focus on "commitments" instead of gay marriage?

[ModerateRepZero]

http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/36362824.html

Benkof: A different strategy on same-sex marriage
Thursday, December 18, 2008
BY DAVID BENKOF

IN NEW JERSEY, litigation and lawsuits on behalf of the gay and lesbian community have resulted in civil union status for same-sex couples. Many observers predict that full marriage rights can be achieved in the Garden State as soon as next year.

But in celebrating such advances for gay rights, most of my fellow gays and lesbians have lost sight of the serious setbacks for same-sex couples in states far more hostile to same-sexers than New Jersey.

A strong case can be made that more same-sex couples would be protected if the gay and lesbian community in New Jersey and elsewhere would jettison the whole marriage campaign and focus on a new, national strategy of "mutual commitments" to protect same-sex couples not only in states like New Jersey and Massachusetts, but also in places less welcoming to gays such as Georgia, Nebraska and Texas.

The 30 constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, including Proposition 8 in California, are a direct result of the lawsuits-for-marriage strategy practiced by gays and lesbians since the mid-Nineties, including successful suits in Massachusetts, California and Connecticut. So achieving marriage in three gay-friendly states (two now that Proposition 8 has passed in California) came at the expense of barring marriage in 10 times as many states, many much less hospitable to same-sex couples.

Worse, 18 of the constitutional amendments, in places like Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin, bar not only marriage but any kind of rights specifically for same-sex couples. That means that even in gay-popular cities like Austin, Texas, and Ann Arbor, Michigan, there can be no benefits for gay and lesbian couples unless and until those statewide amendments are repealed ? an unlikely scenario.

'Mutual commitments'

Brilliantly, a coalition of concerned politicians from both left and right have come together in Salt Lake City with a plan that can be a model for those concerned about the problems faced by same-sex couples anywhere. Guided by Democratic Mayor Ralph Becker, the "mutual commitments" plan was approved with both liberal and conservative support in the city council and the state legislature. It provides a package of rights, including hospital visitation and health care, to any two people who can show financial interdependence. The pair can be a mother and adult daughter, two straight male roommates or lesbian lovers.

The government doesn't ask ? and doesn't care ? which.

The Salt Lake City plan relieves the distress of same-sex couples in a way that conservatives and traditional family advocates can embrace. It gives no special recognition to couples based on sexual orientation, but it does enable everyone to designate which one person gets their mutual rights.

This is a profoundly conservative idea. Conservatism is about freedom, so why should the government decide who can visit me in the hospital? I should be the one to make that decision.

I propose that my fellow gays and lesbians, in New Jersey and elsewhere, immediately halt all litigation and lobbying to achieve same-sex marriage, and instead push to achieve mutual commitment laws in as many cities and states as possible.

With the promised new bipartisan spirit in Washington, a federal mutual commitment law should also be within reach, covering things like Social Security benefits and survivor's benefits for veterans.

I'm afraid most gays and lesbians may dismiss this proposal, because even though mutual benefits would help far more same-sex couples than a few more marriage victories in gay-friendly states, they are not completely equal.

As Garden State Equality's Steven Goldstein put it two years ago, his side "will settle for nothing less than 100 percent marriage equality."

When New Jersey and other gay-friendly states brook no compromise for the status of same-sex couples, traditionalist voters and legislators in more gay-hostile areas restrict any rights for same-sex couples in their states.

The result is great if you live in Massachusetts; not so good in the South or Midwest.

Weighing the greater good

Surely I'm not the only gay person who thinks the lack of same-sex marriage in an otherwise gay-friendly state like New Jersey is less important than the needs of same-sex couples in every state for rights to hospital visitation, health care and inheritance, among others.

Yet it was precisely our community's push for marriage litigation and lobbying that resulted in the restriction of many of those rights nationwide through constitutional amendments.

It's time for the gay community to reevaluate its priorities and embrace the Salt Lake City plan, which could help the same-sex couples who need it most a lot sooner than a dozen lawsuits ever could.

