Gay marriage
rootlesscosmo
12,848 Posts
Speak on it.
Really this thread was just my way of posting this dome-blowing infographic:
http://goo.gl/xCSdn
Really this thread was just my way of posting this dome-blowing infographic:
http://goo.gl/xCSdn
Comments
um, it's kind of a big issue in the US. that's why its on the front page.
but I agree it's hard to wrap my head around: this line of argument that equates gays gaining the right to marry with threatening heterosexual marriage has always been a real head scratcher.
unless one's only measure of strength in marriage is by its denial to others, which is wtf.
I don't support voting for a President based solely on his stance on gay marriage.
Here are a couple of random thoughts on the topic.
It's widely stated that the Religious Right are the folks who oppose it here in the U.S. and if anyone, they are the reason it's not legal....so who are the people in places like the UK, Germany, France, etc., etc. that are keeping gay marriage from becoming legal?
According to the UN there are 192 recognized countries on this planet and only 10(5%) have legalized gay marriages.
1) Marriage isn't as important as an *institution* for them, not the same way we invest so much into it here. Therefore, the fight for gay marriage isn't as important b/c marriage simply isn't as important.
2) Civil unions - which are allowed for same-sex couples in all those countries - have all the same legal rights as marriage. Many straight couples opt for civil union status and forego marriage, which they see as largely a religious institution but it has no bearing on their identity as a couple if they're are in a "marriage" or a "civil union."
As you note, those countries are more secular but in regards to your question, those countries also have very strong conservative movements that aren't necessarily as directly wrapped up with specific religious institutions. The emergence of the Religious Right in the U.S. is partially about the overall religiosity of Americans but it's also about a particular configuration of politics and organizing that brought the RR to power. In other countries, those same dynamics didn't cohere but that doesn't mean they lack a strong conservative element; it just means that the churches don't play as central a role in how that movement is organized as it is here in the U.S.
In any case, same sex marriage legislation is working its way through the UK and France at least so we could be seeing a major confluence of this in the U.S. and our closest Western European counterparts.
It's not a question of if, but when.
In the UK, the fiercest opponents to it are on the right. They're not everybody on the right, however - David Cameron is actually fairly progressive in that respect - and although many of them claim to object to it on religious grounds, they're not the Religious Right either. Such a thing doesn't really exist in the UK, not in the sense Americans might understand it, namely as a powerful and influential bloc that otherwise sensible politicians have to pander to in order to get elected.
It should be pointed out that the UK recognises civil unions and registered partnerships which, from speaking to most of the gay people I know, is plenty. In my experience, gay folks who've entered into these unions/partnerships just want their relationship to have some kind of legal validity for tax or medical purposes, or for things like property ownership and inheritance. Here's a hypothetical example. Gay guy comes out to his family, who ostracise him, disown him, whatever. Guy gets on with his life and becomes successful at his chosen endeavour. The guy's partner, who he met before he found success, has supported him and stuck by him through good and bad when the guy's family weren't interested in offering help or support, and their relationship is every bit as solid as any straight relationship. But the guy falls ill and, despite the best efforts of everyone, he dies. In his will, he leaves everything to his partner, but his family - who've had no contact with him for decades - successfully challenges the will, leaving the guy's partner with nothing. And that's just one reason why I think gay relationships should have full legal recognition - not some wishy-washy partial rights bullshit. You can't be a bit free. You're either free, or you're not.
Harvey used the word "distraction", and I think that's all the use of the word "marriage" is in this context; a way to talk about something other than the actual subject, which is rights. I don't see or hear lots of gay folks saying "we want a church wedding", although I'm sure some of them do. But all the noise is about "gay marriage" and every four years, in the pursuit of your vote, that term allows those pious motherfuckers on the right to talk about "holy unions" and "the sanctity of marriage" and act like they came up with that "Adam and Steve" bullshit themselves. Likewise, it gives Obama the opportunity to act like being for equal rights is a really brave, radical step. I mean, how are you going to be the POTUS and not be for equal rights? And why wait until an election year to come out and say something like that?
This is not the way it is in the US at all.
In the states that initiated same-sex civil unions that had full legal status, very few same-sex couples availed themselves of this option. It's widely considered a failure because they do want to get married, though not necessarily in a church. The idea that it's only the legal status that really matters seems pretty convincingly refuted, imo, and it seems that most same-sex couples in the US regard this as a form of Separate But Equal.
After New Jersey enacted full status civil unions, there were very few takers. I think a dissenting opinion (in favor of actual marriage) sums it up:
"The dissent, led by then-Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz, chastised the junior members of the Court who said that anything other than marriage would provide equal rights: "What we name things matters, language matters...Labels set people apart surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities...By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the State declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples. Ultimately the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as real marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage."
And this doesn't even to begin to address the quagmire of contradictory laws and situations that might arise when you are out of state - i.e. one partner is injured or dies when traveling somewhere that doesn't recognize civil unions.
Germany is in the process of legalizing same sex marriage.
Germany currently gives all marriage rights to life partners.
In France co-inhabiting couples have all the rights of marriage.
In the USA, even in states where gay marriage is legal, married couples do not have all the rights of marriage.
So the answer to the question; "so who are the people in places like the UK, Germany, France, etc., etc. that are keeping gay marriage from becoming legal?"
Is no one.
The question was dealt with and settled years ago in a civil manor.
To me it is an embarrassment that USA falls so far behind on human rights.
People come to this board and say I don't understand, how can your country be so hateful.
:cry:
To the topic, folks are generally protesting this on Biblical grounds (at least here), so logic and reason take a back seat to invisible people telling plain people how to think.
The Buffalo Gap newspaper is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.
b/w
But the steak at Perrini Ranch is so damned good.
How so?
I don't buy this at all. If it was dealt with in a civil manor (sic), as you say, same-sex marriage would be recognized in all of those places and, as of 2012, it isn't recognized in any of them.
As I mentioned above, civil unions are seen by many same-sex couples as just another form of Separate But Equal, and I don't blame them.
b/w
But the steak at Perrini Ranch is so damned good.
I always wonder if folks traveling through here ever pick a copy up and think West Texas has its own version of The Onion.
b/w
That paper is excellent for cleaning windows.
Perrini ranch has great prime rib. The atmosphere is probably cool, too, but I've lived here forever so I probably don't appreciate it as much as someone from out of town may.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, this dude just makes shit up to fit his private mindgarden.....which is just outside his Manor.
The reason it doesn't hit the same fever pitch in the US is - as I suggested earlier - marriage is just a lot more important to Americans than it is to most Europeans. "Over there," the difference b/t a civil union vs. marriage is mostly cultural/religious.
Over here, it goes far deeper.
if you are against gay marriage, face it you are just a dick. it doesn't matter at all. tell god that too.
Excuse me.
Manner.
How so? Are you being combative of stupid?
I'll spell it out for you.
States may grant marriage rights - through marriage or civil unions - that confer all the states rights of marriage.
States have no power to confer federal marriage rights.
That is how so.
I agree with your earlier post. I agree that "civil unions are seen by many same-sex couples as just another form of Separate But Equal, and I don't blame them."
Which is why what France did, 1999, is so different.
They said religions can marry who they choose, but for purposes of government recognition any one, gay, straight or other, who live together get the same rights. Even if they were not married in a church.
I could be wrong, but I think if we had done this in 1998 it would not be as big an issue today.
I think what makes it such a big issues, is that unlike those other countries we have set a system of separate and unequal.
I never said that the UK and France (I'm not sure what other countries are like them) are not trying to pass sam sex marriage laws.
I am willing to defer to your greater knowledge of how marriage is viewed over there as to over here.
But over there gay people can have full civil rights of married people and over here they can not. You might think that is unimportant to the debate.
I disagree.
Or as you say:
"Over there," the difference b/t a civil union vs. marriage is mostly cultural/religious."
And over here the difference is mostly civil rights.
And that is what I think is important.
1. Gays are entitled to each and every right to which straight people are, and marriage, that sacred institution, is no exception.
2. Marriage is not even that sacred anyway (adultry is rampant, divorce is the norm, etc.) so fuggit, let them have it. See also: "let gays be as miserable as the rest of we married people are!"
In other words: "give gays what we cherish, because they are equal to us" vs. "marriage is a debased institution at this point anyway, so now the gays can have it."
The latter always makes me a little uncomfortable.
No, I'm trying to understand your poorly worded response, thanks for getting it right the second time.
And I'm trying to be combative of stupid also.
North Carolina this week - which already bans same-sex marriage - just threw down a constitutional amendment that also disallows same sex civil unions.
Had a civil union law (federal) ever been in play to grant same sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, I promise you, the fight over that would have been just as fierce. Because people who want to "keep" marriage for straight folks don't want "marriage by another name" rights given gay people.
Imagine how this would have played out during the interracial marriage debates. Would "interracial civil unions" have been any less controversial? I think not.
My point is that the legal rights are - of course - a huge part of this. But it's not just "gay marriage" that's at issue here in the U.S.; it's also about the perceived acceptance of queerness in society, in general. The most virulent anti-gay marriage foes would likely be equally happy to have sodomy laws reinstated.
Saying.
I don't think #2 is really the argument that's actually being put forward. In other words, it's not b/c marriage "has become debased". Rather, people who say that just don't invest anything into marriage as an institution anyway and their line of argument is, "look people, it's not that important, so why are you tripping?"
I'm not uncomfortable with that line...I just think it's unconvincing to anyone besides fellow "marriage is a sham institution" folks.
I'll concede that it's not *always* the argument being put forth. But I think #2 is worth parsing into two: one is what I suggested, that marriage is, at this point, a shell of the once-sacred institution of old, and so I really have no trouble granting anyone access to it at this point, even gays.
the other is that it's not important to ME (and never has been) and so anyone can have access to it as far as I'm concerned.
My point is that NEITHER of these arguments evinces any particular respect for gay people: both basically posit that marriage is worthless (either it's been degraded to a meaningless point or was never of any particular importance to me) and so THATS why I don't care who gets it.
Either way it's not much of a "gay rights" argument is it? I mean, it doesn't couch the granting of marriage rights in any terms related to gay equality or civil rights. It's more like "here's something I deem worthless; I won't waste my time denying it to anyone else."
I agree it's unconvincing.