The treatment Carrie Prejean received from the MSM and left-of-center blogs was yet another manifestation of their attitude toward a conversation on gay marriage. They don’t want one. They just want states to recognize gay marriage, insisting anyone who opposes this goal deserves to be demonized.
The issue with Carrie Prejean was not where someone stands on gay marriage, but where he stands on civil discourse.
I have long believed that a serious, civil conversation on the issue would serve us well. It would help gay people understand the meaning and see the benefits of the ancient and honorable institution. It would allow straight people to see gay people defending long-term committed relationships, helping correct certain societal prejudices about people like us.
It is troubling that all too many at the forefront of the gay marriage movement are so unwilling to talk about the institution that occupies so much of their waking life. Surely, if they understood the history of the institution, they would recognize why people like Miss Prejean define it as they do. And they would develop arguments to respond to her concerns.
So, I put the question to you, my readers, why are many advocates of gay marriage so quick to insult the opponents of this social change and so reluctant to articulate it benefits?
so are you just copying and pasting from old posts now, or what?
i’ll bite anyway.
first off, i think one of the main problems with your thinking (and the thinking of many who comment on this blog) is that you often make huge and unwarranted generalizations. take this issue. a bitchy gossip blogger makes some rude comments, and suddenly the entire gay community does nothing but throw ad hominems and fails to engage on the issue. what? just in the last week i’ve heard the HRC dude on msnbc talking about the benefits of same-sex marriage. if all you watch is fox news, you might not see this kind of stuff. instead you just see bill o’reilly comparing homosexuality to man-squirrel relationships (not making this up).
secondly, i think some gay people are a bit insulted at the idea that we need to make a 10-point powerpoint slide to convince the rest of the class that we’re fully human. part of this disconnect may come from the fact that a large percentage of gays live in large, coastal, liberal cities in which people don’t even bat an eye at a gay couple holding hands on the sidewalk. to many of us, the idea that we have to explain to other people that we’re not psycho monsters seems a bit ridiculous. not to mention, i think you give the other side a bit too much credit. it’s not like they’re out there on a regular basis giving thoughtful reasons for banning gay marriage. no, they resort to fear-mongering propaganda ads and philosophical quips like: “adam and eve, not adam and steve”.
i think the better question, however, is why you, someone with a platform of sorts (even if a rather irrelevant one), write post after post criticizing this abstract notion of the “gay community” for failing to make the case for gay marriage to your liking. why don’t you instead invest your energy in MAKING that case, and in criticizing those on the right (the horror!) who make a living off of propaganda and hate-mongering.
I don’t think we’ve had enough posts here at GayPatriot that say the exact same thing and ask the exact same questions about Carrie Prejean. I think you can keep this up for at least another three hundred posts.
Because boob and Levi are so self-absorbed that they can’t comprehend the notion that there’s more important things in life than an open bar.
Yeah, you are.
you’re right, TGC, it was a turtle, not a squirrel. my mistake.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905120006
i think the better question, however, is why you, someone with a platform of sorts (even if a rather irrelevant one), write post after post criticizing this abstract notion of the “gay community” for failing to make the case for gay marriage to your liking. why don’t you instead invest your energy in MAKING that case, and in criticizing those on the right (the horror!) who make a living off of propaganda and hate-mongering.
Drink your ‘smug’ straight, or with mixers? OH and what of ‘relevance’, did you blog post today, or are you just a lowly yet arrogant commenter?
GPW maybe there are folk out on the far left screeching. . . but
then you have: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY28jU8oCqM
maybe, just maybe there are reasons for the insults and the way some reply to opponents of SSM.
bravo to bob, btw.
i think in your knee jerk hatred of the lefty gays, you grant too much to their opponents. people who believe in books 1000 years old and imaginery men rising from the grave probably don’t respond to reasoned arguments as best as you’d like.
the writers of the constitution knew that a mob mentality was always goingn to exist, and created checks and balances to prevent it’s tyranny. i’d love a perfect world where we all are reasonable enough to see the reasons behind gay marriage, but i’d rather at least have the rights now and make the case. there are older generations of gays who don’t have the years left to wait for us to get the powerpoint together.