David Benkof is a freelance writer based in St. Louis

Coincidentally I was musing over this very subject recently....is it really "separate but equal" for same-sex couples to be given legal / financial etc. protections that they currently do not have and NOT have their relationship be called "marriage" but "civil union" or some other legal term?

 

[chucky2]

The problem is not the "commitments", it's the seperate but equal thing.

Straight couples don't, and never will, see gay couples as equal (and they're right, they're not), so the term "marriage" being used in respect to gays is never going to sit well with them.

Gay couples cannot accept that they are not equal to straight couples, and keep insisting that they are...when, they're not. Because they're hung up on this, relevant gay rights will continue to be held up.

Gays keep trying to make 00 and 11 be 10/01...it will never happen. Moving past that seems to be just too difficult it seems.....

Chuck

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: chucky2
....
Straight couples don't, and never will, see gay couples as equal (and they're right, they're not), so the term "marriage" being used in respect to gays is never going to sit well with them....

O RLY?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: chucky2
The problem is not the "commitments", it's the seperate but equal thing.

Straight couples don't, and never will, see gay couples as equal (and they're right, they're not), so the term "marriage" being used in respect to gays is never going to sit well with them.

Gay couples cannot accept that they are not equal to straight couples, and keep insisting that they are...when, they're not. Because they're hung up on this, relevant gay rights will continue to be held up.

Gays keep trying to make 00 and 11 be 10/01...it will never happen. Moving past that seems to be just too difficult it seems.....

Chuck

Sounds like your full of something smelly tonight......you have no clue what you are babbling about!!

Your a moron if you believe that gay couples need to accept the fact that in YOUR eyes they are not equal! They are every bit deserving the exact same rights afforded every citizen of the United States!

Since when were you appointed to speak for the "straight" people of this United States of America???

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: chucky2
The problem is not the "commitments", it's the seperate but equal thing.

Well, ya, the separate but equal thing is a problem.

Straight couples don't, and never will, see gay couples as equal (and they're right, they're not), so the term "marriage" being used in respect to gays is never going to sit well with them.

*Some* straight couples don't - the bigoted and otherwise misguided ones. Others do. And they are. You can't and did not show they're not.

Gay couples cannot accept that they are not equal to straight couples, and keep insisting that they are...when, they're not. Because they're hung up on this, relevant gay rights will continue to be held up.

Idiots cannot accept that gay couples are] equal. Because they're hung up on this, immoral discrimination continues.

Gays keep trying to make 00 and 11 be 10/01...it will never happen. Moving past that seems to be just too difficult it seems.....

Now, that's convincing, an idiotic math analogy (to be overly generous).

They are human beings who love other human beings, and they are equal. Well, superior to you, but that's another matter.

Just because you can't comprehend the nature of homosexuality, you remain bigoted against homosexuals, equating 'different' not only with 'inferior' but with 'second class'.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'd go along with that idea OP, it seems like a rational solution. Of course the leftie whiners won't like it, and the hard core righties won't like it, even more signs that it's a good idea.

 

[K1052]

The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only issue civil unions to all couples upon request. Leave marriage to the various churches.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: K1052
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only issue civil unions to all couples upon request. Leave marriage to the various churches.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: K1052
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only issue civil unions to all couples upon request. Leave marriage to the various churches.

This is the exact right answer. There is no point in the government being in the marriage business.

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I'd go along with that idea OP, it seems like a rational solution. Of course the leftie whiners won't like it, and the hard core righties won't like it, even more signs that it's a good idea.

Actually, it is rational people that don't like it. And the reason is that we have seen this solution fail before. As long as we try to make it separate but equal there will be institutionalized discrimination. The problem is that it allows bigots to pass reasonable sounding laws that target ?civil unions? with ease.
Oh, we will pass a new tax credit bill for married couples (and no one mentions that ?civil unions? are not included)
Oh, we will pass a new waiver that allows couples to bypass certain waiting periods for marriage licenses (and no one mentions that this does not go for civil unions)
The new ways to discriminate would just keep coming.
It would be a never ending struggle to just remain equal.
And some of those battles would be lost, and in so doing slowly sink back to second class citizens.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: chucky2
The problem is not the "commitments", it's the seperate but equal thing.

Well, ya, the separate but equal thing is a problem.

Straight couples don't, and never will, see gay couples as equal (and they're right, they're not), so the term "marriage" being used in respect to gays is never going to sit well with them.

*Some* straight couples don't - the bigoted and otherwise misguided ones. Others do. And they are. You can't and did not show they're not.

Gay couples cannot accept that they are not equal to straight couples, and keep insisting that they are...when, they're not. Because they're hung up on this, relevant gay rights will continue to be held up.

Idiots cannot accept that gay couples are] equal. Because they're hung up on this, immoral discrimination continues.

Gays keep trying to make 00 and 11 be 10/01...it will never happen. Moving past that seems to be just too difficult it seems.....

Now, that's convincing, an idiotic math analogy (to be overly generous).

They are human beings who love other human beings, and they are equal. Well, superior to you, but that's another matter.

Just because you can't comprehend the nature of homosexuality, you remain bigoted against homosexuals, equating 'different' not only with 'inferior' but with 'second class'.

Craig234: 100% win.
Chucky2: 100% fail.

Originally posted by: K1052
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only issue civil unions to all couples upon request. Leave marriage to the various churches.

K1052: 100% win.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: chucky2
The problem is not the "commitments", it's the seperate but equal thing.

Straight couples don't, and never will, see gay couples as equal (and they're right, they're not), so the term "marriage" being used in respect to gays is never going to sit well with them.

Gay couples cannot accept that they are not equal to straight couples, and keep insisting that they are...when, they're not. Because they're hung up on this, relevant gay rights will continue to be held up.

Gays keep trying to make 00 and 11 be 10/01...it will never happen. Moving past that seems to be just too difficult it seems.....

Chuck

Sounds like your full of something smelly tonight......you have no clue what you are babbling about!!

Your a moron if you believe that gay couples need to accept the fact that in YOUR eyes they are not equal! They are every bit deserving the exact same rights afforded every citizen of the United States!

Since when were you appointed to speak for the "straight" people of this United States of America???

Way to not understand what I was saying!!! :thumbsup:

I never said, once, that gay couples shouldn't be afforded the same rights straight couples receive. They absolutely should.

I, and straight couples who will vote - and influence their elected representatives - don't need to accept anything. Why? Because they can already get married, and already have those rights! Duh!!!

Lastly, I'm not appointed to anything, never said or implied I was. I only offered my view on the average (which doesn't mean the people in my inner 'Yes I agree with whatever you're saying circle') straight person...you know, the ones you, again, will vote and/or influence their elected representatives.

Less rabidity, more thought.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: chucky2
The problem is not the "commitments", it's the seperate but equal thing.

Well, ya, the separate but equal thing is a problem.

Straight couples don't, and never will, see gay couples as equal (and they're right, they're not), so the term "marriage" being used in respect to gays is never going to sit well with them.

*Some* straight couples don't - the bigoted and otherwise misguided ones. Others do. And they are. You can't and did not show they're not.

Gay couples cannot accept that they are not equal to straight couples, and keep insisting that they are...when, they're not. Because they're hung up on this, relevant gay rights will continue to be held up.

Idiots cannot accept that gay couples are] equal. Because they're hung up on this, immoral discrimination continues.

Gays keep trying to make 00 and 11 be 10/01...it will never happen. Moving past that seems to be just too difficult it seems.....

Now, that's convincing, an idiotic math analogy (to be overly generous).

They are human beings who love other human beings, and they are equal. Well, superior to you, but that's another matter.

