rights, inheritance rights, adoption rights, anything else.

First to the courthouse or city hall -- after that, you have all the rights and privileges now associated with marriage. Then, and only then, you can go to a church for the magic.

Works for me.

[JackBeck]

8. No, civil marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage.

Do you go to a church to apply for a marriage license or town hall?

Our government has already made the distinction, otherwise, atheists would never get married.

[dkf]

17. As an agnostic/atheist I am offended that there needs to be this extra person

Who needs to approve a marriage.

Why do I need to feel weird that I don't have the socially required priest? It's just awkward.

[JackBeck]

19. I'm confused.

Are there jurisdictions in this country that only recognize civil marriages performed by religious figures and not by the local government?

[originalpckelly]

26. Ever heard of a justice of the peace?

:shrug:

[Withywindle]

32. You don't need that at all.

My parents were married in a courthouse. No religion. My friends were married in a courthouse. No religion. My other friends were married by a justice of the peace in a beautiful outdoor ceremony. No religion. You can get married by a captain at sea, for that matter -- did you see the 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean movie? Best wedding scene ever.


Why would you think you need clergy to get married? You really, really don't. I don't even know that many people who got married in a church.

The point is, my parents and my straight friends who had totally secular weddings are MARRIED. Not civil-unioned, not domestic partnered-but MARRIED, and no one has ever questioned this anywhere, nor do they have to use awkward neologisms when explaining their relationship, nor do they ever pause before mentioning "my husband" or "my wife."

THIS is what it's a travesty to deny to same-sex couples. I honestly don't get this conflation of marriage with religion. Are married atheists any less married than religious people? HELL NO.

[Pacifist Patriot]

88. This "extra person" is simply a witness with the authority to certify the license.

Clergy may perform this function in all fifty states, but so can a host of other civic/secular roles. Clerks of court, justices of the peace, mayors, notaries public (3 states), etc. Exact list of approved officiants depends upon the state.

The couple marry one another. The officiant simply attests to the fact they did it. Authorized witness. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

96. A justice of the peace can legally marry a couple, no religion involved.

[kelly1mm]

16. That is my position as well. CU for all. Leave marriage to private groups

including, but not limited to religious groups. Anyone can be married to anyone they want. The government would not care. All governmental benefits flow ONLY through CU's.

[csziggy]

37. "Marriage" is established in our laws

Whether or not you define it as a religious concept or not.

I basically agree with you, but to change secular uniting of two people to "civil union" and religious uniting to "marriage" would take more decades of amending federal and state laws. Even the old common law marriage in which no authority approved the union used the word "marriage".

Right now, "marriage" is the legal term for when two people make a contract to merge their lives, whether or not they are married in a religious ceremony or, as my husband and I were, by a license being signed by the appropriate authority. Our license was a "marriage license", not a "civil union license" (though I often call our relationship a civil union when I want to yank right wingers' chains).

So let's just go with that word and allow everyone to be married.

If churches object, let's remove the automatic authorization of anyone who claims to be a ordained religious figure to sign the legal license. If they want to perform legal marriages, they would need to meet the requirements that that particular jurisdiction places on non-religious authorities. Let the churches separate themselves from the legal version of marriage, not the other way around.

[David__77]

71. Um, marriage IS a civil contract.

My friends who have been married all had secular ceremonies, and certainly the contracts were secular.

[Pacifist Patriot]

83. Oh for heaven's sake, do I really have to do this all again so soon?

Marriages ARE civil unions. They have never been anything else. Marriage is not always about religion, it is a civil contract pure and simple. The couple decide whether their religion has anything to do with their marriage.

In a country where we believe in the separation of church and state we've been doing it right for over 200 years. Religious organizations have NEVER had the authority to issue marriage licenses.

Religious organizations have always had the freedom to perform a ritual act to mark the transition from single to married and give their blessing to a marriage. Clergy have the authority (as well as clerks of court, justices of the peace, and in some states notaries public) to act as witnesses stating the proper steps were taken by the couple to certify the marriage -- if the couple so choses. They do NOT have the authority to affirm or deny the couple's right to be married in the first place. That is the state's role.

[kick-ass-bob]

91. Unfortunately, this is water under the bridge.

As was stated earlier, we didn't go "civil union" with interracial marriages, so we cannot go civil unions now.

Full marriage benefits. Now. Anything less is criminal. The government recognizes marriage. If the religious want to call it something different for them, let them change it.

