Those who support civil unions, but oppose gay marriage, are putting us all through this nonsense because they want to “protect” the use of this word by not using it to describe the reality that they are willing to allow.
Go figure….

If you reduce the argument to this bit of oversimplified jingoism, you are trapped by its own reality. The gay fighting furiously for the right to be included in the word marriage is wasting his time when he can obtain the legal benefits by accepting the status of civil union.

Plessey v Ferguson provides and interesting model here. The gay would argue that separate but equal is inherently unequal. (Equal rights do not create equality they only permit equality. Policy can still prevail to mitigate the true equality as in separate shower facilities for the sexes at the gym.)

Many gays see marriage as a state policy. Therefore, it is a form of caste system in their view. It discriminates against gays. But if that is the line of reasoning, then one must weigh the list of people being kept out of marriage by the so-called state policy. At what point and by what authority based on the compelling societal interest does the state have the obligation to limit access to marriage?

One way to avoid this endless round of battles over marriage is to create a true state policy in which the state offers a remedy through specific civil union statutes. This is no different than the common law marriage understandings that states have used for many years.

Many gays like to hitch themselves to the history of blacks being barred from marrying whites. Blacks were barred from one man, one woman marriage if the intended spouse was white. (And vice-versa.) This was a race issue, not a marriage issue.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessments. If gay civil unions are permitted by state policy, then all the other marriage wannabes are free to make their case for the same recognition.

The civil union route is to clear up other state policies that would be applied differently if the couple were a recognized “authorized/legal” pair. It is about adjusting the states codes and nothing more. I have no fight with loving gay couples having the same state code benefits and obligations my wife and I share.

So, if one wants to reduce all of this to a silly battle over getting to use the word “marriage” I would suggest that one’s argument is so shallow that it can not be detected.

#

It comes down to the use of a word. Whether that word, which, of course, would be a totally accurate description of the relationship being formalized, shall be allowed to be used.

Comment by Tano — January 24, 2010 @ 3:35 pm – January 24, 2010

I take issue with this bit of nonsense. It is not “totally accurate” to describe what I have in the same terms one describes what a man and a woman have. Eons of culture, mythology, symbolism, tradition, and power relationships cannot be glossed over with a turn of phrase. I have something different – not something worse or lower, but something definitely distinct that is not what they have.

Heterosexuals have something that’s theirs and has been for thousands of years. Why can’t we get something that’s ours?

I read this and wonder how all these people approving of actions against someone for their beliefs feel if the sides are reversed. I suspect I know, as it is the same reason none of these folks are in Iran protesting the hanging of gays there. A coward is often a bully.

Leslee Stewart, the Paramount’s general manager, said in a statement dated November 11, 2008 that the Paramount Theatre of the Arts Inc., is a nonprofit 501(c)3 corporation that follows IRS rules.

“In this case,” Stewart stated, “the board member acted entirely on his own. … It would not be appropriate for the Paramount either to support or oppose his views.”

This also points out the other problem; this deliberate act of discrimination based on religious belief and political affiliation is being supported, promoted, and pushed by an Oakland city leader.

The openly gay Colbruno is an Oakland planning commissioner.

Then again, Colbruno’s unethical and bigoted behavior is not a surprise; his sexual partner is also a corrupt, lying bigot.

Do you really think your support of discrimination and bigotry helps the public perception of gays and lesbians, Tano? Do you think your repeated demonstrations of ignorance on these topics and support for proven bigots and corrupt politicos is good for your argument that your sexual orientation makes you think and act the way that you do?

We understand that you act solely out of irrational hatred and a belief in your minority status giving you magical power to ignore right and wrong, but seriously, why don’t you educate yourself on these topics before making such ignorant comments? You do the gay and lesbian community no favors by your constant argument that your sexual orientation requires you to support unethical and bigoted behavior from gays and lesbians.

What on earth are you talking about. The link you provide is to a discussion of employment law. Mr. Hoopes is not an employee – he was a political appointee, and if he were to continue in the post it would be through another political appointment. There is no requirement to ignore political considerations when making political appointments – quite the contrary, they are always made with political considerations.

As pointed out here He is being discriminated against in violation of California law.

Again this is why Tano’s nothing more than a talking points shill. He wants laws changed because he doesn’t feel he’s equal unless he has a piece of paper that he doesn’t want to qualify for. He wants non-discrimination laws, only if they wouldn’t be used to defend others against him.

And yet he expects others to take him seriously.

I see you have no argument either. You offer no evidence or logic by which we can accept that Mr. Hoopes has had his rights violated. I acknowledged not having followed the case closely, but you give us nothing here. Your only point seems to be some mindless rant about how I, supposedly, would have a different opinion if I had a political ally in such a position. Which is, of course, a claim you have no reason whatsoever to make, which is untrue, and utterly besides the point. The question here is whether Mr. Hoopes has a legal, or even Constitutional right to this position. And i don’t see how that can be.

I realize that you, along with a few other commenters here, like to play the game by which I serve as some stand-in for gay liberals, or all liberals, or all people that you don’t like. I give you the opportunity to launch your spittle-flecked tirades against a convenient target. Its ok – I dont take it personally, and to the extent that it keeps you off the street and reduces your stress levels, maybe it is a good thing. But dont make the mistake of taking yourself too seriously – I certainly don’t.

“Are religious groups supposed to just take your word for it ..”

Religious groups do not have to take my word for it. That is the really cool thing about Constitutional rights – they exist whether or not particular groups or individuals agree with them.

“despite your support for how Lorenzo Hoopes is being treated?”

Once again, where is the Constitutional or even just legal violation that he is suffering?

And yeah, it should be obvious that I support such rights as churches deciding their marriage policies. If you ever had the interest or ability to actually read what I write, and think about it, rather than seeing me as a proxy for all that you hate, and using this blog as your personal venting site, then it would be obvious.

I invite you to reread, dispassionately, my comments and the comments of almost all the others who post here, especially the ones addressed to me, and tell me who is full of bluster and bombast.

But I see, bottom line, that you have no answer for me. Your only answer is that you need not give me an answer. You have tradition on your side.

I understand that you hold your views for irrational reasons, and no rational argument can sway you. Exposing the irrationality of your position has no effect either.

Thats ok. Progress in this society has never been made by persuading every last person. I have no animosity toward you – in fact quite a bit of respect. People who support civil unions have already traveled 95% of the way on this issue. They understand the concept of equality (even though some play silly semantic games about the word), they are willing to apply this sense of equality under the law to committed gay couples in civil unions. Their only problem is the silliness of refusing to use the word marriage. Such silliness does not have legs – it will fade from the scene before you do.

Tano, of course it all sounds perfectly kosher to you. Since it is a Mormon supporter of Prop. 8 that is being persecuted, you’re inclined to defer completely to the City’s decision-making autonomy. You’ll second guess the decisions, operations, and policies of any business or public entity in the nation before you’ll allow a homosexual to even get his feelings hurt. But here, the City of Oakland contemplating the application of a liberalism litmus test to see if a putative board member is “their kind of people” raises no red flags whatsoever.

If this were happening in another, more conservative, city and the city was considering the rejection of a candidate for an unpaid position on a historical landmark’s board based upon the candidate’s donation to the No On Prop. 8 campaign, you would be howling bloody fu*king murder. If you deny that, you are (as always) a shameless liar. But that’s fine–it just proves the point I made in my original comment. The gay left has ZERO respect for the rights of others and the fact that its agenda includes taking revenge on those that disagree with them is out of the bag.

“The ability of churches to set their own rules regarding who they marry is a core Constitutional guarantee, and one that I obviously support.”

Really? You “obviously” support the rights of churches, Tano? Why on Earth should anyone believe that? Are religious groups supposed to just take your word for it despite your support for how Lorenzo Hoopes is being treated? Actually, they would be wise to assume that you would treat them and their “core Constitutional guarantees” with similar disregard.

I am not fighting to keep you out of marriage. I am determined not to change the formula because no logical reason has been put forward to do so.

You are no different from the sheepherder and his beloved ewe. You just have different wants. You are no different from the radical Islamist who wants Sharia marriage and divorce to be recognized as common law.

I do not have to justify my case. I am in the ruling majority and history, the Judeo-Christian ethic and tradition are on my side.

You are the one who needs to make a persuasive case.

You may choose to understand what I have said or not. The best thing about this site is that many of us who comment understand our differences and handle our challenges and disagreements with humor and good will. On the other hand, more often than not the lib comes tromping in with all sorts of bluster and bombast and sprays us down with all manner of opinions dressed as immutable fact. Like man made global warming.

Thats a pretty lame dodge.
I did NOT say marriage is silly, I said YOU are being silly – granting to gay couples all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage but refusing to use the word.

No, I do not “get” your logic, because there is none there. You are floundering around, unable to address the issues. A good example is your silliness with the shepard.

Let me help you focus here ol’ guy. YOU are willing to grant gay couples legal standing, in a civil union. YOU are NOT willing to grant a shepherd legal standing with his ewe. So YOU are make the same distinction that I am. So this is not an issue.

The issue is why you are unwilling to formally recognize, as marriage, an institution that you are willing to make legally identical to marriage.

You are the one who declared that marriage is just a silly “m” word and not worth getting all “silly” over.

You made your bed, now lie in it. You can laugh and cry and stomp your feet over me denying you access to the silly “m” word marriage club, if you like. But why, by your own definition, would you strive so hard to join a silly “m” word club?

Just slap a ring on your finger and tell everyone you are in the club.

Sorry, Tano, but you are hoist on your own petard. If you don’t get it, you have successfully crossed the line between obtuse and dense.

And what, pray tell, do you have against the poor sheep herder and his beloved ewe? Have tried to understand the emotions between a man and his beloved ewe? Or are you diversity deficient?

Tano’s lies are well documented and frequent.

It’s hardly insulting to call a liar a liar. Plus he’s said liars should be banned from the site. He’s yet to leave.

An issue which has exactly zero relevance to the public position in question.

And furtherrmore, Tano, discrimination based on political affiliation or views is strictly illegal in California.

Employers must be cautious not to discriminate against employees for engaging in political activity. Section 98.6 of the Labor Code protects employees from discrimination for engaging in activities that are protected elsewhere under the Labor Code. Thus, employers must not discriminate against an employee for engaging in lawful off-duty conduct, such as supporting a particular candidate, or because of an employee’s involvement with a particular political party or organization. Employers also cannot discriminate against an employee for holding a political view or participating in off-duty campaign efforts for a political candidate. This could include anything from sporting a bumper sticker in support of a presidential candidate to running the local volunteer campaign headquarters.

In short, this person was denied a public position for which they had expressed interest, were qualified AND IN WHICH THEY WERE ALREADY SERVING based solely on their political views, which were not relevant in any way to the position in question.

Now, Tano, you screamed for these kind of discrimination laws. Go ahead and apply them. Or were you just lying and hypocritical when you pushed them? Do you believe that gay-sex marriage supporters like yourself should be allowed to discriminate in violation of the laws that you yourself demanded?

The ability of churches to set their own rules regarding who they marry is a core Constitutional guarantee, and one that I obviously support.

I admit to not having followed the issue you raise very closely. But I am not sure what Constitutional principle you see at play with Mr. Hoopes.

Neither he nor his church is being required to perform any marriages against their religious principles. As far as I can tell, he has publicly taken a stand on a political issue and is being opposed for a public position by those on the other side of the issue.

The Constitution forbids the government from interfering with a religion, and it forbids the government from restricting free speech. Neither of those things seem to be happening here. The Constitution does not guarantee that anyone who is proposed for a public position must actually receive the appointment. People are nominated or not nominated for public positions all the time, based on their political views. And interest groups, of the left and most certainly on the right, routinely advocate for or against particular nominees for particular positions based on their political views. Am I missing something here?

Of course. not. That’s because straight people produce children, and marriage is really about ensuring that there is a legal structure in place to catch and manage that which is a natural outgrowth of heterosexual coupling. The problem is that Tano expects society to rationalize his unwillingness to admit the difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships and their consequences.

Furthermore, we see how, rather than arguing why gay-sex marriage is a good thing, Tano tries to tear down heterosexuals and argue that, because some heterosexuals behave like he and his fellow gay-sex marriage supporters do, that gay-sex marriage should be legalized. That makes it clear that Tano and his fellow gay-sex marriage supporters have no intention of living up to the responsibilities of marriage either, given that they intend to pattern themselves after the worst of heterosexuals.