Just because you can't comprehend the nature of homosexuality, you remain bigoted against homosexuals, equating 'different' not only with 'inferior' but with 'second class'.

See above.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: chucky2
The problem is not the "commitments", it's the seperate but equal thing.

Well, ya, the separate but equal thing is a problem.

Straight couples don't, and never will, see gay couples as equal (and they're right, they're not), so the term "marriage" being used in respect to gays is never going to sit well with them.

*Some* straight couples don't - the bigoted and otherwise misguided ones. Others do. And they are. You can't and did not show they're not.

Gay couples cannot accept that they are not equal to straight couples, and keep insisting that they are...when, they're not. Because they're hung up on this, relevant gay rights will continue to be held up.

Idiots cannot accept that gay couples are] equal. Because they're hung up on this, immoral discrimination continues.

Gays keep trying to make 00 and 11 be 10/01...it will never happen. Moving past that seems to be just too difficult it seems.....

Now, that's convincing, an idiotic math analogy (to be overly generous).

They are human beings who love other human beings, and they are equal. Well, superior to you, but that's another matter.

Just because you can't comprehend the nature of homosexuality, you remain bigoted against homosexuals, equating 'different' not only with 'inferior' but with 'second class'.

Craig234: 100% win.
Chucky2: 100% fail.

Originally posted by: K1052
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only issue civil unions to all couples upon request. Leave marriage to the various churches.

K1052: 100% win.

See above, Again.

Chuck

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: chucky2


Chuck

You directly said that:

Straight couples don't, and never will, see gay couples as equal (and they're right, they're not)

And

Gay couples cannot accept that they are not equal to straight couples, and keep insisting that they are...when, they're not.

How can you now say that you never implied that gay couples should be afforded the same rights straight couples when you just said they are not equal.

And in most states, in most cities, they can not get married.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/36362824.html

Benkof: A different strategy on same-sex marriage
Thursday, December 18, 2008
BY DAVID BENKOF

IN NEW JERSEY, litigation and lawsuits on behalf of the gay and lesbian community have resulted in civil union status for same-sex couples. Many observers predict that full marriage rights can be achieved in the Garden State as soon as next year.

But in celebrating such advances for gay rights, most of my fellow gays and lesbians have lost sight of the serious setbacks for same-sex couples in states far more hostile to same-sexers than New Jersey.

A strong case can be made that more same-sex couples would be protected if the gay and lesbian community in New Jersey and elsewhere would jettison the whole marriage campaign and focus on a new, national strategy of "mutual commitments" to protect same-sex couples not only in states like New Jersey and Massachusetts, but also in places less welcoming to gays such as Georgia, Nebraska and Texas.

The 30 constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, including Proposition 8 in California, are a direct result of the lawsuits-for-marriage strategy practiced by gays and lesbians since the mid-Nineties, including successful suits in Massachusetts, California and Connecticut. So achieving marriage in three gay-friendly states (two now that Proposition 8 has passed in California) came at the expense of barring marriage in 10 times as many states, many much less hospitable to same-sex couples.

Worse, 18 of the constitutional amendments, in places like Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin, bar not only marriage but any kind of rights specifically for same-sex couples. That means that even in gay-popular cities like Austin, Texas, and Ann Arbor, Michigan, there can be no benefits for gay and lesbian couples unless and until those statewide amendments are repealed ? an unlikely scenario.

'Mutual commitments'

Brilliantly, a coalition of concerned politicians from both left and right have come together in Salt Lake City with a plan that can be a model for those concerned about the problems faced by same-sex couples anywhere. Guided by Democratic Mayor Ralph Becker, the "mutual commitments" plan was approved with both liberal and conservative support in the city council and the state legislature. It provides a package of rights, including hospital visitation and health care, to any two people who can show financial interdependence. The pair can be a mother and adult daughter, two straight male roommates or lesbian lovers.

The government doesn't ask ? and doesn't care ? which.

The Salt Lake City plan relieves the distress of same-sex couples in a way that conservatives and traditional family advocates can embrace. It gives no special recognition to couples based on sexual orientation, but it does enable everyone to designate which one person gets their mutual rights.

This is a profoundly conservative idea. Conservatism is about freedom, so why should the government decide who can visit me in the hospital? I should be the one to make that decision.

I propose that my fellow gays and lesbians, in New Jersey and elsewhere, immediately halt all litigation and lobbying to achieve same-sex marriage, and instead push to achieve mutual commitment laws in as many cities and states as possible.

With the promised new bipartisan spirit in Washington, a federal mutual commitment law should also be within reach, covering things like Social Security benefits and survivor's benefits for veterans.

I'm afraid most gays and lesbians may dismiss this proposal, because even though mutual benefits would help far more same-sex couples than a few more marriage victories in gay-friendly states, they are not completely equal.

As Garden State Equality's Steven Goldstein put it two years ago, his side "will settle for nothing less than 100 percent marriage equality."

When New Jersey and other gay-friendly states brook no compromise for the status of same-sex couples, traditionalist voters and legislators in more gay-hostile areas restrict any rights for same-sex couples in their states.

The result is great if you live in Massachusetts; not so good in the South or Midwest.

Weighing the greater good

Surely I'm not the only gay person who thinks the lack of same-sex marriage in an otherwise gay-friendly state like New Jersey is less important than the needs of same-sex couples in every state for rights to hospital visitation, health care and inheritance, among others.

Yet it was precisely our community's push for marriage litigation and lobbying that resulted in the restriction of many of those rights nationwide through constitutional amendments.

It's time for the gay community to reevaluate its priorities and embrace the Salt Lake City plan, which could help the same-sex couples who need it most a lot sooner than a dozen lawsuits ever could.

David Benkof is a freelance writer based in St. Louis

Coincidentally I was musing over this very subject recently....is it really "separate but equal" for same-sex couples to be given legal / financial etc. protections that they currently do not have and NOT have their relationship be called "marriage" but "civil union" or some other legal term?

Strongly approve, with the addition that this applies to hetero unions too. The government should get out of the marriage business so all these resources going into the fight about an emotionally-loaded word can go to better purposes.

 

[dlx22]

its kinda one of those catch 22's, sacrifice short run goals to have long run gains, but the real risk is that if they get most of what they want people will stop paying attention the issue and it will be 100x harder and longer to get true equality.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: dlx22
its kinda one of those catch 22's, sacrifice short run goals to have long run gains, but the real risk is that if they get most of what they want people will stop paying attention the issue and it will be 100x harder and longer to get true equality.

Campaign for equality and leave the word marriage out of it. Getting absolutely equal legal rights should be significantly more possible without a label that carries centuries of baggage.

 

[silverpig]

Chucky is confusing "equal" with "the same".

A black man is not the same as a white man, however they are equal. Gays are not the same as straights, but they are equal and should be afforded equal rights.

The thing is, if you are stuck on this "the same" bit, you'll soon realize that a straight white man from Oregon is not the same as a straight white man from Florida. No matter how similar two people or two groups might be, there will always be some difference which makes them not "the same". It is these small differences which bigots latch on to in order to justify different treatment. We need to acknowledge differences, celebrate them, and realize that what matters is that we view people as equals.

If you are religious you should know that God creates all men equal. If you are not, the US constitution describes one of the self evident truths as being that "all men are created equal".

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: chucky2


Chuck

You directly said that:

Straight couples don't, and never will, see gay couples as equal (and they're right, they're not)

And

Gay couples cannot accept that they are not equal to straight couples, and keep insisting that they are...when, they're not.

How can you now say that you never implied that gay couples should be afforded the same rights straight couples when you just said they are not equal.

And in most states, in most cities, they can not get married.

Did you somehow miss this from my OP: "The problem is not the "commitments", it's the seperate but equal thing. " and "Because they're hung up on this, relevant gay rights will continue to be held up."