[Maven]

92. Not this shit again.

BANG HEAD BANG HEAD BANG HEAD

[Starbucks Anarchist]

95. No, it certainly is not.

The religious ceremony itself confers no legal rights upon a marriage. That's why atheists can get married or a justice of the peace can marry couples.

[Not Me]

2. When I hear the talk of extending "religious objections"

to (case in point) New York's proposed laws, it drives me nuts.
The Catholic priests and Jewish rabbis have always had the option not to marry anyone they choose. And still will, with this wording in the law or not.

Extending discriminatory protections to anyone uncomfortable with the concept, (florists, banquest halls, even governent clerks) especially under the guise that "there are other florists/banquet halls, etc. down the street..." smacks of white water fountains and black water fountains.

[Harmony Blue]

12. They should change it to call it a civil union license.

By doing this, you pacify many of the Christians who feel marriage is one of the most important sacraments. There will still be those that oppose, but those are more than likely the bigots, so you can't really please them not matter what.

It was a mistake to allow the government to use the word marriage for the legal union of two people given its religious context. Especially given the United States is very big on separation of church and state.

[eShirl]

81. or the religious could start referring to their ceremony as "Holy Matrimony"

if they feel the need to distinguish what they do from mere "marriage."

[uppityperson]

5. k&r

[EFerrari]

7. K&R

[TriMera]

9. K&R. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

10. K/R (nt)

[wickerwoman]

11. I support marriage equality.

But I think marriage isn't a state function. The state gives rights to people who enter civil unions and they should recognize those rights in exactly the same way for everyone (including interracial couples and straight couples).

If churches want to offer another service (and I don't have a problem with giving them the word "marriage") that doesn't imply "extra" state-sanctioned privileges then they can have at it. Separation of church and state. If your local church is full of bigoted assholes, don't go to that church. Find one that supports gay marriage and get married there.

The state should have gotten out of the "marriage" business for everyone years ago. I totally understand the desire to be treated equally and respected but why is it necessary to reinforce an antiquated, unconstitutional custom of calling civil unions marriage in order to do that? Why can't we all move forward together to a system that is fair and that is better for everyone?

[Harmony Blue]

14. I agree

Marriage is a leftover of an era way past us as we no longer are a Puritan society but a melting pot society.

[originalpckelly]

25. As I said above: why now?

Why not do this years ago?

[wickerwoman]

47. Because changing the laws concerning civil unions/marriage is on the agenda now.

It's a good opportunity to correct a problem that should have been addressed years ago but probably couldn't have been because of the strength of the religious right.

I think the 60s made it much more acceptable to openly challenge the church's authority and especially since 9/11 its become increasingly OK to openly be an atheist and to renew arguments about the importance of the separation of church and state.

Although arguably the fundamentalist conservative movement has never been stronger, its also never been more obvious why theocracy is a pretty crappy way to run a country.

So I have huge respect for the LGBT community asserting their civil rights and I can see what an uphill struggle it has been getting to this point and getting taken seriously, but I also think if we're going to reform the laws, let's do it right. We have a chance to unentwine a religious institution from a state one and I don't see a way to do it while still calling it the same thing.

How do you envision a fully integrated "marriage for all" solution? Will bigoted churches be required to perform the same ceremony for everyone? Should it be the function of the state to tell private not-for-profit institutions that they must offer the same service to everyone even when its goes against their fundamental beliefs?

I think its better just to take the church out of the equation completely. State benefits should derive from a contract with the state and should be recognized by all other state and quasi-state institutions (hospitals, schools, immigration, adoption services, the military, the IRS, etc.) If the religious right doesn't want to join the 21st century they can go whistle. Why continue to validate their bullshit by pretending that they have anything to say of relevance about what is fundamentally a state-based arrangement?

You solve the problem by showing them that they are irrelvant and making them chase the LGBT community for membership. If you force them to accept people they don't want to accept, they're just going to dig their heels in and find loopholes that allow them to continue to discriminate.

[Unvanguard]

64. Religious people do not own marriage. I don't want to give it to them. n/t

[HockeyMom]

13. When did marriage morph into something religious?

I, myself, am trying to figure that one out having been married in 1974. Back then, if you were a straight couple, not religious, and wanted just a civil ceremony, I don't remember people saying that was sacred, holy, and somehow religous. Actually, back then nobody cared as much as they do today about OTHER PEOPLE's RELIGION, or lack thereof. I really believe it is their crutch and they are using it against gays to rationalize their views. That is where the Civil Union aspect comes in. Many people don't want to be seen as being intolerant to the civil rights of gays, but they are so blinded by religion they simply cannot separate it from government. Bad, bad, bad when they start doing that. That is what theocracies, and separate but equal, start.

