equality blooms with spring, pt. II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
call for the question of 'Civil Unions' with all the rights and benefits enjoyed by hetero married couples.

Because separate, but equal is not sensible.

It's also not sensible for a couple to get a "civil union" that is only recognized in that state, and they'd lose their benefits were they to move to another state.
 
Because separate, but equal is not sensible.

It's also not sensible for a couple to get a "civil union" that is only recognized in that state, and they'd lose their benefits were they to move to another state.

Do you think gay people that get married in legal gay marriage states can take their state given rights to other states?
 
many states prohibit this.

would a civil union be good enough for you?

If I were a gay man with a partner, yes.
Because I accept that I can not beat anything into a 'Religious' person's head.


And if 'Civil Unions' are offered here in CA and I ever get married, I would choose a Civil Union license over a marriage license.
I would not want to be associated with the religious people that think that word has some 'higher value'. Because I don't think it does.
I would want to align myself with 'equal protection for all."
 
No. But if, say, a Mass. gay couple moves to Canada, their marriage would be recognized here, because of their equal status under Canadian law.



Would it be better to have

4 States with legal gay marriage and
46 States where it is illegal

or

4 States with legal gay marriage
36 States with Civil Unions, with same rights and benefits as marraige and
10 States where Gay Marriage and Civil Unions are illegal?
 
Would it be better to have

4 States with legal gay marriage and
46 States where it is illegal

or

4 States with legal gay marriage
36 States with Civil Unions, with same rights and benefits as marraige and
10 States where Gay Marriage and Civil Unions are illegal?

How about 50 states with legal gay marriage.

It's hard to understand how you cannot see this as discriminatory. In both of your scenarios, movement is restricted because not every state is equal. If a gay couple gets married in a state that legalizes same-sex marriage, and one of them gets transferred to a state where it is illegal, then what happens to their benefits? Do they decide to stay where they are and risk one of them losing their job?

But, of course, we hetero folk have none of these worries, because we can get married wherever we damn please.
 
Because I live in the real world

and I care about this issue a lot.

This just ain't some pissing contest for me, like it seems to be for many people in here.


4 States with legal gay marriage
36 States with Civil Unions, with same rights and benefits as marriage and
10 States where Gay Marriage and Civil Unions are illegal?

or

50 states with legal gay marriage

which one do you think is more possible to attain in the next 4-6 years?
 
Because I live in the real world

and I care about this issue a lot.

This just ain't some pissing contest for me, like it seems to be for many people in here.


4 States with legal gay marriage
36 States with Civil Unions, with same rights and benefits as marriage and
10 States where Gay Marriage and Civil Unions are illegal?

or

50 states with legal gay marriage

which one do you think is more possible to attain in the next 4-6 years?


I live in the real world, too, thank you very much. And in my world, it's not about what's possible, it's about what's right.

Why are you throwing out arbitrary time frames for? Who said anything about 4-6 years?
 
I live in the real world, too, thank you very much. And in my world, it's not about what's possible, it's about what's right.

Why are you throwing out arbitrary time frames for? Who said anything about 4-6 years?

I have gay friends that are living and dying now. That have lived decent, honorable, productive lives contributing to this country and society. They pay all the same taxes and obey all the laws of the land.

I would like them to have the right of hospital visitation when one is sick, shared benefits, right of survivorship and all the other benefits and rights that straight couples have. I would not want some bitter family member turning a person away at the hospital because he does not have 'equal protection'.

Civil Unions are attainable now. It just passed by popular vote in WA while Gay Marriage was voted down in Maine.

Arbitrary time frames? :huh: That is easy for you. It does not affect you. Stand on some chicken shit principal, even if it take 20 more years??
Meanwhile gay people are living and dying.
Who cares, just win the argument.
 
I have gay friends that are living and dying now. That have lived decent, honorable, productive lives contributing to this country and society. They pay all the same taxes and obey all the laws of the land.

I would like them to have the right of hospital visitation when one is sick, shared benefits, right of survivorship and all the other benefits and rights that straight couples have. I would not want some bitter family member turning a person away at the hospital because he does not have 'equal protection'.

Civil Unions are attainable now. It just passed by popular vote in WA while Gay Marriage was voted down in Maine.

Arbitrary time frames? :huh: That is easy for you. It does not affect you. Stand on some chicken shit principal, even if it take 20 more years??
Meanwhile gay people are living and dying.
Who cares just win the argument.

You know who wants marriage over civil unions?

Homosexuals.

That's why I throw in my support for marriage and not for civil unions.
 
You need to do a little more research

The Gay and Lesbian groups campaigned hard in Washington for Civil Unions, they saw a chance to win 'equal protection'.

Do you think gays voted against 'Civil Unions' in the last election in Washington?


If the ballot had Gay Marriage it would have lost.
 
on a practical level, deep is right.

however, there has been enormous progress since 2003, and we have much to be grateful to the state of Massachusetts. civil rights have progressed enormously, and i expect that within my lifetime there will be full civil rights across the country, and within the next 10 years marriage equality in most of the coastal states.

the anti-equality forces have no arguments, just emotion and fear. and that tends to die off.

as for myself, i'll take a civil union, but i want a marriage.
 