What exactly did you think I meant by that????

Exactly what I meant was, if you asked the average straight person if they thought gay couples should be allowed to have civil unions - take the word "marriage" out of it - which afford them all the rights of married straight couples, I doubt you'd get anyone other than the fringe right/gay hater to disagree.

Gays are so hung up on claiming they're equal, when they are absolutely not[/i], that they can't see the forest through the trees. F'ing create a new term, "garriage", WhoTF cares (other than gays who are hung up on it), and this issue wouldn't even be an issue any longer.

Keep harping on people who don't need to change their minds that they're wrong, when a.) most don't give a F about gays, and b.) most don't agree for the reason I've already mentioned, and you are going to get blowback. And that's what gays exactly got with Prop 8.

Get this straight: Straight people don't need to change their minds just because gays want them to, no matter how much whining goes on.

Deal with it.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Chucky is confusing "equal" with "the same".

A black man is not the same as a white man, however they are equal. Gays are not the same as straights, but they are equal and should be afforded equal rights.

The thing is, if you are stuck on this "the same" bit, you'll soon realize that a straight white man from Oregon is not the same as a straight white man from Florida. No matter how similar two people or two groups might be, there will always be some difference which makes them not "the same". It is these small differences which bigots latch on to in order to justify different treatment. We need to acknowledge differences, celebrate them, and realize that what matters is that we view people as equals.

If you are religious you should know that God creates all men equal. If you are not, the US constitution describes one of the self evident truths as being that "all men are created equal".

They are equal as seperate people, but that's not part of this "debate" at all.

They are not equal - the same - as a straight couple. There is one female there, and one male. Period.

I totally believe gays should be accorded all the rights of a married straight couple, however, I - and most straights - are in reality not going to change our views on what the perception, and with that, the term, of "marriage" means.

If gays don't like that, then it's too F'ing bad. Instead of campaining for equal rights through civil unions, which most straights that aren't rabid right/gay haters would get behind, gays continue to keep insisting their union is equal to a straight union....and, again, it's not.

Get over it, and then finally get some rights. Otherwise, please, STFU. I keep hearing more and more from fellow straight people - ones I don't even know half the time - that they're sick and tired of hearing gays b1tch. Whatever goodwill gays have been getting through the discussion of gay rights, they're fastly using up with the insistence on the marriage term. Talk about shooting oneself in ones foot....

Chuck

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: K1052
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only issue civil unions to all couples upon request. Leave marriage to the various churches.

I think we're done here

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: silverpig
Chucky is confusing "equal" with "the same".

A black man is not the same as a white man, however they are equal. Gays are not the same as straights, but they are equal and should be afforded equal rights.

The thing is, if you are stuck on this "the same" bit, you'll soon realize that a straight white man from Oregon is not the same as a straight white man from Florida. No matter how similar two people or two groups might be, there will always be some difference which makes them not "the same". It is these small differences which bigots latch on to in order to justify different treatment. We need to acknowledge differences, celebrate them, and realize that what matters is that we view people as equals.

If you are religious you should know that God creates all men equal. If you are not, the US constitution describes one of the self evident truths as being that "all men are created equal".

They are equal as seperate people, but that's not part of this "debate" at all.

They are not equal - the same - as a straight couple. There is one female there, and one male. Period.

I totally believe gays should be accorded all the rights of a married straight couple, however, I - and most straights - are in reality not going to change our views on what the perception, and with that, the term, of "marriage" means.

If gays don't like that, then it's too F'ing bad. Instead of campaining for equal rights through civil unions, which most straights that aren't rabid right/gay haters would get behind, gays continue to keep insisting their union is equal to a straight union....and, again, it's not.

Get over it, and then finally get some rights. Otherwise, please, STFU. I keep hearing more and more from fellow straight people - ones I don't even know half the time - that they're sick and tired of hearing gays b1tch. Whatever goodwill gays have been getting through the discussion of gay rights, they're fastly using up with the insistence on the marriage term. Talk about shooting oneself in ones foot....

