I keep hearing all of this stuff about trying to find each presidential candidate’s position on gay marriage, and I have ask… why is gay marriage an issue that should be the concern of a president? Seriously? The issue is not gay marriage; it is civil rights. Marriage is the word that the use to describe the religious procedure of getting bound to another person for life. The only thing that could make it an issue, is that it is currently recognized by the government as a legal union, and there are privileges that come with its status. However, it is not the issue, and I don’t get why we are so concerned with that word; marriage.
I would happily take a civil union any day; so long as it afforded me EQUAL rights. I don’t give two shits about calling my partnership a “marriage” vs. calling it a “civil union”; so long as we are treated equally under the law of our government. I personally think that should be more of the focus, as this issue will always be used as more of a wedge than anything, and no person in their right mind is going to go up against the juggernaut that is the Christian church. Also, isn’t there supposed to be a separation of church and state? So again, why not stop calling it “gay marriage” as an issue?
I think that if you get married, good for you; you should also have to file for a civil union, which should be the only union the government officially recognizes. Make it standard for everyone, and make it available for gays and lesbians as well. Keep marriage in the churches, take religion out of the equation, and things can be more acceptable for everyone, right? Perhaps this is too simple of a concept, but it boggles my mind that gay marriage is all anyone ever asks about when it comes to gay and lesbian rights and a presidential candidate. (what about gay civil rights of other people throughout the world? I think that should be a huge concern of ours as well; but that is a more lengthy conversation).
I realized this more fully when I was reading what Obama said, and the “reaction” from some of the gays that he was against gay marriage. We don’t need to fight for religious justification; we need to fight for equality. Sure, the fight for gay marriage is a fight for equality, but it isn’t necessarily the same thing; take religious practice out of the picture officially. These church driven people are NEVER going to give us the “right” to take their “sacred” practice (now with a 50+% failure-rate!) for ourselves, so we should just drop the shit already. I am tired of continually giving it back to them so they can wedge it between what’s really important and this dance that we have been stuck in forever. I am for equality; nothing less, nothing more. Doesn’t that sound like a more fruitful fight?
Unrelated link: This is quite fascinating if it is true; apparently, the first AIDS case was in 1969 in the US. This makes me wonder; why didn’t it spread to the epic proportions that it has today? What was the factor that caused it to spread so rapidly in the 1980s that was different 11 years earlier? If this man was the first documented case of AIDS, how many people had it before him; and who infected him? It really turns the notion of epidemiology on its head, because it really did occur in a seemingly singular incident. Weird.
You’re right about the gay marriage/civil unions. In the long run, what we should be working towards is abolishing government involvement in marriage. It should only recognize civil unions. And those civil unions would just be two consenting adults… sex of the two is unimportant.
However…. getting rid of marriage completely is not the first step. Ideally?.. yeah.. that would be the way to go. But it would be much easier to convince a president to allow marriage to be all inclusive than getting rid of it completely. That’s why they are tackling that question.
baby steps
Joey, agreed; however, it isn’t a presidential issue, it’s a religious one. I am saying, leave marriage alone… just instead of getting a “marriage license”, you go apply for a civil union license. That keeps the religious nutballs from freaking out about “their” institution; and, it is something the president could do (which would further illustrate the practically invisible “separation of church and state).
I know. I completely agree. But you have one of two scenarios where that is the case.
Option 1 : Don’t get rid of government sanctioned marriages but add in a parallel “separate but equal” civil unions. Notice the quotations. Separate but equal invokes bad memories and rightly so. The likelihood of it actually being equal is slim to none. And there shouldn’t be anything that is government sanctioned and exclusive to straight people.
Option 2 : Getting rid of government sanctioned marriage. Yyyyeah. While I agree this is actually what should happen, it’s not going to… not yet anyway. You think the right wing is up in arms b/c of us trying to expand the definition of marriage? Just think about what they’d do if it was ejected completely. It’s simply too much to accomplish for right now. It’s the goal, but we need to work on whatever we can get for now that will actually give us equal protection under the law.
And what is that? Gay marriage. Yeah marriage is traditionally a religious event. But if you want hospital visitation rights and estate rights without miles of paperwork that is still contestable, you need marriage.
I get annoyed every time they start talking about gay marriage. We’re on the same page as far as what the end result should be. But asking presidential candidates about abolishing government sanctioned marriages altogether is just too big of a fish to fry at this point in time.
Check out our trailer on Gay Marriage. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the situation: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Duane, this may change your mind, but I’ve been making the same point for a long time (not accusing you of stealing my thunder, mind you). Equality is all that matters, not inclusion in an outdated religious institution. As long as the government treats gays and straights the same, I don’t care what they call it. I’m about solutions, not semantics.
Let us now, and forever more, refer to 10/30 as Common Ground Day. How appropriate that we are only hours from Halloween.
First cent: Government should not treat nor recognize a person any differently simply because they have entered into marriage, civil union, or any other contract.
Second cent: Companies and individuals should be able to do whatever the hell they want though.
atlmalcontent, I would venture to guess that we actually agree on more than we can agree to. Kudos for the kind comment. I would NEVER change my opinion on something because someone else believed the same thing. Here’s to more Common Ground days…
dave…. WORD.
Just a little more info to include as I totally agree with you on this one too Duane: According to Obama (on Ellen’s show) there are 1,200 rights given to “married couples”. I am not sure what all of those are, but I think everyone should be given the exact same rights. They are afterall “human rights”. Obama also stated that he thought “civil unions” should include all of those rights as well. I agree totally.
mitch, these “right” should be stripped from married couples. There is no reason a married person should have any additional rights over a single person.
mitch : a partial list http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/
Without a marriage or civil union, you’d have to draw up legal documents that encompassed all of those things and hope you didn’t miss something. And even if you did, the ones pertaining to company or government benefits still don’t apply.
dpb : These rights only pertain to the couple. These aren’t things that a single person would need. They couldn’t actually be applied to single people.
dave, that is a moot point; they already have them. The point is, we are being denied them, and they should be given to us. There is no way they are going to remove those rights from married couples in an effort to level the playing field. I totally get why you feel that way, but history shows that we usually grant rights, in an effort to level the playing field, not take them away.
The argument that this is “just semantics” falls down when you realize that all laws, federal and state, that pertain here use the word “marriage” in their text. Hence, companies can deny domestic partners of their employees benefits because the law says they must extend these rights only when the partners are “married (i.e., the laws do don’t apply to civil-unioned partners, literally). So, one could argue that what we need to do is rewrite all laws that contain the word “marriage,” substituting “civil union” or “domestic partner” (or whatever) every place that “marriage” occurs in the text of those laws … but the easier solution is just to allow same-sex marriage, and have all of those laws automatically apply.
The article about the first known AIDS case is fascinating. I’ve always wondered about stuff like that… you know, where and how do diseases “start,” that kind of thing. And like you said, the big question is, if AIDS was already present in North America, what made it suddenly spread to so many people in the early 80’s, and not before?? Weird stuff…
Stephen, that is the point I am making; if you take “marriage” out of the equation, everyone wins. We will never get the thumbs up for marriage because it is a religious institution. It is tied to these legal rights because the government recognizes it; but it doesn’t have to, as I suggested.
I hear ya. I am about to pay for an extra insurance policy because my employer (the federal government, which is this countries largest employer) does not offer domestic partnership benefits, which means my soon to be unemployed partner cannot join me on my health insurance plan. This is basically equal work for unequal compensation, since this is not an issue for my married counterparts who enjoy full benefits for their spouses. And this is just one of the 1200 or so rights we would have if we had legal recognition of our 10 year relationship. Not to mention how our non-legal status impacts our 3 children. Really. Call it whatever you like, just give us equality.
The secular legal arrangement is called a marriage and is independent of any church. Services in church carry no legal weight. Only when you have filed the paperwork with the county clerk are you married. Yes, even atheists can get married and it has nothing to do with churches.