For this, I would prefer Civil Unions for ALL, with of course all the benefits of legal marriage. As I said to my husband's niece, if I myself have to have a religious marriage by default, I don't want it. Give me a Civil Union. She was FURIOUS over the fact that a STRAIGHT person wouldn't want a sacred, holy marriage, but a CIVIL Union.

Gotta somewhow get rid of all this relgiion. It is very, very dangerous.

[Harmony Blue]

15. Christian fundamentalism has risen since that time

so it is not surprise that they are very visceral about protecting marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

[HockeyMom]

18. People are really clueless what exactly marriage is

NOBODY, be that priest, rabbi, or court clerk, marries a couple. The couple marries each other with their pledges to each other. You can probably call that a verbal contract. The clergy or government official is only there to witness the committment the couple makes to each other.

This concept is why Common Law Marriges were recognized in the past. Since the couple actually marries each other, "witnesses" to the marriage were the people that this couple lived among as husband and wife. Living together for a certain amount of time, presenting themselves to the world as husband and wife, having children together, owning property, etc., was enough witness to their state of marriage. Government used to recognize this.

The majority of states don't recgnize this anymore. I am old enough to remember, and have known, couples in NY with legal Common Law Marriages.

Again, I believe it was the religious fundamentalists who got states to eliminate this kind of marriage. Everything has to be religious, even in marriages in courts.

[Zenlitened]

20. Beautifully said:

If you cannot give us a word, then I sincerely doubt you will give us our inalienable human rights. ...The word is a symbol of your acceptance of us, an affirmation that you believe our love is equal to the love you feel.

K&R.

[johnnypneumatic]

21. civil unions are separate and unequal

Homophobes fight just as hard against same sex civil unions as they do against same sex marriage.

Homophobe politicians like to say marriage is something only for the states to control, yet they passed DOMA and want a federal amendment against same sex marriage.

If marriage is religious, why don't churches perform divorces?

[JackBeck]

22. Almost every state that had civil unions has moved on to marriage equality.

Unfortunately, many LGBT couples are/were collateral damage in the slow march toward full equality. There are countless examples of how civil unions are unequal to marriage, even in states like NJ that boast how they offer all the same state benefits to same-gender couples. Just take a look at ERISA laws, or how civil unioned partners still get denied access in a hospital to their sick loved ones for proof.

[customerserviceguy]

30. Some religious organizations do have 'divorces'

You want to remarry if you're a Catholic? Pony up enough money, and you can buy an annullment, even if you've had a dozen kids. As I recall, the Jewish faith has such a procedure, as well, and a Mormon friend told me about such a thing to allow a woman to remarry another Mormon.

Yes, the homophobes do fight civil unions and domestic partnerships, but in some areas, saving the name 'marriage' for heterosexual unions is what it takes to get to equality. Look at the bright side, their kids don't feel that way, and within a generation, even without the Supreme Court striking down DOMA (which I fully expect them to do) we'll have 100% equal marriage in this country.

For now, I would suspect that there are a lot of people who would be glad to have a civil union or domestic partnership sanctioned and recognized by their state.

[PoliticAverse]

23. The purpose of debate is to convince people of your position.

In order to become law in the places where it isn't legal more people need to convinced there
should be gay marriage.

The reason interracial marriage is no longer up for debate is that the debate was won by the
advocates for interracial marriage and now a large majority is convinced of their position.

Perhaps you wish to surrender the debate because you are upset the world is the way it is and
not the way you wish it should be. Fortunately there are lots of people that are bent on winning
the debate and eventually they will be victorious, even if it is one state at a time.

[Pacifist Patriot]

87. Sadly, that is not why interracial marriage became legal.

As I was reminded last week, it was Loving v. Virginia in the U.S. Supreme Court, not by popular demand. In fact, it was a decidedly unpopular opinion at the time.

While widespread social acceptability of two people of the same gender getting married would be lovely, it's not really necessary. That's one of the reasons why I think we need to remember we're talking about "equal protection under the law" and not "gay marriage." Our country denies over 1,400 legal protections available through marriage to people simply because of their sexual orientation. That is wrong in so many ways.