Why not take a 'Civil Union' license and a giant GAY WEDDING for 500 people performed by a Unitarian Minister or any other person you choose to perform at your WEDDING CEREMONY.

I have never been to a MARRIAGE.
I have been to dozens, maybe hundreds of WEDDINGS.

I know it would be simpler if we could just snap our fingers and have GAY MARRIGE equals MARRIGE and all MARRIGE laws.

But that is not attainable now. And may not be for decades. Look what just happened in the N Y Senate. WTF That is New York. Unfortunately the next couple of election cycles it looks like independents will be trending GOP.

Lets make some progress and pick off the moderate states with Civil Unions.

After a few thousand GAY WEDDINGS of co-workers and gay neighbors without the sky falling, with gays having the same rights, and the system not blowing up.
People will wonder how we could have allowed some people to go for so long with out 'equal protection."
 
Lets make some progress and pick off the moderate states with Civil Unions.

After a few thousand GAY WEDDINGS of co-workers and gay neighbors without the sky falling, with gays having the same rights, and the system not blowing up.
People will wonder how we could have allowed some people to go for so long with out 'equal protection."

I agree with you on a practical level.

Also, pushing civil unions on the ballots would negate the argument that people are fighting this because they want to preserve the sanctity of "marriage".
 
and the same bus got Rosa Parks to the same destination at the same time.


And Rosa Parks and MLK Jr did not care if you called it Colored Rights, Negro Rights, or Civil Rights

they wanted legislation passed that would give them 'equal treatment' under the law.


besides I think the more operative word is wedding.
People send out
Wedding announcements. Wedding invitations. Wedding cakes.
 
Of course, the problem with this approach is when you deal with "civil union" states and the recognition of "marriages" performed in states or countries where they are legal--and chances are, due to petty insistences on not using the word "marriage," now all gay marriages won't be recognized as "civil unions" in that state. All of a sudden, we're dealing with a patchwork of laws that are incapable of dealing with the reality that people no longer stay in one state their entire lives anymore.
 
question: has anyone ever met someone who used to support gay marriage, but has come to oppose it?

I use to advocate for gay marriage.

But now I think it makes more sense and more can be accomplished advocating for Civil Unions.

CA will have gay marriage on the ballot again in either 2010 or 2012.

I will vote for Gay Marriage. I think it will not pass again for a 3rd time. If it does pass it will be by just a couple of points. That will only get the opposition to put it back on the ballot again.

I think Civil Unions could pass by a decent margin. Perhaps 8-10 points. That would be enough to keep it.


But, a more direct answer to your question. I believe many of the young people now, under 35, could flip when they are in their 40s and have kids and start attending church.
 
Of course, the problem with this approach is when you deal with "civil union" states and the recognition of "marriages" performed in states or countries where they are legal--and chances are, due to petty insistences on not using the word "marriage," now all gay marriages won't be recognized as "civil unions" in that state. All of a sudden, we're dealing with a patchwork of laws that are incapable of dealing with the reality that people no longer stay in one state their entire lives anymore.

My thought is once we got it up to 35+ states we could get congress to do away with DOMA and pass legislation that said Civil Unions and Marrige Unions (gay or straight) will be treated the same and recognized in all states.
 
Is the DOMA the only reason the Fed Court won't hear discrimination lawsuits?
or do they hear them?

This seems to me, to be fundamentally something that has to happen in the Fed courts.
What is the barrier to getting a full-on inequality lawsuit in the USSC?

That is, not arguing over definitions or arguing for "having what they got" I'm talking about the extension of those legal recognitions, be they seen as rights or privileges (or is that the probelm?).

This might seem like a dumb-ass question. I couldn't figure out how to word it. Fundamentally, at it's most basic level, why doesn't the Fed look down and see this as discrimination?

The States dictate their own marriage laws, obviously this much I get, but why doesn't the Fed interject...why don't they see the discrimination? The only thing I could think of was the DOMA.
 
I personally see it as discrimination also.

I can not justify why a gay person does not enjoy 'equal protection' under the law. I believe there is a case making it's way from CA that will be argued by Ted Olson, Solicitor General for the Bush Administration.

I believe it was the Plessy v. Ferguson decision handed down by the Supreme Court that passed - separate but equal, or legal segregation in a 7-1 vote. The 7 should be ashamed of themselves. They were later overturned.


I have said that I would like to see this court hand down a decision so Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas could go down on the wrong side of history. Kennedy might vote with them and possibly Sotomayor.

I believe it would be eventually overturned by a later court, just like Plessy.
 
I have said that I would like to see this court hand down a decision so Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas could go down on the wrong side of history. Kennedy might vote with them and possibly Sotomayor.

I believe it would be eventually overturned by a later court, just like Plessy.



yes, this is quite a thing right now, the Olsen case. the SCOTUS is clearly right wing at present, and a decision there would effectively kill the issue. perhaps increments of change are the only way to get this done, but it does reinforce the clear purpose of the courts.

question: did men get to vote on whether or not women should have the right to vote? and if they had been allowed to do so, what do you think the outcome would have been?

minority rights are supposed to be protected by the courts, they should not be subjected to mob rule.

but, whatever. i suppose we have the first tackle the issue of why people fear and loathe us to begin with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom