Same-Sex Marriages begin tomorrow in CT.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm afraid I really have to call you on this. The gender binary classification of male/female is a not a simple biological fact the way you're implying; it's a sociological construct layered on top of an extremely complex set of biological qualities. That sociological construct is tremendously oppressive to transgender and intersex persons, and clinging to it as a basis to justify gay rights (because "men" and "women" should have equal rights) is a classic example of the way in which the gay rights wing of the LGBTI movement consistently (if often inadvertently) undermines the equally important issue of gender identity.

I think you misconstrued what I was saying completely.

I was specifically responding only to his contention that the logic is the same for complaining about the differentiation between males and females, as it is for complaining about marriage vs civil unions. I was not discussing issues of intersex or transgendered persons in the least. If you would like I could write a treatise on the subject, but it is off-topic. The point remains, I was not clinging to anything, merely responding to a hole in Bubble Boy's so called logic that I can drive Nigeria through.

[fgalkin]

No, from a practical standpoint, segregating marriage is a way of enshrining inequality into the law and locking gay and intersex and transsexual people into a legal underclass. Separate-but-equal is not a step forward, it's a step to the side, deflecting the concerns of the marginalized group with a sugar-polished turd.

Trends tend to change with time, and time is on our side. Throughout the past decades, support for LGB (not quite so for T) rights has been slowly increasing. It is a reasonable supposition that the trend will continue, and in a few years time, the idea of same-sex marriage will gain a majority of supporters. Thus, the best way to proceed would be to wait until it is the right time to act.

However, the LGBT community does not seem to be willing to follow this course, understandably, and is willing to risk it all to demand equal rights now, not in 5 years. A perfectly understandable course, and yet, doomed to failure.

According to Gallup poll results, the support for same-sex relations is quite high:
"Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?"

Code: Select all

2008 May 8-11
Should be legal  Should not be legal  No opinion
 
         55                 40                     5

Compare that to support for same-sex marriage:
"Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

Code: Select all

2008 May 8-11
Should be valid   Should not be valid  No opinion
  40                     56                          4

Source for both

Clearly, the issue here is the word "marriage" which makes people who are nominally supportive of gay rights per se, opposed to extending the definition of marriage.

Thus, if the LGBT community is looking for equal rights now, it seems counter-productive to insist on the word "marriage" when the numbers are clearly not on their side, and when failure means a massive setback for said rights that will take years to undo.

"Civil Unions" are a temporary measure that will grant gay couples same (or nearly the same) rights now, while waiting for the situation in the country to change, at which point they will be replaced by actual gay marriage laws.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Kitsune]

I know many people here do not liek civil unions but now we have

Massachusetts and Connecticut which allow Same Sex Marriage
New Hampshire and Vermont which have Civil Unions for Same Sex couples

Are the last two states of New England going to follow through? That would form a large enough block, especially if they can get New York as well, to actually make a "stand."

[Alyrium Denryle]

No, from a practical standpoint, segregating marriage is a way of enshrining inequality into the law and locking gay and intersex and transsexual people into a legal underclass. Separate-but-equal is not a step forward, it's a step to the side, deflecting the concerns of the marginalized group with a sugar-polished turd.

Not to me-too or anything... but those are fairly exactly my thoughts on the matter.

[Singular Intellect]

But what if Civil Unions gave identical rights and priveleges with the only difference being said terminology is to indicate what kind of partnership it is? Why is that offensive?

Because, you goose-rapist:

1) Gay vs straight relationships are not fundamentally different in their functioning.

Red Herring. I never said they were. They are however fundamentally different in their makeup. That's why you could have a marriage between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

There is no reason to separate out the terms except for reason 2
2) To marginalize or single us out from the rest of the population.

Correction: You've decided to arbitrarily declare there's no other possible reason for different terminology because you want to get on your soap box about inequality and persecution.

Despite the fact I'm pointing out there is a difference in makeup of such relationships, and applying different terminology to describe those differences is not inequality or persecution.