[PoliticAverse]

90. You can't take the decision out of context...

At the time of the Loving v. Virginia decision only 16 states still had laws banning interracial marriage.
The reason most states didn't is because the proponents had won the debate in those states.
Loving v. Virginia came about because Loving was able to get married in the District of Columbia.

The Supreme Court has also ruled most restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional - that hasn't stopped
the abortion debate.

The gay-marriage issue is being won by debating the issue and convincing more and more people that it is a right.

[hfojvt]

24. well I think you are backwards on that

I, myself, would give you the word tomorrow. However, 70% of Kansas voters and even over 50% of California voters would not. I would prefer for you to get something rather than nothing. The rights seem to me to be far more important than the word. Given a real world alternative, which would be your choice. Fighting for the word and losing, or fighting for the benefits and winning?

For yourself, you make your own choices. But I make my own choices too. You may want to fight and die for the word, but I am only a water carrier in this battle. No matter how much you may want to scream and call me names, this is not my battle. I don't benefit personally from a victory. In fact, I probably lose.

Consider this. My employer is currently facing a budget shortfall of some $500,000, and my retirment fund is also facing funding shortfalls. Even with gay civil unions, this will likely produce more of a shortfall in both of these as my employer starts paying for spousal benefits for their LGBT employees. My employer could easily decide to help balance their budget by cutting my job or my benefits as a part-time worker. The state is already planning to bolster the retirement fund on the backs of the workers by making us pay more. Well, if the retirement fund suddenly has to pay benefits for LGBT spouses, then we might need to pay even more. Never mind that the shortfall happened because the state skimped on their own contributions so they could give tax cuts to "small businesses" (by which they actually mean big corporations).

So I seem to get nothing but loss or risk thereof even from a victory. I don't fight this battle for my own benefit. We are part of an alliance, where we have some common interests in things like progressive taxes, school funding, and social programs as well as marriage equality. You are asking an awful lot to expect an ally to throw themselves in front of a semi for your cause. For no possibility of a tangible benefit, I get run over an the semi does not even slow down. Meanwhile we lose the income tax, the social safety net and school funding, all because of a word.

[originalpckelly]

27. Actually, it is for your own benefit.

What, do all gay people walk around with a sign saying: I'm gay, bash me?

Someone might just mistake you for one of us. Hope they don't but it could happen.

When people live in a world where it is an acceptably legal position to discriminate somewhere or for someone, it becomes a dangerous world for all.

[Unvanguard]

38. You're contradicting yourself.

The harm you refer to is the harm that will be dealt to you by your employer paying spousal benefits to the spouses of LGB employees. But you also say it's "all because of a word." Do you think spousal benefits are a word?

[susanr516]

28. Marriage equality, NOW nt

[customerserviceguy]

29. Please let me get on the record

that I'm 100% behind full marriage equality.

That said, I don't find civil union and/or domestic partnership to be a bad thing. They had it in Vermont for about a decade, then the Legislature and Governor did the right thing. Sometimes you need a period of time to show that the skies will not fall, and the seas will not boil away if you let people of the same gender form a marriage-like relationship. Then it becomes easier to get the real thing.

I also have a problem with comparing civil unions and/or domestic partnerships to the "separate but equal" situation with regards to segregating Caucasians from African-Americans in schools. In the case of schools, it became evident that black schools got shafted when it came to distributing resources, and children in such a school suffered for it. But in the case of a committed relationship, the quality of that relationship is directly related to the persons who are in it. If indeed all proper civil rights of those in a 'marriage' are extended to a couple in a civil union or domestic partnership, then they truly are equal, except for the name.

If there are people out there who feel that a same-gender civil union or domestic partnership are not the same as a heterosexual marriage, then passing a law calling the CU/DP a marriage is not going to change their minds. As long as same-gender couples get the legal benefits of marriage, that should be plenty. You just can't force people to agree with you, especially when their heads are so far up their arses. Attempts to do that have resulted in stains upon the constitutions of a majority of the states, which can only be wiped away by a Supreme Court decision that right now hangs on the ability of the progressive Justices to convince Anthony Kennedy to go along with them.

[originalpckelly]

31. The rights won't keep us from getting bullied, bashed and killed.

The respect that comes along with the word marriage will.

Why didn't they have civil unions for interracial couples? Why should we be expected to have anything less?

[customerserviceguy]

33. If you think that government putting a label on you

will automatically confer respect from people who really do think their holy books tell them that you are an abomination, then you're likely to be very, very disappointed.

Racial equality has been the law of this land for nearly a century and a half, has that eliminated racism? Women have had the vote for almost a century, has that eliminated sexism?

If someone wants to disrespect you, government cannot force them to think otherwise.

[originalpckelly]

35. True, but when the government makes the law based upon irrational hate...

it sure does fan the flames of hatred in society at large.

[customerserviceguy]

44. And that's what we got when full marriage equality 'threatened' the nation

We got state constitutions stained with homophobia, in many cases making it impossible for state legislatures to even consider the idea of CU/DP. For the folks in those places, all hope lies with Anthony Kennedy, hopefully he will remember the guy who appointed him was not a raging homophobe.

Those constitutional amendments, which will go down in history as the equivalent of Jim Crow laws, were not what fanned the flames of hatred, they were a mere reflection of it. Like I've said elsewhere on this thread, it seems their kids might be relatively immune to it.

[originalpckelly]

46. Are you high? Remember that whole not being able to do it by law?

Or being rounded up when at a gay bar thing? You know that little stonewall inn thingy? Or sent to a mental institution because you were gay?

Yeah. Whatever.

It's because the bigotry was codified in other laws that were so extreme, one didn't have to even worry about gay marriage.

[customerserviceguy]

67. I cannot defend anything that was done in the days of Stonewall

And I sure cannot defend any of the anti-equality amendments to the constitutions of a majority of the states. But I still see CU/DP as a step in the right direction that paves the way for full equality. All other civil rights movements advanced in that fashion.

[justiceischeap]

82. Was there a step for interracial marriages?

I'm guessing they went from not being able to marry in certain states to being able to marry nationally even if people didn't approve or reconsider their racism because it become a federal law not to discriminate against racial couples.

So why do LGBT*.*er's have to take this extra step? The Bible was used to deny interracial marriage as well. Are we "worse" in some way than interracial marriage? Or is it that the USSC saw what was going on as wrong, corrected it and as time went on, the majority of the people in the US accepted it. They may not like it but they accept it.

Time is a great equalizer, I will agree with that but don't make the LGBT*.* community suffer more than any other oppressed group had to just to realize equality.

[customerserviceguy]

98. There was not

But we didn't have people thumping bibles that called interracial marriage an abomination, either, even though there were crude references to "God put the white people here, and the yellow people there, and the black people somewhere else, so he must not have intended them to mix." or such nonsense.

Why do people who describe themselves as tolerant of gay and lesbian people, who don't mind same-sex CU's and DP's wince when the "M" word is used? I have no idea, I just know that it exists. The best way to get it to cease to exist is for same-gender couples to be as much a part of the mainstream as "shacking up" couples like my lady and me.

[Unvanguard]

34. Marriage is a social institution, not just a collection of legal rights.

Affording civil unions or domestic partnerships, even if the rights are the same (which in practice they essentially never are), still denies same-sex couples access to that important social institution.

Further, you miss part of the import of segregation. It is true that facilities designated for blacks were generally inferior to those designated for whites. But the whole point of Brown v. Board of Education was that, even if they were equal in quality, segregation was still inherently unequal, because its social meaning was the inferiority of black people relative to whites. Similarly, domestic partnerships and civil unions connote the inferiority of same-sex couples even when they are substantially legally equivalent in their package of rights to marriage.

[originalpckelly]

39. I just don't think they get that it's segregation we're being asked to accept.

[customerserviceguy]

50. How does that segregation manifest itself?

Those who accept you will accept any label you apply to yourself, those who do not never will, no matter what some law book says.

The place to win acceptance is in the hearts and minds of the people around you, and to be able to have the tools to enforce legal acceptance from those who would deny you your civil rights. But you're never going to make them accept you with a label that comes from a law.

We cannot effectively outlaw racism, sexism, or homophobia. All we can prohibit is somebody acting on those irrational feelings in an official capacity.

[originalpckelly]

52. When the law is segregation itself, changing the law is part of the solution to ending segregation.

[customerserviceguy]

57. Again, how are you segregated, other than by social mores that are impossible to change?

[originalpckelly]

62. Holy fucking shitballs.

You can change the "social mores" of the people who support you, can't you?
We're not even AT the point of the people who hate you. But when the people who are on your side cannot even get their shit together and understand that calling it fucking "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships", how the hell do you ever have the hope of changing the minds of people who hate you?

Get it?

[customerserviceguy]

66. I'm trying to learn

And I appreciate your efforts to explain your position. Do my efforts to explain where I'm coming from enlighten you, or do they just infuriate you? If it's the latter, I apologize.

[Unvanguard]

54. It manifests itself in one category for one group of families

and a different category for another group of families. And not in a trivial respect either, but with respect to one of the most socially-important statuses we have: the status of being married, of being someone's spouse. The dominant, long-standing means of recognizing and formalizing a relationship is for everyone else but not for one particular group, because their relationships aren't worthy of it.

There isn't even a verb for "form a civil union/domestic partnership with."

[customerserviceguy]

59. Yes, it's a new concept

As is my relationship, my lady and I live together. They used to call it "living in sin", and while I'm sure that there are those who still think of it that way, that's their problem, not mine.

Our friends and co-workers (and even our employers) still consider us a full couple for nearly all reasons. I have spousal life insurance on her if she should pass away, and until I went full time, she had me on her insurance as a domestic partner, even though NY doesn't recognize that status.

The only thing we have had a problem with is bereavement leave. My parents are elderly, my father is dying of liver cancer, and while I will be afforded three days with pay to fly to the NW for his funeral, she will not be. We plan on fighting that through our union.

[Unvanguard]

60. Okay, and if that works for you, great.

But you have the choice. If you wanted to get married, you could. We can't: that's the difference.

[customerserviceguy]

65. And with all my might

I would do whatever it took for you to get that choice. If we were a same-gender couple who had a domestic partnership in New Jersey (I work there) she would be afforded bereavement leave. We have made a choice based on our finances to keep things separated, marriage involves all sorts of legal and financial entanglements that we mutually have chosen to avoid.

At our ages, it's not like there's going to be a Customerserviceguy, Jr. someday. I use us as the basis for arguing for marriage equality all the time, since our union could never produce children, how is it fair that we would be allowed to marry, but a same-gender couple not be afforded that right, if marriage is all about raising children?

[customerserviceguy]

40. Segregation of schools by color

also had the effect of keeping the two groups of students from interacting with each other.

Believe me, if a fundie couple lives next door to a same-gender married couple in Massachusetts, they still consider that a 'fake' marriage. If they get to know the folks next door, they might just find that they're ordinary people, like any other couple, and that's the way that prejudice and discrimination fade away.

I still think it's a good midstep, and if the states that have stained their constitutions would consider CU/DP, it would be a step in the right direction. But I do expect that the Supreme Court will use the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution to do away with DOMA. That won't change the minds of fundies and others who are squeamish with same-gender unions, at the time of Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, Gallup showed that 90% of Americans opposed interracial marriage.

Unfortunately, near half a century later, some still do. Why would it be any different with equal marriage?

[Unvanguard]

41. I don't think same-sex marriage will end homophobia, or even combat it much.

I do think same-sex marriage will offer same-sex couples access to the social institution of marriage, which they deserve as much as every other couple, and that it will nullify the discriminatory social message of same-sex marriage bans.

Private individuals being prejudiced against me is one thing. The state granting that prejudice its imprimatur is quite another.

[customerserviceguy]

48. Can you acknowledge that it is a transitional step to equality?

And can you consider that a good thing? In my reading of history, no group on the 'outs' with society ever got all it's rights restored to it at one fell swoop.

Does CU/DP give queasy 'straight and narrow' people a chance to get over their irrationality, while allowing full legal benefits to same-gender committed couples? I think that the last decade has shown us what happens when they get freaked out about 'their' institution of marriage. I guess I'd rather have one step forward, rather than one step back, with the hopes of seeing three steps forward from a Supreme Court decision that might be in doubt.

[Unvanguard]

49. I would vote for civil unions at a ballot box or in a legislature.

I would invest some effort in pushing for them, if they came up in my state.

But they are not, in any way, shape, or form, equivalent to marriage. Not even close.

Edit: To be clear, the answer to your question is "yes." I just want to be clear that it's a very qualified "yes." :)

[customerserviceguy]

53. While my avatar says I'm from New York

my heart is still in Washington State, where I moved from four years ago. No, they don't have full equal marriage yet, but whenever something in that direction has been on the ballot, the people of that state have always done the right thing.

I certainly hope that before the Supreme Court has to deal with the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution on recognizing same-gender marriages from the handful of states that allow them, Washington will have an initiative or referendum to be the first state in the US to have equality pass at the ballot box.

[originalpckelly]

51. I think marriages are usually getogethers.

It'd be real hard to do that if you couldn't even be seen with one another, or else the police could arrest you and send you to prison or a mental institution.

It's pretty clear to anyone who knows even the slightest bit of gay history that you couldn't go to a justice of the peace to get married if you were gay, because if you did that, the justice of the peace would have you arrested.

Just sayin'.

[customerserviceguy]

61. I'm sincerely glad that we have moved far beyond those days

I want us to move to 100% equality, as I have stated before. I just view CU/DP as a possible step along that path.

[originalpckelly]

63. Did they do that shit for people who wanted interracial marriages?

:shrug:

Why expect us to accept it at a half way point?

[customerserviceguy]

68. In a way, they did

You could go to a state to be married where they would marry an interracial couple, and then come back to your home state to live as married.

It was the absurdity of not recognizing those marriages under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution that caused the Supreme Court to strike down the laws that were still being enforced regarding interracial marriage. That is the same mechanism that I envision being used to defeat the rash of homophobic state constitutional amendments that we've seen over the last dozen years or so.

Until we get there, I will be glad to see states adopt CU/DP statutes, if they simply cannot get the political will needed to go for full equality. My representatives in the state legislature have already come down on the side of equality. I hope they can persuade enough of their collegues to do the same.

[Unvanguard]

70. Actually, Loving v. Virginia was decided on equal protection and due process grounds.

No mention of Full Faith and Credit.

[customerserviceguy]

73. If the Supreme Court uses those grounds

then I'm fine with it. Clearly, there are a few paths to them finding their way to equality.

The big difference here is that at the time of Loving vs. Virginia, most states did not have laws against interracial marriage, and where they did, they were often not enforced, and very old, from post-Civil War times. That's not the case with laws against equal marriage, they are completely enforced in the states where they exist, which are a majority of the states, and they are recent in time. That's why I think that another path besides equal protection and due process will be used.

Let's take the example of first cousin marriage. If a couple who are first cousins chooses to marry in the roughly half of the states that allow that, they can go to one of the states that does not allow it, and have their marriage fully recognized. Any attempt to deny them marital rights would be unConstitutional under FF&C. That's what I see happening with equal marriage, as well.

[originalpckelly]

43. That may be true for them, but should it be true for our allies?

[customerserviceguy]

56. I guess I don't get what you're asking

For people who realize the equal rights of same-gender couples, it doesn't matter if it's called marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or even those who have committed themselves to each other in a place that constitutionally prohibits it, the couple involved are still regarded as spouses.

That's what I think about when you talk about our allies.

[originalpckelly]

58. "Yeah, Blah-Blah and I have been PARTNERS for 30 years now."

That's the way you talk about someone who you are in business with, not someone you are in love with.

[customerserviceguy]

72. If a couple in a CU/DP uses the word spouse

or husband or wife, depending on the gender involved, those who are comfortable will have no problem with it, those who cannot toss aside their narrowmindedness will think something else. Laws do not force respect, or change attitudes, that has to happen in the hearts of the people who have their heads up their butts.

[TriMera]

76. If you don't mind, I'd like to jump in here.

I live in Washington State and I am in a domestic partnership. I refer to my partner as my wife. However, even though my state claims that our domestic partnership has all of the benefits of marriage, I can't get on my wife's insurance at work because her company hides behind the ERISA Act. So, being in a domestic partnership and calling her my wife is not the same as marriage. I don't care what anyone thinks about my use of the word wife, but I do care that my relationship status does not afford me the same rights and protections that a straight couple in the same situation would be entitled to. That's the reality.

[customerserviceguy]

80. I thought that the law in WA had been changed

to expand DP from the very limited thing it started as, to all the rights of marriage. Of course, if someone wants to cite Federal law as the reason to discriminate, that's unfortunate. Hopefully either the courts or the people in WA will do the right thing.

But your example proves my point. Just because we had nominal racial or gender equality in any given place, that didn't change the hard hearts of those who still found any excuse to discriminate. Putting the label "marriage" on your relationship is not going to mean a thing to those bound and determined to make you fight for your rights.

[loyalsister]

69. It's way more than that

The words "marriage" and "spouse" appear in thousands of laws that would not be automatically enforceable under civil unions.
Was there a sudden impetus of GLBT people seeking to get married or, was it an offensive move designed to create controversy in 2004?

[Unvanguard]

74. I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to.

Several states---I think the count is eight now, probably with RI making nine sooner or later---presently allow for civil unions or domestic partnerships with essentially all the state-level rights and benefits of marriage. Such laws generally provide explicitly that where state law refers to "spouse" or "marriage", it be construed to refer to civil unions and parties to a civil union also.

That said, there are two important legal differences aside from the social differences I pointed out in the post you replied to. First, while DOMA bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, if DOMA were struck down or repealed, same-sex marriages would get the federal rights of marriage, and civil unions/domestic partnerships would not. Second, while no form of recognition for same-sex couples enjoys wide out-of-state recognition, same-sex marriages are probably easier to get recognized out-of-state than civil unions or domestic partnerships, though I'd have to do a little checking to see exactly how that works out.

Edit: It needs to be added that the above is how it should work in theory. In practice, civil unions are not reliable even when it comes to what they theoretically should legally provide for same-sex couples. They just don't offer the clarity or recognition that marriage does.

[customerserviceguy]

75. If the Supreme Court struck down DOMA

is there any question that the states which have CU/DP would move to have them declared as full marriages, especially when between people of the same gender?

If not, then the couple involved would merely have to visit a state that allowed full marriage, which would then have to be recognized by their home state. Yes, there might be some holdouts on getting state laws in line with the Supreme Court decision striking down DOMA, but those would be formalities.

[Unvanguard]

77. The Supreme Court would be striking down Sec. 3, not Sec. 2.

So the federal rights of marriage would be conferred to same-sex couples, but they still would not get out-of-state recognition unless the recognizing state decided to recognize them.

[customerserviceguy]

79. I know there are a couple of cases headed to the Court

One from Massachusetts and one from California, perhaps Section 2 is involved in one of them.

[Unvanguard]

86. No, they all challenge Sec. 3.

The basic reason is that Sec. 2 is almost certainly constitutional. There is a long-standing principle that states are allowed to not recognize marriages that conflict with their public policy.

[customerserviceguy]

97. I'm unaware of that principle

Perhaps you have some case law to cite on it. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I thought I was relatively conversant in the case law surrounding equal marriage and equal rights.

[Book Lover]

42. I don't care about changing anybody's mind. I simply want my rights recognized.

Loving vs Virginia didn't change the mind of a single racist, but it did allow people who loved each other to wed. So too with marriage between same-sex couples. If I am supposed to accept "civil unions," then couples of different race should have accepted "transracial unions" instead of marriages, too.

[originalpckelly]

45. Of course it did.

Not at the time, magically overnight, but it created a world in which their bigoted views were unpopular, because younger people grew up in a world where it was legal.

Can you imagine if the final stage had been civil unions?

[Withywindle]

36. K & R

I'm with you 100%

[SwampG8r]

78. all people should have marriage equality

including me
i am so tired of getting bossed around
oh crap here she comes

[Le Taz Hot]

84. There are certain make or break issues for me:

safe, legal abortions, war for oil, and Civil Rights, which is what marriage equality is and always has been.

[Pacifist Patriot]

85. I'll likely be posting my July 10th sermon when I've got it completed.

"Marriage Equality: At the Crossroads of Politics, Religion and Our UU Principles"

The thesis is exactly what you've stated. This really should not be a matter of debate. My views on the subject are covered fully in Skinner's recent monster thread if anyone cares.

In short:

Marriage IS a civil union. Always has been in this country. The only thing we need to do to honor our fundamental civic principle of equal protection under the law for all citizens is issue marriage licenses to two consenting adults regardless of gender. No semantic gymnastics and no kowtowing to religious groups who've never had a say in defining marriage in the first place. They don't want their clergy to bless these marriages, fine. Someone else will be happy to do it.

I'm going to have to step out now because if I have to go around and around again about how the "civil union" cop out gives religious organizations power they don't currently have over "marriage" my blood pressure is going to go through the roof.

[Starry Messenger]

89. I'm in Mexico City this week where Marriage Equality is the law.

It is easy to see the contrast between here and the United States. I've never seen so many out lgbt couples in my life. Sure, granted this is the city, not the rural area, but the ease and level of social interaction is something I've never experienced in a comparable US city. Having one's relationship not be illegal is a powerful social factor. And this is a conservative Catholic country. Sure, the right-wingers here scream about it, but the lawmakers are not backing down or talking about "bipartisan solutions". Once something becomes the law, society adapts. It's really not the other way around. There is still oppression of lgbt people here, but the laws are bringing things forward, not backward. No one's rights are being used as a bargaining chip.

[jefferson_dem]

93. K/R

Excellent post. Thanks!

[tblue37]

94. One among many. Fact is, NO equal rights should be up for debate.

All citizens should have their rights--all of them.

[Taverner]

99. Exact-a-fucking-mundo