3: Nice….can’t respond coherently to a topic, so you stoop to personal attacks on people you don’t even know.
Why is it that left gays constantly project their own emotions onto others? This talk of a “knee jerk hatred of lefty gays” should be translated as the hatred that left gays have for all things conservative.
Tim you totally missed the point of this issue. I am straight and I object to the idea of gay marriage. On the other hand I do think that gays should have the same rights as those who live together – the common law marriage.
The mob mentality here happens to be the mentality that is exhibited by lefties and libtards in general who go around smearing anyone happens to hold a different opinion. The criticism that Carrie Prejean got from that libtard fag Perez Hilton is one reason that straight conservative people are digging in their heels. Nothing is gained by that approach.
There can be no dialogue so long as the libtards continue to project their own feelings and emotions on to others because they are too immature to see that they do not have the right to get their own way on this or any other issue. I think that there has been enough pandering to this particular group already.
Marriage is a contract between one partner and the other. Anybody can make a contractual agreement that is then binding in the courts. Marriage is not a “right” but it does come with responsibilities. At the present time there are many heterosexual couples who live together and do not have that piece of paper. Is it just the desire to have that piece of paper? Or is it because you want to usurp heterosexuals in some way?
…never considered same-sex marriage to be a right.
Not anyone. Not their Dear Teleprompter, for example.
I’m reminded of those people who became temperance campaigners to stop *other* people’s spouses from drinking. Temperance didn’t begin at home, with them; as a (poor) substitute, they encoded their desired goal into the U.S. Constitution.
Again: Except when the gay marriage opponent is a Democrat.
The benefit to society, you mean. Answer: Because they neither understand how, nor desire that, the institution of marriage benefits society.
P.S. Returning from an absence, I’m amused to see that Carrie Prejean is still kicking around and a discussion-worthy topic. She must really stick in the Left’s craw. Too bad they can’t bring the same laser-like focus to other gay marriage opponents, like Obama.
“I am straight and I object to the idea of gay marriage. On the other hand I do think that gays should have the same rights as those who live together – the common law marriage. ”
So what’s the difference? What is the distinguishment between common law marriage and gay marriage? If it’s the same rights, why are you against it? Semantics?
“Marriage is not a “right” but it does come with responsibilities. At the present time there are many heterosexual couples who live together and do not have that piece of paper. Is it just the desire to have that piece of paper? Or is it because you want to usurp heterosexuals in some way?”
Marriage is not a right but it does come with responsibilities??? HUH? I want to usurp heterosexuals in some way? When will the paranoia end? I’m not barging into your home asking you to watch me fuck my boyfriend. What it really comes down to is a sense of unjustified superiority heterosexuals have. Rooted in religion or just egoism, it’s still selfish and you guys need to get over it.
You’re still wrong, not surprisingly. You said:
Curses. Thanks a lot, AE.
Tim, a marriage license from the State is a privilege, not a basic right. It is a privilege that the People choose to extend to couples meeting the qualifications that the People have defined, usually through their legislators. The qualifications must meet constitutional tests – for example, per SCOTUS, they cannot be race-based – and at this time, there is no Federal-level jurisprudence to say that gender-based qualifications (checking the gender of the couple and requiring them to be opposite-sex) is wrong.
I happen to be a longtime advocate of extending the privilege of marriage to same-sex couples, but neither my wish (in that regard) nor anyone else’s will change what a State marriage license *is*, i.e., the fact that it is a privilege subject to qualifications, not an inherent / universal right.
And for that matter, they didn’t consider opposite-sex marriage to be a right, either.
TGC, the koran was written AFTER the death of christ. You’re a moron.
I didn’t know, offhand, when it was written and I confused CE with BC. I’ve never seen CE used before instead of AD.
