Silly Mrs. Clinton

[MadelynIris]

BVS,

How would including other types of relationships be appeasing the bigots?

Found this quote from someone on a website that I would definitely not consider a bigot, who supports this line of thinking:

However, instead of pushing for plural civil unions, I favor an approach of pushing for legalization of any kind of family group that considers itself a family - regardless whether the number of adults and children in the unit, marital status, sexual orientation or blood
kinship of the individuals. This skirts the issue of whether the people in the family unit are sexually involved with each other or not. Three borthers raising a kid is a family. Three lesbians raising the adopted child of one of them is a family. Two gay males is a family if they say they are. A bi-man, his female lover and his male lover are a family if they say they are. Five men and three women are a family if they say they are - regardless of whether they all have sex with each other, all are totally platonic with each other or some combination thereof. Give any such unit that sincerely files an application the same official status, legal protections, insurance rights, and tax benefits of a regular marriage - regardless of whose having sex with who.

Would you say this person is a bigot?

[unico]

Originally posted by Irvine511
the Democrats have all basically said that they simply won't support marriage equality for political reasons -- which is cowardly, but Obama brought up, recently, how MLK never focused on Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws in the early 1960s and stressed pragmatism

i see that more as avoiding scrutiny over the issue rather than something to be hopeful for. Obama also clearly stated that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. The other democrats aren't supporting marriage equality but not for political reasons, I believe that everyone on that stage except for Dennis simply thinks that it should be between a man and a woman. While MLK didn't focus on thos ridiculous laws, he knew in his heart that he believed them to be ridiculous. These chicken-shit democrats believe deep down that marriage is between a man and a woman. Obama didn't speak to stressing pragmatism to work towards some day there being marriage equality. He only believes in civil union equality.

[MadelynIris]

Something from a blog by Amy King, that says it quite well, apparently about law in France:

Speaking of homosexuality, how is it possible this week we went back in time? Georgia and New York courts did, at least. We’re still opposed to gay marriages (are heterosexuals actually threatened? really?) while the rest of the world forges ahead and gets over it.

In fact, civil unions elsewhere have surpassed such blasé ideas as simply giving the LGBT community an opportunity to publicly validate long-term unions … now, just about anyone can attach themselves to another person - regardless of their sexual relations–even if they have none. Gasp.

If we truly relied on “marriages” defining themselves according to whether or not folks were sexually engaged, I have a feeling a number of heterosexual relationships wouldn’t qualify anymore, if you catch my catty drift. I’m just sayin’ … things fizzle. People take “breaks,” have extramarital affairs, become asexual, etc. — so when the sex fizzles, does that mean marriages automatically dissolve too?

Which brings me to my next point: civil unions elsewhere have much broader parameters, “Any two unmarried persons who want to live together can contract a PaCS, on condition they share common housing and are neither direct ascendants or descendants (mother, grandfather or child), nor too close relatives (brother, uncle or niece).” No clause in there stipulating sexual engagement on a per annum basis … two platonic lifelong friends may enter into a civil union as long as they live together (& presumably take care of one another).

The definition of “family” just opened up, friends. Thankfully. Many folks without lovers & who have not had the best parents just collectively breathed a sigh of relief … and may now even be feeling their living situations are valid and viable without the push to get married for life. Indeed, there are other options~

These unions also seem to have more appeal to heterosexuals now, “According to a French Parliament report issued two years after the law’s enactment, apparently about 60 percent of Civil Solidarity Pacts were concluded by heterosexual couples.”

What do the unions ultimately provide? Well, “…the PaCS gives same-sex couples legal, fiscal and social advantages they never had before.”

And the overall effect of all this openness? Oh, something we could all benefit from, “… Despite the homophobic outburst it provoked, the PaCS unquestionably made homosexuality something ordinary.” In other words, an opportunity to finally just get over it.

Another bigot? I don't know. But after reading her bio, I don't think so.

http://amyking.org/

[melon]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Another bigot? I don't know. But after reading her bio, I don't think so.

http://amyking.org/

The problem that arises when you attempt to create any category that is "lesser" than marriage is that, suddenly, you approach some arcane law that still gives you a headache under "civil union/domestic partnership" laws.

For instance, a situation came up where two women had added each other to their respective 401K plans in Oregon. Their relationship, later, then soured and they wanted to remove each other from their plans. However, the only way you could legally remove this person, in the state of Oregon, was with a legal divorce. However, "divorce" is only granted in terms of "marriage." And since no "marriage" ever took place, they now cannot remove each other at all. The Oregon legislature is obviously under no real pressure to deal with it, and they'll probably move at a glacial pace like any governmental body.

Literally hundreds of situations like this come up, and the only reason that things like "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions" come up is because nobody wants to accept that gay people can form relationships on an equal footing to heterosexuals. The religious significance, ultimately, is irrelevant, as there are several religions willing to grant "gay marriages." Why do the most conservative of religions get to define it on the national arena? Even the titles "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions" offend me greatly, because they are purposely constructed to look like they have zero importance or significance beyond a visit to the lawyer's office.

Ultimately, I'm reminded why African Americans still push for affirmative action laws; because if white people could legally discriminate against them, they probably would, just like they do against homosexuals.

[melon]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Would you say this person is a bigot?

Again, you've basically taken the issue and have removed all the love and affection out of it. It's as if gay people are incapable of the "kind of love" that a penis and vagina can offer, and, as such, must be put on a subordinate level with a degrading title.

If you wish to legalize polygamy, that requires a whole new set of paradigm shifts and thinking, which can be addressed later once gay marriage has been legalized. The latter, after all, only requires removing gender requirements from existing law.

[BVS]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
BVS,

How would including other types of relationships be appeasing the bigots?

No, my point is that the Alberta law that you originally showed, the Mexico law, etc are all less equal than a heterosexual marriage.

Make a pledge of love, a pledge of love, be it sexual or not. But don't make yours any more than mine.

Now I will admit I am on the fence about relationships that are more than two "consenting" adults. I think there are some big equality, financial, and true consentual issues with plural marriages.

[MadelynIris]

Literally hundreds of situations like this come up, and the only reason that things like "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions" come up is because nobody wants to accept that gay people can form relationships on an equal footing to heterosexuals. The religious significance, ultimately, is irrelevant, as there are several religions willing to grant "gay marriages." Why do the most conservative of religions get to define it on the national arena? Even the titles "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions" offend me greatly, because they are purposely constructed to look like they have zero importance or significance beyond a visit to the lawyer's office

Melon,

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it's a lesser state. That's not what I'm trying to describe. I'm talking about something that is exactly the same as the current institution.

I can't believe you would get hung up over 'what it's called' or semantics. Preferably, legally speaking, the term marriage, would be replaced by union, partnership, agreement, etc... Do you think that is less somehow? Seems like you really want it to be something else than what it is. Afterall, it is an agreement between two people recognized by the state.

This is where your argument extends beyond logic and reasoning, and more into something -- how shall I say it -- outside of the lawyer's office.

[MadelynIris]

No, my point is that the Alberta law that you originally showed, the Mexico law, etc are all less equal than a heterosexual marriage.

And I'd like to say no, that is not the intention. It might be the intent of some politicians, who use different terminology, but the definition, needs to be the same.

[MadelynIris]

Again, you've basically taken the issue and have removed all the love and affection out of it.

No. Are you saying that two people cannot have a loving and affectionate relationship without being sexual? You'd like to exlude asexual people from these kinds of partnerships?

I'm not trying to be sneaky here.

[BVS]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


And I'd like to say no, that is not the intention. It might be the intent of some politicians, who use different terminology, but the definition, needs to be the same.

But it's not. The definition is not the same. Love between 2 men, 2 women, or a male and female should all be considered the same, period. Define it and implement it the same way in the eyes of the law and the public.

[BVS]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


No. Are you saying that two people cannot have a loving and affectionate relationship without being sexual?

Isn't that what most marriages turn into anyway?

[melon]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Melon,

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it's a lesser state. That's not what I'm trying to describe. I'm talking about something that is exactly the same as the current institution.

I can't believe you would get hung up over 'what it's called' or semantics. Preferably, legally speaking, the term marriage, would be replaced by union, partnership, agreement, etc... Do you think that is less somehow? Seems like you really want it to be something else than what it is. Afterall, it is an agreement between two people recognized by the state.

This is where your argument extends beyond logic and reasoning, and more into something -- how shall I say it -- outside of the lawyer's office.

If it isn't "less," then why aren't heterosexuals calling for and lining up for "civil unions"? Because, as I pointed out, "civil unions" are not equated equally under the law. These laws are poorly written, and, more often than not, when you run up against an arcane law written before these existed, you run into expensive litigation.

I wish it were just "semantics," but it's not. Even at that, the psychology of the whole thing is still very insulting. I won't be entirely satisfied until government is granting only "marriages" to everyone or "civil unions" to everyone. Last I heard, "separate but equal" is an approach that's not constitutionally acceptable.

[melon]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
No. Are you saying that two people cannot have a loving and affectionate relationship without being sexual? You'd like to exlude asexual people from these kinds of partnerships?

"Marriage," at the civil level, does not require a fertility or sexual activity test, so, as far as I see it, your issue here is moot. Two asexuals--as long as they have a penis and vagina, mind you, even if unused--can marry under existing law.

[MadelynIris]

I won't be entirely satisfied until government is granting only "marriages" to everyone or "civil unions" to everyone.

Ok, we're there. We agree there. I'm saying, take the sexual, religious, traditional, ceremony, romantic, etc..... OUT OF THE LEGAL INSTITUTION! Make them all civil unions, partnerships, including existing marriages. They should all be the same.

Leave the pomp and circumstance up to the indiviuals.

[melon]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Ok, we're there. We agree there. I'm saying, take the sexual, religious, traditional, ceremony, romantic, etc..... OUT OF THE LEGAL INSTITUTION! Make them all civil unions, partnerships, including existing marriages. They should all be the same.

Leave the pomp and circumstance up to the indiviuals.

Agreed.

[unico]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Ok, we're there. We agree there. I'm saying, take the sexual, religious, traditional, ceremony, romantic, etc..... OUT OF THE LEGAL INSTITUTION! Make them all civil unions, partnerships, including existing marriages. They should all be the same.

Leave the pomp and circumstance up to the indiviuals.

What is this Craggy Island you speak of? Do wonderful laws such as this exist there?

[martha]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Isn't that what most marriages turn into anyway?

Speak for yourself, tootsie-pop.

[MadelynIris]

What is this Craggy Island you speak of? Do wonderful laws such as this exist there?

Lol Unico. Do you know about Craggy Island. I'd say, yes in a way, those laws do exist there. The clergy on that island is awesome!

[BVS]

Originally posted by martha


Speak for yourself, tootsie-pop.

Well I never said all...

[Varitek]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Varitek,

*clears throat* -- are you referring to me as following this 'method'?

sorry, hadn't checked this thread in a day - no, I was referring to numbers/"keep right" guy - can't remember his exact screen name. You don't fit the pattern as generally as I laid it out there.