Chuck

Again, you're confusing "equal" with "the same". They are definitely not they same, however they are equal.

One could make the same argument against marriages between athiests or hindus. A christian marriage is not an agreement between 2 people, it's an agreement between two people and God. An atheistic marriage lacks God, and a hindu marriage incorporates multiple Gods. Thus, in the same respect, they are not the same as a christian marriage. This illustrates my point from my previous post as even though a non-religious man and a non-religious woman's marriage are not the same as one between two religious people, the bigots have decided to overlook that difference and focus instead on gay marriages, calling them "not equal" because of one difference that supports their bigotry.

If you are going to grant non-religious marriages to be "equal" to religious ones, you must, by extension, grant gay marriages to be equal as well.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: chucky2
The problem is not the "commitments", it's the seperate but equal thing.

Straight couples don't, and never will, see gay couples as equal (and they're right, they're not), so the term "marriage" being used in respect to gays is never going to sit well with them.

Gay couples cannot accept that they are not equal to straight couples, and keep insisting that they are...when, they're not. Because they're hung up on this, relevant gay rights will continue to be held up.

Gays keep trying to make 00 and 11 be 10/01...it will never happen. Moving past that seems to be just too difficult it seems.....

Chuck

Even if your bigoted viewpoint about equality was valid, there is NO reason anti-gay rights people have to ban gay marriage AND prevent gay couples from having any rights at all. Your argument makes no sense, if "marriage" was really all the anti-gay folks were concerned about, the amendments would specifically ban gay marriage, instead of banning gay couples from having any rights at all.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: silverpig
Chucky is confusing "equal" with "the same".

A black man is not the same as a white man, however they are equal. Gays are not the same as straights, but they are equal and should be afforded equal rights.

The thing is, if you are stuck on this "the same" bit, you'll soon realize that a straight white man from Oregon is not the same as a straight white man from Florida. No matter how similar two people or two groups might be, there will always be some difference which makes them not "the same". It is these small differences which bigots latch on to in order to justify different treatment. We need to acknowledge differences, celebrate them, and realize that what matters is that we view people as equals.

If you are religious you should know that God creates all men equal. If you are not, the US constitution describes one of the self evident truths as being that "all men are created equal".

They are equal as seperate people, but that's not part of this "debate" at all.

They are not equal - the same - as a straight couple. There is one female there, and one male. Period.

I totally believe gays should be accorded all the rights of a married straight couple, however, I - and most straights - are in reality not going to change our views on what the perception, and with that, the term, of "marriage" means.

If gays don't like that, then it's too F'ing bad. Instead of campaining for equal rights through civil unions, which most straights that aren't rabid right/gay haters would get behind, gays continue to keep insisting their union is equal to a straight union....and, again, it's not.

Get over it, and then finally get some rights. Otherwise, please, STFU. I keep hearing more and more from fellow straight people - ones I don't even know half the time - that they're sick and tired of hearing gays b1tch. Whatever goodwill gays have been getting through the discussion of gay rights, they're fastly using up with the insistence on the marriage term. Talk about shooting oneself in ones foot....

Chuck

First of all, enough with this speaking for all straight people bullshit. The percentage of the straight population you speak for is shirking all the time, to the point where you'll be in the minority pretty soon. But secondly, are you really telling me that you and others who agree with you are engaging in this legislative gay bashing because you're pissed off that gay people want to get married and you're trying to teach them a lesson? That's even worse than opposing gay rights because you don't like gay relationships.

At least in the second scenario you can say you're standing up for what you believe, but what you're basically saying is that you support rights for gay couples, but you're going to deny them those rights because you don't like their push for gay marriage. What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[Perknose]

See, if only those pesky Negroes had focused on getting the same level of working " blacks only" water fountains instead of their silly campaign for equal rights, well, ebbything would have been Jim Crow Dandy! :roll: