The trend just keeps changing...
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Nope - separate but not equal isn't what "for all" means. There are over 1000 legal protections codified by case law in this country around the word "marriage.". Those protections cover not only tax law, but also the transfer of wealth, property, guardianship, custody of children, visitation and decision rights in healthcare and the list goes on and on.
Did you show compassion today?
Of those '1k' legal protections, how many are needed/wanted by GLBT? Acknowledging that marriage is defined by most of society as a union between a man and a woman, a societal/cultural definition not likely to be overcome by GLBT in the near future, I am suggesting that GLBT get over the marriage hickup and forge ahead with civil union legislation without the hangups. Identify what is needed/wanted, and get legal protections/recognition sanctified by the government. That is what they want and need, and that is what I believe IS attainable. I am a realist, and from what I see, the current course will only result in millions of dollars wasted, alot of bad feelings, and a kind of cultural war nobody wants, but nobody is willing to back down from.Dana Sheets wrote: Nope - separate but not equal isn't what "for all" means. There are over 1000 legal protections codified by case law in this country around the word "marriage.". Those protections cover not only tax law, but also the transfer of wealth, property, guardianship, custody of children, visitation and decision rights in healthcare and the list goes on and on.
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
OK - so I get the impression that folks can have access to the protections and rights if only the vocabulary is altered...doesn't that seem kinda like splitting hairs?
If marriage was left to religions and civil-unions became the standard for any and all couples (gay or straight) in this country and the same legal protections applied would that work for you? Grandfather all existing marriages into the new US Gov't version of civil-unions and take the word marriage off the legal books?
Marriage was a first societal concept - I agree. But lots and lots of case law has made it into an incredibly large and useful legal shelter. Realistically it will take decades upon decades for that kind of legal protection to be built up for civil-unions.
Why bother with all that if the legal process is already in place under the term marriage?
If marriage was left to religions and civil-unions became the standard for any and all couples (gay or straight) in this country and the same legal protections applied would that work for you? Grandfather all existing marriages into the new US Gov't version of civil-unions and take the word marriage off the legal books?
Marriage was a first societal concept - I agree. But lots and lots of case law has made it into an incredibly large and useful legal shelter. Realistically it will take decades upon decades for that kind of legal protection to be built up for civil-unions.
Why bother with all that if the legal process is already in place under the term marriage?
Did you show compassion today?
"Spare me, Ian. No offense, but the GLBT lobby puts out a TON of money that could have gone to any of the above."
You're missing my point. The pro-equality side could also contribute a heck of a lot of resources now devoted to pursuing their equality, yes. My point is that this country could do amazing things if it eliminated infighting and focused on what matters. I think welcoming everyone to the table is a more fair solution than asking some to give up their shot at that place.
"It's pretty easy to get people worked up about change."
I submit that in the end, this is the only thing we're talking about.
"Eventually, my side will fail, and the American dream will fall, much like the Roman Empire did. Without common values, common wisdom and common knowledge, how can a people remain together while emphasizing their differences?"
A wise man once said a few posts back, "Being a little melodramatic, aren't you?" What makes you think that I don't envision same sex marriage as an institution that should be as permanent as it can, should be involved in the proper upbringing of our children, should be based on mutual love and respect, and do all the others things that we imagine marriage should (it's fallen sadly short recently, no?). I ran a student activist group for a year in college, and rather than "emphasizing differences," the stated purpose was to make differences between people boring and irrelevant and disband. I just want to be uninteresting as a left handed person. No threat to civilization in the picket fences I envision.
As for (I paraphrase) "leaders who would speak for me whose words speak louder than mine," that is a problem we both share, no, MT? In a big way. Scary quotes by request.
Here's my final argument about marriage equality: at this point, a convicted serial murderer and rapist of children with AIDS, in jail is free to marry a homeless, uneducated, impoversished, IV drug addicted and schizophrenic satanist, with the intention of having children on drugs for the state to raise, never paying taxes or helping out the community in any way, or because there's some financial advantage involved, and against the wishes of all churches--provided they are man and woman. Two stable, physically well, well educated, caring, loving, monogamous, taxpaying, substance free, church going, successfully child rearing, charity contributing people CANNOT, if they are of the same sex. Meanwhile, no one is doing anything about the former, and they're trying to amend the Constitution (!) to stop the latter. "He's being extreme," some will say. I agree it's extreme, but it's Falwell's idea, not mine.
In lieu of further posts on the topic, and with apologies to Bill for mutating his thread, does anyone have a dispute with my suggested policy: Let churches do the marryin' however they like, and let the government do the legal unions without discriminating?
And my second question is this: what can we do about the REAL problem: kids without parents, kids with kids, kids on drugs, kids in poverty, generations living in crappy neighborhoods with little hope of meaning, and people without a sense of community and self respect, without a purpose in their lives besides making $? THIS, in my mind, is how Rome will fall, not because two lesbians who've lived together for 40 years finally exchanged vows in Mass.
You're missing my point. The pro-equality side could also contribute a heck of a lot of resources now devoted to pursuing their equality, yes. My point is that this country could do amazing things if it eliminated infighting and focused on what matters. I think welcoming everyone to the table is a more fair solution than asking some to give up their shot at that place.
"It's pretty easy to get people worked up about change."
I submit that in the end, this is the only thing we're talking about.
"Eventually, my side will fail, and the American dream will fall, much like the Roman Empire did. Without common values, common wisdom and common knowledge, how can a people remain together while emphasizing their differences?"
A wise man once said a few posts back, "Being a little melodramatic, aren't you?" What makes you think that I don't envision same sex marriage as an institution that should be as permanent as it can, should be involved in the proper upbringing of our children, should be based on mutual love and respect, and do all the others things that we imagine marriage should (it's fallen sadly short recently, no?). I ran a student activist group for a year in college, and rather than "emphasizing differences," the stated purpose was to make differences between people boring and irrelevant and disband. I just want to be uninteresting as a left handed person. No threat to civilization in the picket fences I envision.
As for (I paraphrase) "leaders who would speak for me whose words speak louder than mine," that is a problem we both share, no, MT? In a big way. Scary quotes by request.
Here's my final argument about marriage equality: at this point, a convicted serial murderer and rapist of children with AIDS, in jail is free to marry a homeless, uneducated, impoversished, IV drug addicted and schizophrenic satanist, with the intention of having children on drugs for the state to raise, never paying taxes or helping out the community in any way, or because there's some financial advantage involved, and against the wishes of all churches--provided they are man and woman. Two stable, physically well, well educated, caring, loving, monogamous, taxpaying, substance free, church going, successfully child rearing, charity contributing people CANNOT, if they are of the same sex. Meanwhile, no one is doing anything about the former, and they're trying to amend the Constitution (!) to stop the latter. "He's being extreme," some will say. I agree it's extreme, but it's Falwell's idea, not mine.
In lieu of further posts on the topic, and with apologies to Bill for mutating his thread, does anyone have a dispute with my suggested policy: Let churches do the marryin' however they like, and let the government do the legal unions without discriminating?
And my second question is this: what can we do about the REAL problem: kids without parents, kids with kids, kids on drugs, kids in poverty, generations living in crappy neighborhoods with little hope of meaning, and people without a sense of community and self respect, without a purpose in their lives besides making $? THIS, in my mind, is how Rome will fall, not because two lesbians who've lived together for 40 years finally exchanged vows in Mass.
--Ian
