In case you were worried

[christopher575]

Wow.

http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/

Comments

[badrobot68.livejournal.com]

I wasn't that worried.
It bugs me when gay people refuse to accept civil unions and demand "full marriage rights" when it's the exact same thing with a different name.
It's all progress and it takes time, but we're getting there.

[rei-saru.livejournal.com]

I agree with this-- With one caveat: ALL MUST BE EXACTLY EQUAL, AND COMINGLED.

If homosexual relationships can only be recognized under the law as "civil unions", then so must also the heterosexual ones. Any government publication (including laws and constitutions, et al) utilizing the words "marry" or "marriage" MUST be reworded to "unionize" and "civil union" respectively, or some such similar verbiage.

Otherwise, this is still a case of "separate but equal" which, as we have so far discovered, is NOT equality.

[badrobot68.livejournal.com]

Oh whatever.

:)

[rei-saru.livejournal.com]

I was editing again when you commented. Here's my final comment:

I agree with this-- With one caveat: ALL MUST BE EXACTLY EQUAL, AND COMMINGLED.

If homosexual relationships can only be recognized under the law as "civil unions", then so must also the heterosexual ones. Any government publication (including laws and constitutions, et al) utilizing the words "marry" or "marriage" MUST be reworded to "unionize" and "civil union" respectively, or some such similar verbiage.

Otherwise, this is still a case of "separate but equal" which, as we have so far discovered, is NOT equality.

Let the churchgoers have their word; I really couldn't care less. I demand nothing more than equality; but for that equality I will not, within reason, cease the fight.

[badrobot68.livejournal.com]

I think seperate but equal is fine. What I dislike is the fighting over the word "marriage". Let the straight people have that word if they want it. Gay people can have a civil union with the exact same rights and responsibilities, and most straight people are ok with that. But call it marriage and they get all freaked out about it. So call it something different if it means getting the laws passed.

[rei-saru.livejournal.com]

As I said, let them have their word... But if that's going to be the case, from a legal standpoint there is too much likelihood of bias against the one. Only when the same term is used for both can the both truly be equal.

I'm 100% positive that if "separate but equal" had been acceptable to the african american community, we would not have a black president next year. Obama wouldn't even have considered running. What if, in 40 years, we have a gay man as president, one who isn't afraid for his constituency to know that he loves a man?

If you were still alive, would you not be proud to look back and say, "This is possible because we didn't give in; we held out for true equality"?

"Separate but equal" is NOT fine.

[badrobot68.livejournal.com]

I guess I just don't see the difference.

[rei-saru.livejournal.com]

If a thing is exactly the same as another thing, why should they have two different names? What other reason could there possibly be, other than inequality?

I have a ball, and you have a ball. They are exactly the same, except my ball is blue, and yours is red. But I have more followers than you do. My people all have blue balls (hold the jokes, please), and your peoples' are all red.

On this playground, we call what I have a "ball", your red ball is called a "civil sphere".

But balls are dangerous! They could knock a kid over! Onoz! So we have to make a new rule so that only the *safe* balls are allowed!

And I make sure the wording for the new rule is EXACTLY that, because I dislike the color red. I have that power, because I have more people on my side.

Suddenly, only safe balls are allowed. But you don't have a safe ball, you have a(n equally) safe civil sphere. But the Hall Monitors on our playground are very strict and follow the rules to the letter! Your toy is not a safe ball, so it is not allowed on the playground!

Me and my followers have now become the only people with balls (NOW you can laugh!), and you have none. Shame on you for owning a civil sphere! You should have been on MY side the whole time!

[rei-saru.livejournal.com]

No, it was based on inequality. The darker-skinned people saw that, and wouldn't stand for it.

Just as I'm now suggesting.

[badrobot68.livejournal.com]

Now you're just being weird.
I'll tell you what my parents would have told me:
Take your red ball and go play.

I'd be excited to have a civil sphere because only the special kids get those!

Honestly, fighting over a word makes no sense to me. I can sort of see what you're saying, but it all just seems a little bit pointless to me.

[rei-saru.livejournal.com]

I AM getting what you're saying.

However, the sticking point seems to BE the word. The religious nutters don't want gay people getting "married". And if removing that word from whatever us homos "get" in exchange for getting it at ALL, I'm for it-- ON THE CONDITION that it be called exactly the same thing for homos AND heteros. See my response to Alan, above, for WHY I feel this way.

[rei-saru.livejournal.com]

Oh, but, see, this is the only playground at this school. And you can't go to another school unless you live in its territory. So... in order to be able to play with your civil sphere, you have to convince your parents to sell their house and buy a new one in a different part of town (this is analogous to moving to a country or state where gay marriage is recognized, whatever its name).

And all because you like the color red, and I like the color blue.

Is that very fair? Should you REALLY have to do that just so you can be the person you were born to be, and like what you want to like?

---
I think it's just as stupid as you do. What I'm suggesting (and I'm by no means the originator of this thought) a compromise. They get to keep their word, and we get exact equality.

Honestly, I'm just as fine with using "marriage" as any other term. But if we CAN'T get our rights by calling it that, I'm more than willing to throw that word away and start with something new.

[rei-saru.livejournal.com]

Also: The problem right now is that "marriage" and "civilly unioned" are not equal.

There are tax breaks and other legal benefits from being "married" that you cannot get while "civilly unionized".

So as it stands, without being able to call it "marriage", we don't have the same rights and benefits.

And if they won't let us use that word, then the only way I will be satisfied, and feel equal, is if their partnership and mine are called the same thing under the law

[rei-saru.livejournal.com]

I'm arguing neither for nor against Obama's position. My first comment was nothing but a response to Alan's.

And I have no idea what you're talking about with this land trust thing.

[badrobot68.livejournal.com]

It's all a bunch of semantical bantering that's getting in the way of having equal civil rights. What I'm saying is that we probably could have already HAD civil unions if everyopne had agreed to call it that. But there are the people who insist on using the same word that straight people use who are holding up the fight.

Years ago, gay people had NO RIGHTS AT ALL. It's going to happen step by step. Take your civil unions, then call it whatever you want to call it. Fighting over a word is what's holding us back.

[rei-saru.livejournal.com]

If I actually thought a law such as "Under the law, this and this are considered exactly the same thing. No law shall be passed that affects one that does not the other, and no law shall be passed granting any benefit to the one that was not granted to the other" would fly, I would be more accepting.

But I really doubt that it would, and am not willing to take the chance.

Again I ask you: Why must we have different names, if they are to be otherwise exactly the same?

As for your other point, I don't know enough on the subject to venture any kind of opinion.

Marriage is more than a word

[transairn.livejournal.com]

Fighting is what gets us what we deserve, though. We may have the same civil rights but it's a fact that if a couple states that they are married, society looks at them in a different way.

I'm sure this would change if civil union became the popular term for a gay couple in love, but that time isn't here yet. Marriage is the perfect word to describe two people in Love.

Hell, loodje and I experience this all the time at the US/CDN border. Without marriage, in their eyes, we are just boyfriends...which doesn't warrant a lot of respect in many socialogical expectations. The fact that we are legally married puts a lot of emphasis on how we live our lives. In the majority of society, marriage is a much stronger word to explain the connection between two people more than "civil union". That's a fact.

When we tell people "we're married", people's eyes really light up...and damn it, it feels really good to say it too! :)

Also, if no fighting is done, nothing improves. Voices aren't heard -- civil rights aren't granted; because one voice becomes a thousand when a thousand people speak up and join the fight.

The notion that California HAD gay marriage and now doesn't says that the opposing forces fought to have it removed. That alone is unfair to the 10's of thousands of couples...and it's especially wrong in the sense that religious groups have such a strong influence on law.

Re: Marriage is more than a word

[badrobot68.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree with all of that.

And if you have a civil union, you can still say that you're married. It's going to take a while for the conservatives to accept that but I think that's their problem.

Re: Marriage is more than a word

[transairn.livejournal.com]

Yes there are lots of problems. I don't feel like even thinking about all of them anymore. Bah!