corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Irvine511 said:... it's always going to be better than what two lesbians with MSWs ...
What's MSW?
Irvine511 said:... it's always going to be better than what two lesbians with MSWs ...
corianderstem said:
What's MSW?
Are there in fact any countries which have 'universal civil unions'? i.e. where one uniform legal category applies to everyone from caretakers, to friends who prefer each other to their blood relatives as the one to make decisions if they become incapacitated, to longterm housemates with no romantic/sexual relationship who simply want to put legal teeth in their claims to property they've acquired jointly? I don't know that there are.BonosSaint said:Universal civil union laws isn't a new idea for me even if the term might be. Having had no intent to marry, that made sense to me from my twenties on. I'm not surprised that the idea comes up now. I think when you begin to question the sacred cow of man-woman marriages, you open up the possibility that people may bring up the sacred cow of marriage itself. But this is an inappropriate thread to bring this up and I should not have done so. Suffice it to say, I'm not lobbying for the abolition of marriage or anything.
yolland said:
No, it wouldn't. Our government already extends the status "married" to nonreligious straight couples through civil ceremonies that religious institutions have no say in whatsoever, and it's this (civil) status that those who support gay marriage seek to expand. It isn't unprecedented or revolutionary to say that churches shouldn't have veto power over who the government can and can't recognize as marrried--they already lost that power back when civil marriage ceremonies were created.
yolland said:In the Deep South, on the one hand, many of the all-white private schools ('segregation academies') which sprang up after public school desegregation billed themselves as 'Christian schools.' On the other hand, in *most* areas of the Deep South, the Catholic schools--and there were hardly any non-Catholic religious schools in the region before desegregation--actually desegregated well before the public schools. It depends on which denomination you're talking about.
yolland said:
Tolerant of what? Are you suggesting that you see abolishing the legal category 'marriage' altogether as a necessary concession to religious people categorically--that only they should be allowed to define it? Again, how do you reconcile that with the fact that civil marriages for heterosexuals have been around since the 19th century?
deep said:
perhaps the best solution
would be a "dont ask, dont tell" gay marriage law
Irvine511 said:master's in social work.
it's a very lesbian degree.
Irvine511 said:
but if you're in the military, and someone finds out you're gay, you get discharged.
sulawesigirl4 said:This may or may not be relevant
Well, I can agree that some rights are preferable to no rights. And perhaps the Canadian model, as anitram described it, would be a strategically savvier template to adopt here. If you're talking necessary concessions as the determining dynamic, though, I'd imagine that would entail continuing to classify heterosexual marriages as just that, marriages, while meanwhile gay couples would just get 'civil unions.' I know there are a couple social-conservative-leaning FYMers who've indicated they'd be OK with eradicating 'marriage' as a legal category altogether, but my impression is they're not at all very representative of gay marriage opponents in that regard.deep said:it seems we are stuck in an "all" or nothing situation
and the nothing is winning
I just believe there is a better chance to for a type of equality by 'giving' in to the ones that will support 'civil unions'
Yeah, I do think the "victim" status, for lack of a better phrase, is ultimately the main reason for it. Louisiana is the major exception to that 'rule', and I don't think that's coincidental--it was the only Southern state where Catholics were often (sometimes by far) the largest denomination in whichever municipality. So despite the fact that significant public dialogue over desegregating LA's Catholic schools preceded that over desegregating its public schools (due to pressure from the Vatican, which to its credit openly deplored the situation), in their case most of the Catholic schools were a couple years behind their public counterparts in desegregating. The Catholic population of the area simply overlapped extensively enough with the (racial) Powers That Be for considerable foot-dragging to result, castigations from the Vatican notwithstanding.I was aware of the Catholic situation, it seems that they along with Jewish groups did better with Civil Rights, I assume because they were often victims, themselves
especially "In the Deep South"
when I say religious people are intolerant, I am generalizing, I am referring to the ones that are responsible for this continued discrimination