Same-Sex Marriages begin tomorrow in CT.

[Singular Intellect]

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.

As I understand it, Civil Unions are already established, they simply aren't equal to marriage. That should be the first goal; establish Civil Unions as completely equal to marriage, and then take the fight to terminology. Essentially use the bigot's ignorance and intolerance against them. In their small minds, 'marriage' and 'civil unions' are two seperate entities. Once these two 'seperate' entities have identical properties, even the bigots will have a hard time fighting the transition to a single term (ie: "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.

That's one of my primary concerns. Civil Unions is already in place, so let's work with it. Get it up to the same status as marriage, and then the transition to simple 'marriage' will be vastly easier.

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.

And that's unacceptable. A difference in terminology is no excuse for denying equality to people, even if it's a seperate equality only by terminology and must be defeated in the future.

We need to chip away at the bigot mindset, and using Civic Unions for that goal seems like the best angle.

That means dropping the whole "all or nothing' mentality Alyrium is pushing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As I understand it, Civil Unions are already established, they simply aren't equal to marriage. That should be the first goal; establish Civil Unions as completely equal to marriage, and then take the fight to terminology. Essentially use the bigot's ignorance and intolerance against them. In their small minds, 'marriage' and 'civil unions' are two seperate entities. Once these two 'seperate' entities have identical properties, even the bigots will have a hard time fighting the transition to a single term (ie: "marriage").

You are factually incorrect. Civil unions are not established in most states.

Additionally, as I have pointed out but you foolishly ignored, the fundies and bigots do in fact care. They do not give a shit about "protecting marriage from us" that is code for "fuck the queers" They dont want us having civil unions either. Therefore it is not a practical step to view them as a decent substitute. If you can get them, take them so you dont legally suffer, but dont think for a second that the homophobes wont try to take THEM from you to, because they are already doing it.

And that's unacceptable. A difference in terminology is no excuse for denying equality to people, even if it's a seperate equality only by terminology and must be defeated in the future.

Read the Commander's post just before yours. It lays out why it is more than just a word more calmly than I can. I grow tired of beating your wall of ignorance.

[CmdrWilkens]

Taking a small note from how Aly is growing frustrated actually, in its own way, serves to point out part of why Civil Union truly is the "seperate but equal" of the GLBT movement. We can talk about it as an incremental step and there certainly is a bit of theory that something is better than nothing but there are two issues remaining:

1) Seperate is not equal, and I don't just mean in terms of phrasing but ather unequal wording grants different levels of psychological weight and sociological acceptance. The reason, in my mind, why Aly gets frustrated is that it is so simple, just allow marriage for everyone, that folks trying to constantly do everything possible to restrict "marriage" (and I do mean to put it in quotes) is, in its own way, proof enough that the phrase has a special weight. The folks who push the idea of "traditional meaning of marriage" are, in their own way, markign their own gravestone because it is just that desire to have a special designation for the formation of a family that creates an inequlity by granting a seperate designation to others. Put more plainly by demanding that the state uphold marriage (and only marriage) be between a man and a woman they show that there is a special meaning attached to the word. If the word has special meaning in our society then denying it to same sex couples denies them the privledge and benefit of that meaning within our society even if they are granted all the same legal rights by other means.

2) Gain an inch and you'll have to fight just that much harder for the next one. If we right now worked to get 'Civil Union' accepted in every state with constitutional garuntees to grant them all the same substanative rights you would run into a wall of moderate opposition to taking the next leap. That is to sy that the folks in the middle of the argument (best represented by the difference between those who are accepting of gay couples and those who support marriage equality) will be subject to continuous repetition of the argument that gay couples already have all the substanative rights of marriage so anything else is just plain squibbling over names. I'd like to say I have faith in the electorate, and I do in the logn run, but in the medium term I also think that the conservative right is too well funded not to be able to make a viable (and tie breaking) case to that middle ground that arguing over the name is pointless and that "the gays already got what they want now they are just beign greedy." While I think Civil Unions are better than nothing that's a long way from saying it is RIGHT and I also believe that in many cases allowing for Civil Unions will slow the process of marriage equality rather than acelerate it.

[Morilore]

As I understand it, Civil Unions are already established, they simply aren't equal to marriage. That should be the first goal; establish Civil Unions as completely equal to marriage, and then take the fight to terminology.

Civil unions completely equal to marriage is impossible. This argument has been made again and again, and you have not addressed it.

Essentially use the bigot's ignorance and intolerance against them. In their small minds, 'marriage' and 'civil unions' are two seperate entities. Once these two 'seperate' entities have identical properties, even the bigots will have a hard time fighting the transition to a single term (ie: "marriage").

Dude, the "transition to a single term" is exactly what bigots have been fighting the entire time. The objective of bigots has nothing to do with gay people's tax returns or right of attourney or insurance policies or hospital visitation rights. The fact that these things suffer as a result of marriage segregation is ipso facto proof of our argument: segregating marriage into two separate institutions inherently causes the two institutions to be treated as unequal, and civil union laws are effectively a legal precedent enshrining discrimination into the law. This without addressing all the gratuitous anti-adoption measures bigots can't seem to help adding to their marriage discrimination laws. Civil unions completely equal to marriage is impossible. This argument has been made again and again, and you have not addressed it.

That's one of my primary concerns. Civil Unions is already in place, so let's work with it. Get it up to the same status as marriage, and then the transition to simple 'marriage' will be vastly easier.

Civil unions completely equal to marriage is impossible. This argument has been made again and again, and you have not addressed it.

And that's unacceptable. A difference in terminology is no excuse for denying equality to people, even if it's a seperate equality only by terminology and must be defeated in the future.

We need to chip away at the bigot mindset, and using Civic Unions for that goal seems like the best angle.

That means dropping the whole "all or nothing' mentality Alyrium is pushing.

The objective of the equality movement is equality. The objective of the bigots is discrimination. There can be no compromise of any kind here. "All or nothing" is the only acceptable approach. Anything else signals acceptance of inequality.