Know what’s moronic? The fervent evangelical belief that forcing people to use mercury filled light bulbs made in China, and other erosions of freedom, based on the word of a divinity school drop out. Not to mention the ardent belief that spending tons of other people’s money is the only answer to global warmism. Now that’s moronic.
Between that and a man rising from the grave, guess which one makes more sense?
Wow, Tim uses the exact same pattern of religious insulting Levi does.
Amazingly, they discount the beliefs of others as ‘ancient’ and ‘narrow minded’ and yet expect their own beliefs to be enshrined in law.
Levi, in his limited ability to reason, has to portray anyone who opposes him as a backwards neanderthal, yet he still doesn’t condemn the people who oppose recognition of same sex partnerships who happen to have a D behind their name. This silence (which covers most of the liberal ‘gay community’) is deafening. But we’re used to it from Levi. After all he doesn’t see anything wrong with the threat of biological warfare being used against people who disagree with him
He does expose a point though that I’m not sure is touched on enough. Rather than appeal to rational arguments, the left is, again as a whole, prone to go with emotion. Both to make themselves feel better (We don’t follow a dead agricultural deity) and to try to guilt their opponents rather than reason (bob’s “the idea that we have to explain to other people that we’re not psycho monsters seems a bit ridiculous” is an example, as most people don’t feel that way).
IIRC, Ashpenaz has said in comments that he doesn’t see the need for ‘gay marriage’ as he doesn’t see the need to co-opt heterosexual rituals (please correct me if I’m wrong, Ash). Does that make him someone who sees gays as ‘psycho monsters’? Apparently to bob’s limited way of viewing the world, yes.
Then again bob likely doesn’t know the point of origin of the pink triangle symbol since he’s endorced the US following the policies of the guy who created it
Then again, bob’s an idiot (disclaimer)
oh, livewire. you’re cute.
Yes, Bob, I am.
I’m also intelligent and can back up what I say. I’m still waiting for your snappy comeback, or some proof that you’re an actual author or something else that you boasted about.
I may be missing something, but this seems to be an incredibly pointless discussion. Regardless of how it came about Prejean was asked her opinion and she gave it on a national venue- who would expect her to be immune from the comments and lampooning by the side she spoke against? Freedom of speech works both ways.
Those few that have used misogynistic remarks can’t possibly speak for the millions of people supporting gay marriage, just like a few out of touch conservatives can’t speak for the millions of people denying gay marriage.
Essentially this is a civil rights issue *waits for the conservatives to stop blanching* there really is no point in denying gay marriage. While the man-woman convention may have been tradition for a thousand years in western society, the institution has continually evolved to support the needs of the people. Being able to marry for love, interracial marriage, and the laws protecting women in marriage have all been changes to marriage to suit the needs of the people.
There are however many reasons to support gay marriage. With census data reporting illegitimacy rates among some minorities as high as 70%. With a welfare state unable to support these increasing demands for welfare programs and foster care, gay marriages will be able to remove some of the stresses felt by the nation via adoption (and many states specify that parents must be ‘married’ not have civil unions in order to be deemed worthy parents).
Another reason to support gay marriage, other than the superficial spending generated from ceremonies, is the attraction of highly skilled workers. I can speak from both personal and statistical data, being a biochemist, that states that allow gay marriages are more appealing places to live. This is in agreement with gay and lesbian workers being almost 3 times more likely to choose the northeast (from survey data) to live. And many of the New England states have shown some of the greatest growth or potential growth during troubled economic times.
So if civil rights, reducing government spending, and stimulating the economy have all been cited as effects of gay marriage, why are fiscal conservatives opposed to the idea? The blathering of liberal or conservative generally only affects those that have already made their immutable decision, not those in the middle. To answer GayPatriotWest’s question (which I’ve been getting to) is that it is not endemic to one side, had Miss California answered in support of gay marriage I’m sure those at NOM would have used it as another example of the liberal media pushing the gay agenda. When you reduce a complex debate to the opinion of one person, it’s going to cause venom and vitriol on both sides, relative to how long the debate has been raging. Had she answered a question on abortion news networks would still be covering it.