The term is meaningless. We could call all relationships Wangdoodles for all I fucking care. But If the term has cultural weight behind it like marriage does (it has a LOT of connotations in our society fucktard) by denying us its legal use, you are denying us full participation in our culture.

You are telling us that we are inferior members of our culture, second class citizens. Even if all the rights and duties are the same, the very existence of the secondary status is dehumanizing. Do you fucking get it now?

Yes, you're able to say complete equality and secondary status in one sentence, contradicting yourself. Sorry, I'm not impressed.

By your fucked up logic, if I call a guy black, it's an immediate declaration of his secondary status as opposed to merely a descriptive term of his skin colour.

But oh wait, the fact he's black and I said so could be used against him, so we should all wink and call him white instead, right?

So by your logic then men and women can never be equal, because we describe them with those two different terms.

No you fucking retard. Males and females have different karyotypes, naughty bits, and psychological makeups. To the point that the classification of male and female itself has cultural weight and intentionally referring to someone as the opposite sex or gender is used to attack them. If you cannot make an intellectually honest or competent argument then keep your trap shut.

By all means, explain why subscribing to additional or alternate terms to describe a man/woman, man/man or woman/woman relationship is unacceptable.

Oh wait, you admitted terminology is irrelevent and all that counts is equal treatment. Holy shit! Exactly what I've been arguing!

Let's get one thing straight: I'm all for calling the whole issue 'marriage' that encompasses everybody, regardless of race, sexuality, etc.

But what concerns me first is equal treatment. You already admitted that the term itself is meaningless. Good, stick to that train of thought. Fuck off with the whole 'this term makes me a second class citizen' bullshit.

While you're concerned about winning the battle with equal 'terminology', I'm more concerned about winning the war with equal treatment.

Bitch and moan about English words after you get what really matters. Once equal treatment is in place, actual words mean shit and you can call your Civil Union a marriage, partnership or Googlebindings for all I care.

[Samuel]

Except if we get the term, we get the treatment. It is that simple.

As for "different in their makeup", that is BS. A marriage between more than two people is still called marriage. There is nothing special about the gender makeup of marriage that requires different terminology except for sociologists.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Thus, if the LGBT community is looking for equal rights now, it seems counter-productive to insist on the word "marriage" when the numbers are clearly not on their side, and when failure means a massive setback for said rights that will take years to undo.

"Civil Unions" are a temporary measure that will grant gay couples same (or nearly the same) rights now, while waiting for the situation in the country to change, at which point they will be replaced by actual gay marriage laws.

Alternatively you get people like Bubbleboy who say "Hey we already gave you "civil unions" shouldn't you be happy?" We get locked into an underclass. More than that, it is condescending. When people say "why dont you take a civil union?" I feel like I am being patted on the head and given a fucking lollipop, treated like a child who can be distracted by something shiny. I will KEEP my dignity, thank you very much.

What you are doing is equivalent of saying that black people should have been happy, as a temporary measure, taking a "civil union" instead of an actual marriage when they fall in love with a white person. It is patently ridiculous.

[General Zod]

Trends tend to change with time, and time is on our side. Throughout the past decades, support for LGB (not quite so for T) rights has been slowly increasing. It is a reasonable supposition that the trend will continue, and in a few years time, the idea of same-sex marriage will gain a majority of supporters. Thus, the best way to proceed would be to wait until it is the right time to act.

However, the LGBT community does not seem to be willing to follow this course, understandably, and is willing to risk it all to demand equal rights now, not in 5 years. A perfectly understandable course, and yet, doomed to failure.

Desegregation took an act of executive orders and a number of court challenges rather than popular support to finally get pushed through. What makes you think same sex marriage will gain acceptance any other way than handing an order from the top down stating it is now legal as much as some assholes try constantly challenging any ruling to legalize it? For that matter, why should equal rights be a matter of popular vote at all?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yes, you're able to say complete equality and secondary status in one sentence, contradicting yourself. Sorry, I'm not impressed.

Of course not, you have the IQ of a fucking lizard. You completely dodge the entire point I was making because your mother-fucking skull is made of nutronium.

But what concerns me first is equal treatment. You already admitted that the term itself is meaningless. Good, stick to that train of thought. Fuck off with the whole 'this term makes me a second class citizen' bullshit.

The term ITSELF is meaingless, the cultural institution I am denied is not. Do you get that? Words have meaning beyond their dictionary definitions.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Bubble Boy, get that stick out of your ass. Where the fuck were you when they were teaching about Brown v Board of Education? Separate but equal is nothing but state sanctioned discrimination. Even if the facilities are tangibly equal in virtually every aspect, the fact that they are separate implies a second-class of citizens and imposes a detrimental effect on the minority in question. It is discrimination and bigotry sanctioned by the state.

And even if the word marriage does not mean much to Aly, it means a lot to me and to millions of other LGBT individuals in this country. So fuck you Bubble Boy for assuming that all of us think it's a trivial word. It is not trivial and I have witnessed grown men crying over their loss of their rights. I can't believe we're even having this discussion.

[Singular Intellect]

Except if we get the term, we get the treatment. It is that simple.

Yes, except the term is, even by Alyrium Denryle's own admission, completely irrelevent. But that is where the big fight is always happening with the intolerant masses.

As for "different in their makeup", that is BS. A marriage between more than two people is still called marriage. There is nothing special about the gender makeup of marriage that requires different terminology except for sociologists.

Except we're dealing with what is a political war and the gay community has been given a weapon with which to get what they want; alternate terminology that can slip by the bigots. And once in place, the terminology battle becomes little more than a moot point and can be fought with greater patience since equality is already in place.

You're essentially flanking this political movement and it's an effective tactic. But all I hear is how this term declares groups a 'secondary class' despite the fact it is merely a descriptive term, but still accomplishes the ultimate objective of complete equality.

Quite frankly I'm bewildered at the idea that any person would sacrifice equality for terminology first.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Bubble Boy, get that stick out of your ass. Where the fuck were you when they were teaching about Brown v Board of Education? Separate but equal is nothing but state sanctioned discrimination. Even if the facilities are tangibly equal in virtually every aspect, the fact that they are separate implies a second-class of citizens and imposes a detrimental effect on the minority in question. It is discrimination and bigotry sanctioned by the state.

And even if the word marriage does not mean much to Aly, it means a lot to me and to millions of other LGBT individuals in this country. So fuck you Bubble Boy for assuming that all of us think it's a trivial word. It is not trivial and I have witnessed grown men crying over their loss of their rights. I can't believe we're even having this discussion.

Just to clarify: The weight behind the word marriage is everything it culturally entails. What I intended was that the term itself could just as easily be culturally replaced by another word and I would clamor for its use.

I think everyone here who is advocating civil unions has missed a very very important point. The people who vote for things like Prop 8 dont give a shit what you call giving us equal rights, so long as we dont get them.

If it were about "marriage" we (along with transgendered people) would have anti-discrimination and hate crime protection. If It were just about "marriage" civil unions would be much more common and Amendment 2 would not have passed in Florida. The only reason ANY of those abominations have failed (like the one in CT in 06 and AZ in 06) was because the population was in favor of gay marriage (CT) or because the proposal would harm straight couples (AZ) and even in the latter case, it only failed by 30k votes and no such identical amendment has failed before or since.

Civil Unions will not solve the problem. They are a red-herring perpetrated by people who have delusions about the reasonableness or moral uprightness of bigots.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Last I checked, Domestic Partnerships are still legal. Equal treatment aside from classification was not and never was compromised in the fight for marriage equality.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yes, except the term is, even by Alyrium Denryle's own admission, completely irrelevent. But that is where the big fight is always happening with the intolerant masses.

Listen you microcephalic cunt, the word is meaningless, the cultural weight it carries is not. Or are you illiterate to the point that you could not comprehend that when I spelled it out in monosyllable for you?

Except we're dealing with what is a political war and the gay community has been given a weapon with which to get what they want; alternate terminology that can slip by the bigots. And once in place, the terminology battle becomes little more than a moot point and can be fought with greater patience since equality is already in place.

Except that it doesnt fucking work! Nor is it equality, as multiple people have painstakingly laid out for you. It is quantitative, but not qualitative equality. You are equivocating the two. Go look up a motherfucking US supreme court decision. Brown V. Board of Education for a really good explanation of how that works. Oh, that is right, you are functionally illiterate.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Last I checked, Domestic Partnerships are still legal. Equal treatment aside from classification was not and never was compromised in the fight for marriage equality.

Not in states that have passed marriage amendments. They almost always include "Oh, and no civil unions either" clauses.

[CaptJodan]

Last I checked, Domestic Partnerships are still legal. Equal treatment aside from classification was not and never was compromised in the fight for marriage equality.

Not in states that have passed marriage amendments. They almost always include "Oh, and no civil unions either" clauses.

Yes, such as here in Florida. The wording of the Amendment that passed says marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and anything that pretends to be equal to marriage is not legally recognized by the state. Civil Unions here would be worthless, as would domestic partnerships or anything else.

It's interesting to note that it was passed even despite the move down here to show that the language could affect heterosexual couples with civil unions. The fact is, heterosexual civil unions here are not looked at with equality. If you want a civil union and you are a heterosexual, why didn't you just get married?

[fgalkin]

Desegregation took an act of executive orders and a number of court challenges rather than popular support to finally get pushed through. What makes you think same sex marriage will gain acceptance any other way than handing an order from the top down stating it is now legal as much as some assholes try constantly challenging any ruling to legalize it? For that matter, why should equal rights be a matter of popular vote at all?

Because in the here and the now, the only way to get equal rights that will not be challenged by every other administration is a constitutional amendment. For that, you need 2/3s support.

Please remember that the fight for Equal Rights did not start with desegregation. It started with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

Thus, if the LGBT community is looking for equal rights now, it seems counter-productive to insist on the word "marriage" when the numbers are clearly not on their side, and when failure means a massive setback for said rights that will take years to undo.

"Civil Unions" are a temporary measure that will grant gay couples same (or nearly the same) rights now, while waiting for the situation in the country to change, at which point they will be replaced by actual gay marriage laws.

Alternatively you get people like Bubbleboy who say "Hey we already gave you "civil unions" shouldn't you be happy?" We get locked into an underclass. More than that, it is condescending. When people say "why dont you take a civil union?" I feel like I am being patted on the head and given a fucking lollipop, treated like a child who can be distracted by something shiny. I will KEEP my dignity, thank you very much.

Personally, I agree with every word you said. It IS offensive as hell that you should be forced to settle for "civil unions" and you have every right to be pissed. However, like I said, in the here and now, the most productive course seems to be to swallow your pride, wait, while complaining about the injustice of it all as loudly as possible until the time is right. It sucks, I know, but it sucks less than waiting a few decades to undo amendments to State Constitutions passed by things like Prop 8
that deny ALL union rights.

If you want a "clean fight" you've chosen a wrong planet to be born on.

What you are doing is equivalent of saying that black people should have been happy, as a temporary measure, taking a "civil union" instead of an actual marriage when they fall in love with a white person. It is patently ridiculous.

I know my family in the Soviet Union would have jumped at the chance to have equal rights, regardless of what it was called. I know countless refuseniks who would agree with them. I'd venture to say that a lot of interractial couples in the 60s would agree with them, too.
The fact that you're saying this shows you're nowhere near as desperate as they were.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Last I checked, Domestic Partnerships are still legal. Equal treatment aside from classification was not and never was compromised in the fight for marriage equality.

Not in states that have passed marriage amendments. They almost always include "Oh, and no civil unions either" clauses.

In Arizona, amendment 102 makes no reference to domestic partnerships so I assume any that exist in that state are still legal. The reason why the first amendment vote failed the first time around was that the previous vote would have eliminated those rights as well. I'm not so sure about the situation in Florida but I didn't get the impression that they were all gung-ho about getting the same classification as they were trying to hold on to whatever rights they still had.

[JCady]

Last I checked, Domestic Partnerships are still legal. Equal treatment aside from classification was not and never was compromised in the fight for marriage equality.

Not in states that have passed marriage amendments. They almost always include "Oh, and no civil unions either" clauses.

California's Proposition 22 didn't, but the fundies got screamingly upset when the courts ruled that that meant it didn't ban same-sex domestic partnerships and claimed the courts were playing letter of the law against the spirit, because "obviously" the voters wanted to ban all gay rights and the courts "should have" respected that. See, it's only legislating from the bench when we don't like it.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Everyone has to remember that the situation in every state can be very different. While trying to retain the more tangible rights in Florida may be the more prudent approach, going for marriage equality is certainly more than justified in states like Arizona and, most certainly, in California.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The fact that you're saying this shows you're nowhere near as desperate as they were.

Maybe not. But at the same time, they didnt have to fight this out in fucking votes. It was a top-down decision. I have had to sit and watch my rights get voted on. Watch my own lobbying groups desperately dehumanize me by trying to deflect attention away from my existence to say that prop 107, or Amendment 2, hurts straight people and the gays dont matter.

No one else has had their rights voted on (by the proles at least) in recent history. No one told interracial couples as far as I know, that they should passively, as a practical matter, accept inferior status rather than fight directly for the recognition of what are already their enumerated legal rights. The civil rights movement was largely about fighting against the separate but equal Jim Crow bullshit you are suggesting I accept.

As for the soviet union, the Soviet Union was inherently oppressive. For fuck's sake, Stalinist communism. It did not pretend beyond some weird platitude that no one actually believed, that they were in any way egalitarian. The US does. That is the difference.

In Arizona, amendment 102 makes no reference to domestic partnerships so I assume any that exist in that state are still legal. The reason why the first amendment vote failed the first time around was that the previous vote would have eliminated those rights as well. I'm not so sure about the situation in Florida but I didn't get the impression that they were all gung-ho about getting the same classification as they were trying to hold on to whatever rights they still had.

I was referring to prop 107 which failed in 2006, the only such amendment to fail outside the NE... The HRC (and Equality Arizona) managed to convince a tiny portion, just large enough to prevent passage, of the electorate that hurting a small percentage of elderly straight people was too high a price to pay to deny gay people equality.

[CaptJodan]

Everyone has to remember that the situation in every state can be very different. While trying to retain the more tangible rights in Florida may be the more prudent approach, going for marriage equality is certainly more than justified in states like Arizona and, most certainly, in California.

I have to agree with this statement here. On the one hand, I agree with Aly that "marriage" is the ultimate goal, and the one that should be pursued. I don't think that fight should just wait for the government to get around to it when they're good and ready, either. Once civil unions are established, the next fight does become marriage.

On the other hand, I would be a hell of a lot happier now if we had some kind of rights, even if it is separate. Here, the baby has definitely been thrown out with the bathwater, and I think the tactic of asking for full marriage is not going to work for at least the next 30 years or so. CUs are a stopgap, one that I think DOES matter.

Socially, Aly, I agree with you, and the fight has to keep going until it's not separate. Legally, though, there are people that are going to suffer a lot longer down here because neither option is now available to them.

[fgalkin]

Aly, the civil rights movement was directed against de facto inequality, after the proponents already had de jure backing on their side. We're still in the Fredrick Douglas times, not the Rosa Parks times.

I agree with Pint0 that every state is different, and some are closer to the marriage goal than others, but I am still convinced that my proposition is better as the overall strategy for the nation as a whole.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Alyrium Denryle]

Everyone has to remember that the situation in every state can be very different. While trying to retain the more tangible rights in Florida may be the more prudent approach, going for marriage equality is certainly more than justified in states like Arizona and, most certainly, in California.

I have to agree with this statement here. On the one hand, I agree with Aly that "marriage" is the ultimate goal, and the one that should be pursued. I don't think that fight should just wait for the government to get around to it when they're good and ready, either. Once civil unions are established, the next fight does become marriage.

On the other hand, I would be a hell of a lot happier now if we had some kind of rights, even if it is separate. Here, the baby has definitely been thrown out with the bathwater, and I think the tactic of asking for full marriage is not going to work for at least the next 30 years or so. CUs are a stopgap, one that I think DOES matter.

Socially, Aly, I agree with you, and the fight has to keep going until it's not separate. Legally, though, there are people that are going to suffer a lot longer down here because neither option is now available to them.

That is definitely true. But no one was fighting for marriage equality in FL for example. Well, they were, but IIRC there were no pending challenges etc. The point being that sure. If you can get a civil union but not marriage, go ahead and take what you get and pick your battles, get civil unions and bide your time. We can challenge our status in federal courts when Scalia dies. But in the case of FL, you never had the option of a state wide civil union in the first place. Nor do we in most places because as I said a few posts ago, the bigots which comprise the majority of most of our states dont just want to deny us full cultural participation, they want to fully deny our human rights, and will take away civil unions if they can get away with it as well. That is why the vast majority of marriage bans also include a "no civil unions" clause.

[CmdrWilkens]

I am not going to wade too deep into this but I would like to offer the simplest reason why "Civil Union" and "Marriage" cannot, as a practical matter, be considered equal under the law. Lets start at the beginning:

The basis for the argument in favor os same-sex marraige almost universally lies within the equal protection clauses of various state constitutions and which is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (and thence supposedly on down to the states). Without getting to the specific state by state examples (since we'd have to go through 50 of 'em plus DC's insane and asanine government) I'll stick with repeating the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The relevant portion here, to most discussion at least, is the reference to "privledges or immunities," and "equal protection of the laws." The long and the short of the argument is that the only way to grant equal protection and ensure access to all privledges and immunities is to allow same sex couples to enjoy a state of marriage in the same manner as all currently married couples.

The reason why Civil Unions can't work is not because of the rights they cover but because of the privledges they don't. Marriage is a right (or a privledge as one chooses) which should be provided under equal consideration to all persons. Providing "civil unions" even if they grant the same legal rights does not grant same sex couples the same privledges due to, and the California Supreme Court put it very well:

One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect.

The court went on to note that even if the State were to grant all of the same subtanative rights to same sex couples as opposite sex couples but designated the relationship differently there would still be a breach of rights by affording less public dignity to same sex couples. Now this certainly takes us into the territory of unenumerated rights (or privledges if you prefer) but the point remains that because we as a people hold "marraige" to be something it gives it weight not just in terms of law but also in terms of meaning to society at large. Put another way if you say a couple is "Married" then we automatically, as a people, understand what that conveys, if you say someone is joined in a "Civil Union" you will get blank stares because the institution does not have the weight of acceptance in society. The rights which are protected under most (unamended) state consitutions and argubly under the 14th amendment, are not limited solely to those spelled out but also extend to the most ephemeral "privledges and immunities" which are defined by the acceptance of general society.

Now the reason why nobody dares challenge this nationally goes into the reasons why we have limitations even on enumerated rights. Things like FISA (both before and after the last revision) are allwoed to stand because they pass certain judicial tests. That is even though FISA does violate the letter of the 4th amendment (again even before the last revision) the reason and scope of the law were such that the government had an overwhelmingly powerful argument combined with a very limited scope, allowing the law to pass what is known as the strict scrutiny. In other words the government CAN violate yoru rights IF there is a very strong purpose and if the scope of the violation is highly targeted.

What I suspect most people fear is that the current court would rule that banning same se marriage is a violation of rights BUT the government has a right to do so nonetheless because the scope is minimal ("Civil Union/Domestic Partnership is a subsitute for substanative rights") and the the prupose is valid ('Maintenance of social mores" which will then be followed by quots from every pronography and obscenity case ever heard by any US court). I personally think its a crock of shit reason but I could easily see such a decision coming down.