*sound of crickets*

Wow, I’m stuck agreeing w/Robert Frost.

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.

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.

I see ILoveCapitalism defines anything he doesn’t like as not existing,

I see that Cynthia either can’t read, or isn’t willing to think and participate in a meaningful fashion.

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:

“In holding that homosexuality cannot be singled out for disfavorable treatment, the Court contradicts a decision, unchallenged here, pronounced only 10 years ago and places the prestige of this institution behind the proposition that opposition to homosexuality is as reprehensible as racial or religious bias. Whether it is or not is precisely the cultural debate that gave rise to the Colorado constitutional amendment (and to the preferential laws against which the amendment was directed). Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject, it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions. This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that ‘animosity’ toward homosexuality is evil.”

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.

If one does not want gay couples threesomes 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.

Which part of what you said is not complicated?

Oh and Deborah, being gay is not a birth defect.

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.

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.

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.

Why doesn’t that apply to your beloved liberal leaders?

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.

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?

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.

Really? Then how do you explain Perez Hilton? Or for that matter, most of the trolls on this board?

Regards,
Peter H.

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.

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.

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

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.

Another unfair expense lesbian and gay couples must bear because they cannot marry is that…

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”.

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.

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”.

True or False NJ Liberal? And why?

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