The guy that created Family Guy was on Bill Maher last week and he actually laid it out very eloquently. This is an issue, he says, where those of us that have made it, as in those of us that believe that gays should be entitled to full marriage rights, are absolutely right to be pulling the rest of the country in our direction. While there are people sitting around wondering whether or not they’re okay with gays getting married, he continues, actual gay people just want to get on with their f*cking lives. Sounds good to me.
Levi,
I’m sorry if you can’t ‘get on with your f*cking life’ without government validation. Would you like that with or without anthrax?
I do so love it when hatemongering leftists try to use gay people as an excuse to impose their antireligious bigotry on other people. It’s just another example of the plantation mentality that Obama Party members have towards minorities, and quite frankly demonstrates the idiotic stereotypes on which all of leftist thought is based.
I am so confused and distressed by the responses here! I haven’t read this blog before, and only came across it today because I Googled “Woot” and “gay”. (Yay Woot! Yay Gay!)
I think the question posed by the blogger here is a great one, and opens the door for some legitimate discussion. I think Perez Hilton’s question to a beauty and talent show contestant was a foolish one, which couldn’t possibly have solicited a meaningful answer regardless of the contestant’s political or social views.
I too am frustrated by the lack of a legitimate discussion between people on all sides of the marriage issue. It amazes me that a simple inquiry into whether we can have a discussion sent most of the posters into insults and diatribes.
Perhaps it has nothing to do with which side of these issues you’re on, but with how you choose to interact with the other folks on the planet with you. Ignorance and selfishness seem to have no political, social, or sexual affiliation. Luckily intelligence, grace, and compassion are equally shared.
Since I pay taxes, I’d like all the rights and obligations heterosexual couples get, as long as I go and get the license. That seems simple enough, and fair enough.
Moreover, I’m one of those who would accept the civil unions compromise, provided all of the rights were equivalent at the state and federal level. But that isn’t a position the GOP is willing to accept, so…
But no, it isn’t about the government saying “your marriage is OK by me.” The government doesn’t do that by recognizing heterosexual marriages. How silly.
Kristin, welcome. Since you are new here these comments have taken you by surprise. There are a handful of commenters who always have to attack Dan’s original post with a personal attack on conservatives.
There are many of us here who would love a serious discussion with opposing points of view. Sometimes we get it, often we don’t.
Many of us here would like to see Gay marriage become the law of the land, or at least Federally recognized civil unions. We feel this must come about through a recognition of Americans that this is a good thing for America and our society, not because some angry group of ‘victims’ shoved it through the courts by demanding rights.
Look at the abortion issue. 35 years ago State were beginning to grapple with the issue on their own. Then along came Roe v.Wade with it’s ramdown, and the fight goes on and on. Because it was a court decision it is possible that it could be revoked, which is what some hardliners on the prolife side would like to see.
It would be wonderful if our newly elected oh so wonderful, bring us all together President, who happens to be a Democrat, would start the ball rolling.
Dealing with DADT in an open manner, rather than simply avoiding it would be a nice start.
Alec,
You have all the benefits of every American Citizen. To marry one (1) person of your choice, subject to the restrictions of your state of residence, as determined by the government, and to have that partnership recognized by the government.
You are a person, singular, not a couple. That you chose not to take advantage of the above does not deny you any ‘rights’.
And, for the record, I’m for the creation and recognition of a seperate institution for same sex couples, through the legislative process. Google ‘Livewire’ and ‘Fred’ on this website.
Livewire,
Right. So I should have a sham marriage? I mean, I could probably find someone who needed to get married for one reason or another, and just do it. But it isn’t like it would be a satisfying relationship.
You are a person, singular, not a couple. That you chose not to take advantage of the above does not deny you any ‘rights’.
The same argument could be used to deny people marriage on the basis of their economic status, fertility, etc. For some reason, those qualifications are unconstitutional. The reason? Marriage is recognized as a right…as long as it is to someone of the opposite gender.
If you’re for it through the legislative process, I’m curious as to what you think about all of those state constitutional amendments that foreclosed that possibility. I’ll take it through a court order, thanks.
here is a favorite quote of a lead ‘senior’ Republican. . .
“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. … People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.”
Would be bery difficult for a lead senior Republican to speak out against Gay Marriage and incur the wrath of Cheney. . .
but their are those who voice their opposition to gay folk and SSM
see post #7
The same argument could be used to deny people marriage on the basis of their economic status, fertility, etc. For some reason, those qualifications are unconstitutional. The reason? Marriage is recognized as a right…as long as it is to someone of the opposite gender.
And Baker v. Virginia (yes I know, using Wiki as a source, shame on me) affirmed that this was fine. Though it never affirmed it as a ‘right’
If you’re for it through the legislative process, I’m curious as to what you think about all of those state constitutional amendments that foreclosed that possibility.
Not to make it about me (Don’t want to act like a liberal after all) I’ve posted several times about Ohio’s DOMA (Lets see if that breaks the filter). Though the right of the people to address and redress their government is the bedrock of the nation.
I’ll take it through a court order, thanks.
Like Dred Scott, or maybe Roe v. Wade? Oh wait, Baker v. Nelson is a court order so I guess you’re agreeing to accept there’s no ‘right’ to same sex marriage. Sorry I was confused.
rusty,
I don’t think anyone here is arguing against “People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.” Indeed, the arguement is government recognition of that relationship, and how to go about achieving it.
Nice try though.
The rights that come with legally-recognized marriage are so many and various that it will never be possible to stipulate all of them in legal contracts. How, for example, will you contract for spousal privilege?
Each and every one of these rights was passed into law for the purpose of providing the married couple with some form of advantage or support for almost every imaginable situation (e.g., property ownership, responsibility for debts, children, inability to make medical decisions, intestate death, post-mortem funeral arrangements, divorce, etc.). For example, when my mother was dying, all my father had to do to take over making her medical decisions when she could no longer maker her own was to identify himself as her husband. However, whenever I took my late life partner of over 20 years, who had multiple sclerosis and was paralyzed, to the doctor or hospital, I had to show up with multiple copies of her durable medical power-of-attorney AND know the law on how to use it. (I had to bring multiple copies to fend off claims that the one I had already presented and gotten inserted into her chart was “lost.”)
The requirement for lesbians and gays to have to pay a lawyer and create these contracts is a heavy tax of both money and time that heterosexuals do not have to pay. Furthermore, the attorney can make mistakes. A respected lesbian attorney made my life partner’s will and told me that it empowered me to make her funeral arrangements. It did no such thing. We were lucky because I am a planner. When she was dying, I called a funeral home and found out that I could only make pre-mortem funeral arrangements for her using her general (financial) durable power-of-attorney. If I hadn’t had another attorney create one for her years earlier, I could not have made those arrangements.
Another unfair expense lesbian and gay couples must bear because they cannot marry is that they must buy separate insurance policies for their property. A gay couple who were friends of ours found this out the hard way when there was a fire in their townhouse in D.C. The owner of the house thought his policy covered everything in his home, including his life partner’s property. After all, his insurance agent said, “This policy covers everything in your home.” But it did not cover his life partner’s property, and his life partner did not have a renter’s policy so he lost everything. I call stuff like this the “gay tax.” This would happen to a straight couple who were living together, too — but they have the option to marry.
I notice that other gay bloggers and columnists and the commenters here do not come up with concrete arguments in favor of marriage equality for lesbians and gays as I have here. I believe there are two reasons for this. First, having marriage as an option shapes the entire lives of the people who CAN marry the spouse of their choice. Even when single, and from an early age, they imagine what their weddings and married lives would be like and they plan their lives to obtain those objectives. So withholding equality of marriage rights from lesbians and gays does an enormous amount to remove those objectives — and removing the targets does a great deal to remove the motivation for the behaviors that lead to obtaining those objectives.
Second, there don’t seem to be many lesbian and gay bloggers and columnists and opinion leaders who have had long, happy same-sex marriages. I have. And since my life partner was chronically ill and paralyzed, I had years and years of intense involvement with the inadequacy of legal contracts to provide the rights a marriage would have given me. (Although, ironically, because of the way health care is provided in the U.S., even straight couples in our situation are advised not to marry, or to divorce.)
I covered some of these points when I responded to something Bruce wrote with a post at my site titled, “You no playa da game, you no make da rules.” Just curious — is that post why you didn’t put my blog in your blogroll? I’ve had much more acceptance and dialog with straight conservative blogs, including one that is vehemently against gay marriage, so I am perplexed, civil dialog-wise. I do hope it just got overlooked when you were busy and that we will be able to develop a good relationship despite our disagreements.
Cynthia
P.S.
I have published this reply at my site, with links, since it says a lot of things I’ve been meaning to post. Thanks for this opportunity.
Cynthia,
I can’t open your blog at work, but I’ll give it the hairy eyeball when I get home. I’ve a reply as well, but I can’t access all the info I want at work (blasted filter). anyway welcome to this site, and hope to see you more often 🙂
If one does not want gay couples to get married then that means that that person wants to restrict their civil rights. If one wants to restrict the civil rights of a specific group than that person is a bigot. See, it’s not complicated.
I have no objection to same-sex marriage, predicated on the concept that homosexuality is a birth defect. We do not refuse the right (rite?) of marriage to others with birth defects (blind or deaf, for example), so why deny those who were born homosexual?
“If one does not want trios to get married then that means that that person wants to restrict their civil rights. If one wants to restrict the civil rights of a specific group than that person is a bigot.”
True or False NJ Liberal? And why?
Have your State pass a Civil Union law, if you can’t get it to pass a gay marriage law.
BTW, CA had-and-still-has a Civli Union law which many gay-married couples have notably failed to use. That unfortunately provides evidence for those who argue that gay marriage is only about “validation” or having a “trophy” in the “culture wars”, for at least some couples, rather than being a set of benefits and responsibilities that those couples are sincerely interested in.
Exactly. The purpose of a State marriage license is to ***privilege*** a certain kind of relationship. That’s a feature, not a bug. The privileges are not a right. The State license is a privilege, not a right. I happen to think that gays who form stable, long-term couples should be given the privilege. Until and unless I persuade a democratic majority to agree with me, my viewpoint loses. I can accept that, because that’s democracy. I accept that it is my side’s responsibility to persuade society-at-large to pass gay marriage, by showing how gay marriage will benefit, not gays, but society-at-large.
But what is “unfair” about it?
I don’t deny your example; I deny your assertion (with no explanation or proof) that your example is somehow an instance of unfairness. Again, a State marriage license is a privilege, not a right. The benefits that go with it are privileges, not rights. Privileging some types of relationships over others is the whole point of the institution (the State license). Those certain types of relationship **benefit society**. I happen to believe that stable, long-term gay relationships benefit society and should be similarly privileged. The benefit to society is the point that we gay marriage advocates should be arguing; not your so-called “fairness”.
But Cynthia, you haven’t come up with any concrete arguments here in favor of gay marriage. Again, your “fairness” arguments are flawed or at least irrelevant, in that a State marriage license is and should be a privilege that society chooses to extend to the types of relationship it finds worthy, not a right or something that is about “fairness”.
#41 That’s a red herring.
No one is proposing ‘multiple’ marriage here, just between 2 committed adults that happen to be gay.
Oh and Deborah, being gay is not a birth defect.
#43 – “Oh and Deborah, being gay is not a birth defect.”
Really? Then how do you explain Perez Hilton? Or for that matter, most of the trolls on this board?
Regards,
Peter H.
You are exactly right on this. The lefty “gay leadership” has led us right off the cliff on this one by refusing to consider seriously why traditional marriage is so important (hint: children) and by demonizing anyone who stands up for traditional marriage. Hysterically demanding marriage as a “right” was an enormous tactical mistake. Before the courts started imposing gay marriage on states, there was already a steadily rising level of public support for civil unions and increasing acceptance of gay Americans. Marriage is so essential to sustaining western civilization that we need to make a good case that changing marriage to include same-sex couples will not only not damage traditional marriage but will enhance it by adding to the societal total of stable, committed couples. We have not made that case. So it is not surprising that the move for gay marriage has run up against so much opposition, particularly in communities who feel their own traditional marriages are under assault from a toxic popular culture, and who see so many of their own children and grandchildren suffering in consequence.
No it’s not NJ Liberal.
It’s a position you refuse to take a statement on, though you’ve no qualms about libling anyone who doesn’t agree with you as a bigot.
The point of the reply isn’t snark, just showing the inherent flaws. You claim that because I’m not for same sex marriage, but am for Fred, I’m a bigot. You claim that because I believe in due process and rule of law, I’m a bigot. The simple fact is, NJ Liberal, you’re not only a bigot, for trying to smear anyone who disagrees with you for any reason, you’re a hypocrite because you can’t even defend your arguements when they’re turned on their head.
No one is proposing ‘multiple’ marriage here, just between 2 committed adults that happen to be gay.
Wrong.
Gay-sex liberals and their supporters are pushing plural marriage.
Now, answer Livewire’s question instead of stalling. After all, since you claim marriage is a “civil right” that can never be denied to anyone for any reason, the answer is straightforward, isn’t it?
Ok, home now and I’ll reply to Cynthia in more detail.
First, let me say I visited your site and saw you lost your partner in 2004. I was sorry to read of your loss, and know it’s still recent.
As to the burdens and onerous of non-traditional relationships… Yes, extra steps have to be taken, yes benefits are different. That’s part of the cost of being non-traditional. I’ve written about my roommate here and her health issues. We have Power of Attourney on each other, and I’ve carried her on my insurance (and may have to again).
“Why don’t you get married?” you might ask. I’d counter “Why don’t you?” What her and I have isn’t a romantic relationship, it definately isn’t something I’d concencrate into the institution of marriage. So we take the extra steps to protect ourselves and make sure we have access to each other’s records.
Do we have all the ‘benies’ of a married couple? No. It’s not too surprising, after all, we’re not married.
The issues you address do come up for non-standard families all the time. At the defunct House of Shadowfind, Skip made the effort to have legal POA on all of his slaves, and his Alpha kept POA on him for same reasons. (That she was an RN helped). That our country has legal benefits available, with a bit more work, for non-married families is a testamony to the strength and flexability of our society.
As I pointed out above, I’ve argued for recognition of partnerships for same sex partners. It has to be done correctly, to enshrine the privledges.
And in the end that’s the first thing to understand. There’s no right to marriage. All the court cases often sited, don’t change that they affirmed you can’t exclude marriage because of colour, creed, etc. but it’s still a man and a woman. Baker says you can’t automatically assume to change the definition of marriage from M/F. It doesn’t, however, mean you can’t change it through legislation. I’d prefer Fred, but it’s only for me to be a samll part.
Why doesn’t that apply to your beloved liberal leaders?
Wrong.
Gay-sex liberals and their supporters are pushing plural marriage.
Not quite, NDT. From one of the links…
Meanwhile, the LGBT movement has recently focused on marriage equality as a stand-alone issue. While this strategy may secure rights and benefits for some LGBT families, it has left us isolated and vulnerable to a virulent backlash.
In other words, the group that is advocating plural marriages is acknowledging that the gay community is focusing on just same sex marriage, to that group’s detriment.
NJ Liberal, as a fellow NJ resident, I agree with your position on same sex marriage. But I also would be interested in your answer that Livewire posed. A couple of points about it. Do you believe Obama is bigoted, because he opposes same sex marriage? And/or for not pushing federally recognized civil unions as he promised? Also, perhaps you are bigoted against those who support polygamous marriages. Heck, I admitted I’m bigoted (and proud of it) against members of NAMBLA in another thread.
#43 states:
As of yet, there is not a genetic identifier. But, women choose abortion for a vast variety of reasons: no child at all, no Down syndrome child, gender selection, wrong daddy, etc. Certainly if a woman chose to abort a gay baby (when that trait can be identified) in her universe she would be dumping a birth defect.
After all, it is all about choice. But then, perhaps you could enact legislation making abortion of a known gay baby into a hate crime. Or something. I get all stupid confused when I try to think like a liberal.
A question to #39: Does it still work with a modest change?
Which part of what you said is not complicated?
I see ILoveCapitalism defines anything he doesn’t like as not existing, for example, my concrete arguments for why lesbians and gays should have marriage equality. Nice try, no sale.
Both ILoveCapitalism and The_Livewire prefer to frame the conversation about marriage equality for lesbians and gays as a “worthy” (heterosexuals) vs. “unworthy” (homosexuals) argument. The foundation of all the “worthiness” arguments is the couple’s ability and propensity to make babies for the purpose of enriching and empowering a religious group or coalition and/or a political entity (government, dictatorship, whatever). Where is the Constitutional rationale — federal or state — for forced babymaking?
I think the equality approach is the one that resonates with the most people.
I have added a link to my post of my reply here at my site, which leads to a story about two lesbian couples who HAD the right legal documents and were still denied the opportunity to be together when one partner was suddenly stricken and died. I was able to avoid this because I had years of experience in using these documents. The medical professionals have tons of experience in thwarting people with durable medical powers-of-attorney and if you don’t know exactly how to navigate through their obstacles, you are in the same situation as if you had no legal authority at all. In contrast, married straight couples don’t have to show their marriage licenses to have full authority to make medical decisions for their spouse when the spouse can’t.
I am skeptical of arguments in favor of civil unions as a “separate but equal” marriage status for homosexuals. To make this happen requires that state legislatures pass the necessary laws for equivalency AND that they do so in a timely manner. Being a state legislator is a part-time job in almost — or every, I forget — state legislature. Most state legislatures only meet for a few months from January to March or April, as if we were still an agrarian society. Some, like Texas, only meet every other year. It is inevitable that there will be some grandstanders who want to hold equality for gays hostage, or defeat it, whenever any of the civil union equivalency bills are proposed — and that they would be successful. Homosexuals therefore need to be written into the marriage laws as they currently stand. There is no other practical way to ensure marriage equality.
Ah, ok, now I understand Cynthia’s issue.
She can’t read.
Nowhere did I address the worthiness issue. Indeed, on the issue of ‘worthiness’ I have said I’m for the creation of ‘Fred’. Nor did I mention procreation. In fact, most all of the privileges that come with being married are enshrined in law. To create a seperate institution for same sex couples should require laws. Apparently the process of creating laws is too slow for her.
I have to ask Cynthia, should you accept that you got a ticket for speeding if you’re going 25 MPH in a 35 MPH zone? After all, deputies “have tons of experience in thwarting people”. If the doctor is denying you your rights, then it’s the error/vindictiveness of a single woman, not the government. So even though the ticket was wrong and against the law, you honestly believe another law would fix it?
Let me finish with a timely quote from Justice Scalia:
I see that Cynthia either can’t read, or isn’t willing to think and participate in a meaningful fashion.
Whoops, hit the button too soon.
Ditto to my above comment: the more so because I favor gay marriage and suggest it can be reached if gay marriage advocates fundamentally improve their arguments and tactics.
Cynthia? Alec? NJ Bigot?
*sound of crickets*
Wow, I’m stuck agreeing w/Robert Frost.