Obama spoke to a crowd of around 2,000 people in Beaumont yesterday. What I found interesting is not the fact that he was the first candidate to personally visit in over 30 years, but rather the tone of his speech. Speaking to mostly an African American crowd, (and a religious one at that), Obama didn’t fill his speech simply with empty promise of a perfect future, but rather challenged his supporters to rethink their own values.
That takes courage, every bit as much as the Sista Souldjah moment of 16 years ago. East Texas is not particularly gay friendly, and the African Americans among them are no exception. This is also not the first time he has done so. Obama has shown he is willing to tell crowds what they need to hear, rather than pandering.
DISCLAIMER:
The first link is to a video of the speech, the text beside of which reads:
This is the almost complete “short” stump speech for the many folks who couldn’t attend the “sold out” (tichets were free) town hall meeting.
I haven’t had a chance to watch the 17 minute clip, and there is a chance the part of the speech referred to is edited out. I’ll let everyone know when I have a few minutes, but until then, I do not assume verification of the speech in the first link.
UPDATE:
I listened to the video, and the comments referred to are apparently edited out. Numerous campaign reporters refer to them, though, and the Martin Luther King day speech is further evidence that the point of my post stands.
Billy K
Meh. He’s all fancy words and speeches. Where are teh SOLUTIONS!??
4tehlulz
That took balls. I’ll give him that.
p.lukasiak
from your link…
Note that Obama isn’t telling his audience that true Christian values means accepting equal rights for LGBTs, he only goes so far as to tell people not to speak out against LGBTs in an “un-Christian” fashion.
He’s not challenging his audience at all — and given his pandering with McClurkin, forgive me if, as a gay man, I’m less than impressed with this moment.
Studly Pantload
Actually, p.lukasiak, Obama does indeed tell them that gays and lesbians deserve equality. Re-read the Smith piece.
Jake
The worm is up to 30,000 rpms:
If Clinton’s comment is the standard, saying “You all be nice,” doesn’t cut it. Sure, it makes a refreshing change from pols who scream “OMG! THEY’RE GOING TO SODOMIZE OUR DOGS!” and I’m sure the Brown Squirts will be along in a moment to tell us that Islamobama wants the kw33rs to sodomize their dogs, but saying the words gay and lesbian does not a sista soldja moment make.
Mary
Did you read Obama’s open letter?
Billy K
Hush. He’s not interested in accuracy.
TheFountainHead
p.luk, you’re either willfully ignoring the obvious or engaging in intellectual dishonesty here. Either way, cut the crap. You honestly really believe that what he’s saying is, “Hate gays, but do it in a Christian manner.”?? Really?? If you’re going to come here, say that, and attempt to give it weight because you also happen to be gay, then as a straight person with gay family members and friends, I say fuck you on their behalf, for you do them a disservice.
Tom in Texas
Jake:
from the Armbinder link:
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Now I have to come out of hiding to remind you that you need to STFU before you damage what little credibility you have left.
1.) Crowd dies after a pro-be-nice-to-gays comment
2.) “I hear people saying things that I don’t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian,”
Therefore, one of the below is true:
a.) The majority of the crowd was not Christian
b.) The majority of the crowd was not human (“people”)
c.) Obama just chastized the crowd.
Seeing as (a) and (b) have been copped to, therefore (c), _and_ you’re being an idiot.
But then again, p luk is of the crowd that *knows* Obama is corrupt. Because they *know*. Because he’s in public service.
I can’t wait for Hillary’s career to die an agonizing death.
The Other Steve
Look. Given all the resources Obama has sunk into Texas compared to Hillary, if he doesn’t win the state by triple digits he loses. It’s that simple. It’s really not fair to look at it any other way.
Ezra Klein has more
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
That’s right! I copyrighted “therefore”! Wanna say something about it??
(That was supposed to be the letter “c” in parentheses)
4tehlulz
Bullshit Obamabot. I know you’re trying to lower expectations here. He has to win by at least 1000% to stay viable.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Can’t happen. He’s polling below 40% in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
SGEW
To join in on the Obama Parade(c), did you know that Sen. Obama had the best transgender-friendly policy of any of the candidates back in January?
A small point, but yet another feather in Sen. Obama’s cap.
(Remember, folks. It’s L.G.B.T. for a reason.)
Also: Yes, I still hold McClurkin against Obama. Has anyone heard of any sort of “rejection or denunciation” of homophobic McClurkin’s remarks?
Scrutinizer
The MUP speaks:
What part of that, p.luk, shows a lack of commitment to LGBT citizens? Perhaps you could give us a quick statistical analysis to show that Clinton’s support of DOMA and DADT is somehow good for LGBT citizens.
4tehlulz
Zogby polls are notoriously inaccurate there.
John S.
I’m shocked.
Dork
Without a doubt, this is clearly a very bad turn of events for Democrats
Broken
That’s right. If he only gains a few more delegates than Clinton, he can’t gain 2000 by the time of the nomination. He’s got to win every delegate from here on in or
Party. Over. Dude.
The Other Steve
Not to mention the terribly important Hong Kong primaries.
The Other Steve
Obama better be careful. If he doesn’t wrap up this nomination before November, the American public may reelect GW Bush.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
[puts on Obama shill hat]
I don’t think you should; I think it’s overkill and people don’t realize it these days.
This being America, you can’t hold people at arm’s length *and* change their minds. There’s no incentive for them to listen, so they won’t unless there’s at least a little bit of carrot somewhere.
I think Obama didn’t do any damage with McClurkin (although a small denunciation couldn’t have hurt). He let him play for the campaign, possibly drawing a few stupid homophobes that might happen to be fans of McClurkin. And maybe a.) they get a bit of Obama-brand chastisement, and/or b.) they find they like Obama and unwittingly vote a pro-gay dude into office.
I wouldn’t have lost any sleep had Obama chosen not to let a stupid hick play for him, but I don’t think he crossed any lines
[/takes off shill hat]
TheFountainHead
P.O.T.D.
ThymeZone
I have long been convinced that the biggest obstacle to progress in gay rights … which is in fact, about the rights of all cultural minorities, in a sense … is not straight people opposing them, it’s gays screwing up their own political fortunes.
I hate to break it to the gay demo here, but straight people are largely fair, decent, reasonable people and not out to cause anybody any grief for no good reason. I don’t know if it has ever ocurred to any of you that “We’re Here, We’re Queer” and “gay marriage”, when civil unions are really what are needed, are just … fucking stupid. Marriage, in case you have missed my umpteen posts on the subject before, is a church institution, and if you are going to change it, then you have to start with the church, not with the government. (See Obama’s Open Letter). On the other hand, if rights and taxation fairness and so forth are what you want, you can have those things without going after “marriage” which is a bastardized government routine grounded in church ceremony. One of the dumbest moves I have ever seen in my lifetime, giving not only no relief to gays but also providing the potatoheads “values” cover for something that is completely bullshit.
Shit, gays don’t even seem to have the sense to stand behind their poster boy for equal treatment, Larry Craig. Stupidest damned thing I ever saw. If you guys, and gals, don’t have the sense to realize that equal treatment is something you can demonstrate by example, why should anyone else fight to give it to you?
Bah, to hell with it. I’m done standing up for the alt lifestyle crowd. If they can’t fight their own battles and do better than they have done so far, too bad. If lukasiak’s comments here are any indication, they are not going to make any real progress any time soon.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Hillary should hire us, we can help spin.
After all, we’re completely aware that Obama is polling less than 45% in Kenya, and Obama
was BORN thereis 100% Kenyanhas a little Kenyan in him. What does THAT say about the people’s support of him???Obama better be careful. If he doesn’t wrap up this nomination before November, the American public may reelect GW Bush.
Studly Pantload
Can someone just get Ann Coulter to spike Mark Penn’s creme brulee so we can end the silly season, already?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
You make complete sense until you add in the fact that it’s easy to manipulate the casual opinions of people with no vested interest — in this case straight people. And Republicans have been doing just that for quite a while now.
You’re completely correct when you talk about straight people with even just a little contact with gays. But there’s a whole swath of the straight and lonely midwest that doesn’t, and the Republicans play with their heads.
Gays aren’t screwing this up. Not yet.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
He denounced his “ex-gay” ministry before the guy even spoke at the event:
Jake
That’s great and it is all true but “we” and “our community” allows every single person in the audience to say “Well, he’s not talking about ME.” For all I know, that’s true because all the gays and lesbians got the fuck out of there the minute they could walk there are no Jewish people or immigrants for 50 miles. So is it refreshing to hear a pol say these things? Sure. Is it courageous? Nope, and in 21st Cen. America, it shouldn’t be.
But hey, to judge from the the fRightWinger reaction, standing up in front of a crowd that hasn’t been subjected to a cavity search is brave now and will only become more courageous if he wins the nomination.
Billy K
I’m gonna agree with Fmr. Chris on this one, and here’s why:
If Obama had made a speech or told the press “I denounce Donnie McClurkin and his homophobic remarks,” all he would’ve done is create a stir. People would’ve gotten pissed off. Nobody has an open mind when they’re pissed off and entrenched for a fight.
What Obama did was let the moment pass, keep the press jackals off it, and now he’s revisiting the mistake he made. He’s on stage, with one of the brightest spotlights in the world on him, telling people to do the right thing. He’s not making accusations or singling anyone out or picking a fight. I believe he has a much better chance of making Donnie McLurkin – and all those who agree with him – reconsider this way.
SGEW
Hmmmm. My personal, anecdotal experience says otherwise (for what that’s worth.
That’s all I’m asking for. It’s old news now, I know, but it rankles a bit.
Sigh. Now on to:
Strong disagreement. LGBT people are not, say, Goths, or NASCAR fans, or Wiccans. Cultural minorities are explicitly protected by well established constitutional law. LGBT rights are not yet as codified (with a few notable exceptions). Also: there is a fundamental difference between sexual identity and cultural identity: LGBT rights transcend (proper use of the word, mind you) culture, religion, and race.
No need to get defensive, yo. I don’t think anyone here’s about to rag on you for being hetero-normative.
Finally:
Sorry I missed commenting on those posts. Basic disagreement from my end: if “marriage” is a religious institution, why is it codified by state and federal law? Isn’t that an obvious violation of the 1st Amendment? Shouldn’t marriage therefore be a purely private affair? If not (or if you have a differing view on Church/State jurisprudence), why are people disallowed from getting married due to their sexual orientation? Isn’t that a violation of their 1st Amendment rights?
Ok, this is getting ridiculous. I have things to do (that involve stepping away from my computer), and I’ve already spent way too much time writing these things.
ThymeZone
I disagree. You suggest that Republicans have some kind of voodoo power over “straight people.” Most straight people I know would just as soon accept their LGBT coworkers, friends, neighbors and relatives without reservation, live and let live, etc.
LGBT folks apparently decided, for example, to ground their political fortunes in the “gay marriage” crusade, apparently giving no thought to the legacy of church crapola — and yes, it is crapola — that surrounds it. They gave no thought to the idea that government lazily and gratuitously subscribed to church marriage as a model and used it as a basis for legal marriage. Gave no thought to the obvious difficulty in trying to break that bond. Apparently rejected the idea of going instead for civil unions, which carry no such baggage.
Straight people want to be fair and reasonable, but they aren’t ready to fight the battle of church and state over gay rights. Failing to see that, even when it was obviously derailing their progress, and still to this day failing to get it, is just stupidity as far as I am concerned.
“Republicans play with their heads” because the movement set it up for them to do that, which is my point. That was not necessary, and not beneficial. It was just dumb.
What’s telling to me is what happens when you say this in public. In my experience, what happens is the LGBT folks can’t wait to tell me to fuck off, they don’t want my advice or help, they are perfectly capable of fighting their own battles.
Great way to enlist the support of the majority of straight people who would gladly see fairer treatment and less homophobia, but aren’t going to fight anyone’s battles for them when we are basically told to go fuck ourselves.
Go fuck myself? Sure, been there and done that, compadres. Now, good luck with your equal rights. Don’t call me when you need support.
Tom in Texas
Excellent point. Might I suggest a new slogan for the Obama campaign, since the “We” thing lets the audience he’s chastising opt out:
“You Do It.”
ThymeZone
Yes. Now, how do you propose to pry marriage away from the state? See, that’s the problem. And that’s why nobody in their right mind would try to do so. And that’s why civil unions are the way to go, and why Barack Obama says so too.
tBone
Sure, he denounced. But did he reject? Repudiate? Spurn? Abjure?
No? Not good enough.
SGEW
Finally (really!), thanks, Woodrow “asim” Jarvis Hill, for that link. That was all I really wanted. How’d I miss that?
Jake
I wondered when we’d hear this bullshit again.
OK kids, for 50 points. Where is the only place people can get a marriage license in YOUR state:
A) Some guy in a van in the grocery store parking lot.
B) The county court house.
C) The Church of the Sacred Bleeding Heart of Jesus located somewhere in Los Angeles California.
D) Any house of worship.
Good, now for another 50 points.
If you have a marriage ceremony conducted by a Justice of the Peace in a County Court House are you:
A) Less married than you would be if you went to a place of worship.
B) More married than you would be if you went to a place of worship.
C) They’re both the same, jackass.
And for a final 50 points.
Is it possible for a man and a woman to get fully and legally married without ever darkening the door of a house of worship?
A) Yes, you tedious twat.
B) No, no, no! It’s still a church matter, the Priest breaks into the Court House at night and blesses the documents!1
ThymeZone
You forgot “eschew.”
And, gesundheit.
Studly Pantload
tBone sez:
Point conceded. Putting a blow torch to it oughtta work, though.
ThymeZone
Christ, try to pay attention, asshole, I have only been talking about this here for three fucking years.
Te point is that the state has co-opted the church’s institution and — IMPROPERLY — codified it.
That’s why the buttheads can stand there and say ONE MAN ONE WOMAN bullshit, because they know that the graft btween the twig of government and the tree of religion has taken now to the point where the liberals aren’t going to be able to break it. They have stacked the deck. The thing is rigged.
If we could go back and do America over, we’d never have legal marriage. We’d have civil unions for everybody, gay and straight, and “marraige,” if you wanted one, the God-approved, Jesus-loved thing, available only in church, where it belongs.
But the problem is you can’t put hundreds of years of toothpaste back in that tube. And the righties know this, and that’s why they love it as a wedge issue.
Punchy
Shorter TZ: aw, hell, it’s just a fucking name. Stop demanding we call it “marriage”! Quit fussing over the term we refer to it as! And please tell all the Negros and Spics over there what I just said.
ThymeZone
In case you are still too dense to get this, Jake, the problem here is that “legal marriage” is a violation of the proper separation of church and state.
But the LGBT problem is that that issue is too big to tackle. In order to break that bond you have to attack not equal rights and protections, you have to go for the most basic bond between church and state that has been cemented by people who are long dead and taken for granted by the people who are alive now.
How far do you think a campaign would get to get rid of legal marriage altogether, which IS the correct and final solution? Why should government define marriage at all?
Jen
Yahoo says he did denounce McClurkin.
Jake
Fortunately, TZ isn’t the duly appointed spokesman for the straight community. He’s just a crotchety old dude who still longs for the days when everyone had to respect his authoritah, or else. “Waaaah! Some gay guy on the internons told me to fuck off. I’m going to hold that against every single gay person I ever meet foreva and you can’t never get married neener neener!”
Maybe an immigrant rights group will kiss his ass and soothe his ego.
ThymeZone
Punchy, why do you think Obama says
What do you think he is talking about?
Do you even get this? I don’t think so.
The bright line between marriage, a church institution, and legal marriage, which is actually civil union, has been blurred by people who intended to blur it and make it impossible for you to redraw that line. They’ve put government into the church business. Government now decides for you that the “godly” version of civil union is the only legal avenue you have.
If you want a classic example of why the Founders tried to set up a distance between church and state, this is it.
ThymeZone
What is wrong with you, man? Seriously.
Are you going to argue that government rightly and appropriately enforces someone’s “godly” view of civil unions?
Because unless you are, then you agree with me, so what the fuck are you talking about?
libarbarian
Not good enough. He has to REJECT them as well!
And frankly, I think Jon Swift is right: Obama MUST reject and denounce Dr. Phil.
Jen
I’m a little behind the curve, or behind Woodrow asim Jarvis Hill today. Sorry.
Kirk Spencer
TZ,
I see your points – to sum, the problem is that while the ‘sanctity of marriage’ is Church and the ‘spousal rights’ are State, the two are so entangled we can’t separate them. So we ‘just’ offer the ‘spousal rights’ to the homosexuals, and to be clear that’s all it is we call it by a different (and accurate) label. “Civil Unions.”
I like it. But it won’t work. It is, quite simply, “separate but equal” and historically that never works. It may at first, but the inevitable result is that those OPPOSED to equal have the opening for their wedge already present.
Frankly, I’d prefer it if all a justice of the peace could do is declare a ‘civil union’ — if the “real” name of the marriage license became declaration of civil contract or some such. As you note, I don’t see it happening. Yet that stealth move would probably have the best effect.
ThymeZone
Actually, dumbshit, it’s the DOMA supporters who want you to stop fussing over what you call it. I am telling you that what you call it is the key to making it work.
When you call it marriage and allow the fuckheads to start telling you that God approves marriage, then you have lost the battle. You’ve let the government co-opt religion right under your nose.
Which is why the smart people are advocating civil union as the solution. Smart people like Barack Obama.
Once civil union is equal to marriage in the law, then “marriage” becomes completely unnecessary as a handle, and the “values” demagogues have no power over you, and the “one man one woman” bullshit stops having any effect.
Martin
Actually Jake, there are two answers.
There is ‘marriage’ as the state sees it, on which you are correct. Get the form, get the signature, ‘bam!’ you’re married – extra fun on your 1040.
There is ‘marriage’ as each church sees it, who could give a flying fuck about the license. They’ll gladly marry you without it, though the state won’t much care. My wife church has gay marriages all the time (no license).
Much of the issue is that it’s hard to change one without it looking like a move to change the other.
Lesson #5,293 on why the state should not have appropriated a religious term, even if it didn’t give a shit about the meaning behind it.
Punchy
He’s talking about the fastest way for gays to have equal rights (unless they’re flying, and the pilot is a rabid anti-gay evangelly, and he can deny all gays the privelege of flying….right?).
That does not mean that’s what gays want. That does not mean that’s where gays should stop. They want equal rights and equal terms. Perhaps you’re too old and set in your ways to see that equal terms is pretty wicked important; most of us have grown up seeing gays make ridiculously enormous leaps into societal acceptance and have no reason to believe they wont make this one, too.
ThymeZone
No, don’t agree. First of all, I am not talking about “separate but equal.” I am talking about “separate.”
The government is under no obligation to provide cover for something “equal” to marriage, because marriage is a religious idea. Let the churches have all the marriage rules, rites, vows, and ceremony they desire. Who cares?
Legal unions should be separate, and NOT equal. The law has no business deciding what God would like or not like about a union. And it has no obligation to do so.
Separate but equal is entirely out of bounds here. Government has no obligation to provide for the existence of marriage. It may at its discretion provide tax and other legal advantages for people to live together and create family units. It has neither the right or the duty to go to the church to ask permission or get instructions on how to do that.
Jake
Back so soon and still confused.
On the one hand we get a bunch of mumbo jumbo about how marriage in America shouldn’t have been defined by the church but since it was defined by the church we can’t get a do over so we’re stuck with marriage defined by the church and only the church foreva, suck it, fags.
Then we get, America shouldn’t have defined marriage using the church’s definition but it did teh gheys shouldn’t want to get married they should want civil unions which doesn’t have any baggage and is almost the same as getting married just like a separate but equal train car and it won’t annoy the hets. or at least hets named TZ but same thing really.
In TZ world a CU is the same as a Marriage License (in many states it isn’t) and the So-Cons are play nice because Adam and Steve have a CU instead of a marriage license.
I can’t tell. Is this sad or funny?
Martin
You guys are missing that there are two separate civil union debates.
One is to offer civil unions as a state recognized equivalent to state recognized marriage.
The other is to banish ‘marriage’ from all government writing and replace it with ‘civil unions’.
The former has a separate but equal problem, the latter doesn’t.
So if you go to church for the rice chucking ceremony, it will be a ‘marriage’ followed by the ritual signing of the ‘civil union’ so you can get an extra $300 this year.
Jake
Because the same guys who believe the world was created in seven days, Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs and Baby Jesus is going to scoop them up to heaven for an eternity of pork rinds and watching sinners burn are SOO responsive to logic.
These people will never, ever, ever shut the fuck up. The less people listen to them the louder they’ll scream. Try to take away whatever they’re screaming about (jiggery pokery with Civil Unions) and they will follow your ass, still screaming and find three more things to scream about along the way.
ThymeZone
That is exactly why they are wrong, why they have a wall of opposition, and why they have made it harder to get what they need, and are in fact entitled to, which is civil unions and the legal equalities that go with them.
On this, we totally disagree. We also disagree on the Obama reference. I do not agree that he is just talking about the “fastest” way there, he is talking about the best, the correct, and the proper way there.
You, and the LGBT world apprenly, are making the same foolish mistake. You are not content to have the equal rights, you want people to call them what you want to call them. You have to go after a dysfunctional nexus between church and state that is as old as the Republic and will be defended tooth and nail by …. let’s say, misguided people, to be kind to them. And asking straights to take on that battle is just dumb, tone deaf, stupid politics.
DougJ
I’m glad someone was here to say this. I can’t show up to say it every thread.
Mike
Obama was fooling around with Herb Tarlek’s wife?
Punchy
Work? What, do you speak for all gays? How do you know they want the right without the name? They probably should take what they can get, at least short-term, but my gay friends tell me “civil unions” is just seperate-but-legally equal bullshit. The term is deragotory.
ThymeZone
Right, but the part you’re missing here is, the people who don’t have an axe to grind, the middle lump of straights who really just want everyone to be okay and get along, like me for example, are not interested in fighting a church v state battle with those idiots! It’s futile, for one thing, and aggravating for another.
So why put us through that? To give gays their precious “marriage” label? No, and THAT, and not homophobia, is where most of your political resistance to gay marriage is coming from. That simple fact, which is easily overcome, but won’t be.
ThymeZone
Work legally. Not “work” as in making gays feel good.
In the same way that Obama means it, and for the same reason.
Punchy
Best for whom, TZ? Not for gays.
ThymeZone
That’s ridiculous. It is not derogatory, it is accurate and descriptive of the actual nature of the law.
Legal marriage is in fact civil union. Only a trick of language has made it possible for churchheads to make you think that there is some godly or moral value to the latter term. The government has no godly or moral authority in the matter. Their “marriage” is basically a con job, a civil union painted up to look like a religious statement.
The government has no right purpose to be in the marriage business. Let the churches have their definition of the thing. Who cares? Fuck the churches. Call the thing what is is, a civil bond, a civil union.
Ralph
Courage? Values?
Obama pledged to combat illegals entering from Mexico by helping the Mexican economy. That doesn’t mesh with what he said about NAFTA recently. He keeps talking about improving America’s standing abroad but pulling out of NAFTA isn’t going to sit well with our neighbor to the south or north. So to smooth that out as reported by CTV, Austan Goolsbee Obama’s lead economic adviser contacted told the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago that when Obama talks about opting out of NAFTA, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry because it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously. LOL.. Now Goolsbee refuses to say whether he had the conversation. That should tell you that he had it.
Obama is just a slick talking pandering politician. I’m afraid the MUP has thrown a shoe. Any of you people having buyers remorse?
ThymeZone
For everyone. The the church’s fingers are pried away from the levers of government and government is free to treat these unions for what they are, which is a package of legal advantages that attend to the untions, then we are all better off. The Dobsonites are disempowered. The bigots are disempowered. The LGBTs are empowerd.
Everybody wins.
Punchy
Pretty sure it works just fine legally if you call it “marriage”.
Gotta run. It’s been fun yapping. Cant wait to have this long-awaited frozen margy….
ThymeZone
“when the church’s fingers …”
ThymeZone
No, because doing so literally “marries” the church’s ownership of the idea to the government’s sanction of it. A clear breakdown of church-state separation, giving rise to the idea that government is in the God business.
Let the church be in the God business, and let the government be in the business of granting advantages to families, and allow the people to define what a family is.
Brachiator
What an odd, narrow, almost bigoted interpretation.
Do you really think that there were no gays in the audience? No Jews or immigrants? No black gays? By any interpretation, the phrase “our gay brothers and sisters” speaks of “us,” not “you” vs “me.”
It’s a doubly brave speech because it will obviously give the hypocritical “family values” wing of the GOP smear machine ammunition to use against him.
Jake
Yep, ‘cos the “battle” over marriage is a lot nastier than the battle over civil rights for African-Americans. No non-black people wanted to get involved in that futile aggravating mess. Nuh-uh. No way.
Oh wait. They did. They risked life and limb. They were threatened, beat up and murdered. But cast a vote or just sit back and mind your own fucking business (see Massachussets). Are you crazy??
John S.
I think that is precisely what TZ is arguing, and if so, I agree.
If the LBGT community wants all the legal, tax and other associated benefits of being married, then they should push for civil unions and be done with it. That would be the pragmatic approach.
If the LBGT community wants to stand on principle and accept nothing less than the word ‘marriage’, then quite frankly they will get nothing anytime soon. This seemingly preferred method is the idealistic approach.
And honestly, I don’t see much parallel between this situation and other ‘separate but equal’ cases. The whole repugnant point of that doctrine is that it attempts to create socially acceptable segregation. Simply calling a marriage a civil union does no such thing – and while it may create a separate but equal legal status for the two individuals, doing so carries no real visceral consequences – unlike Lincoln’s policies. It’s really just semantics.
Is the word really more important than the thing itself?
Zifnab
Shorter TZ: In my day, we had civil rights movements lead by people who didn’t have their heads up their asses. You young’ins are doing it all wrong! Now get off mah lawn!
Ok, seriously, its great that you’ve decided to take a turn in the “right wing talking points victim” ring, but you are totally off base here.
Firstly, straight people are largely ass hats. I can say that, being a straight person. Our demographic gave us Country Western, the 80s, and George Bush Jr. Twice. We are not nice people. We are not gentle and friendly, like the humble gazelle. We’re loud, we’re proud, we’re dickwads, get used to it. And if we even so much as think you may be having some sort of non-vaginal sex, we will beat you to death with a sack of hammers because its so weird!.
Secondly, civil unions != gay marriage. I know you like to tell yourself that if we have six of one and half a dozen of another, we’ve got the same game. But civil unions are a legal patchwork that always manage to leave the couple deprived. The Vermont version of civil unions only provide benefits at the state level and the legal rights don’t extend past the boarder, they don’t grant citizenship rights, they don’t grant sick leave for spouses or the children of spouses, and they leave the couple exposed to interstate insurance companies and businesses that don’t acknowledge civil unions. They are, functionally, two different legal contracts. I’ll agree that a name is just a name. And, frankly, I’d like to see us dissolve the term “marriage”, reserve it for churches, and make every married couple civilly unionized. But separate in this case continues to be inherently unequal. Gays aren’t asking to be married in the site of James Dobson, they’re asking for the same legal protections afforded their heterosexual counterparts. It’s the wackjob fundies who want you to believe differently.
I won’t even get into standing up for Larry Craig. That guy was trying to play by Bush Rules, and I’m more than happy to see him slapped for playing the “I’m a Senator” card to escape punishment. Standing up for hypocrisy over the rule of law is just dumb.
Tom in Texas
I would point out that separating the two in the form TZ suggests would allow anyone to marry any individuals they want and call it marriage.
If the Mormons want to hold polygamist ceremonies and marry a man to multiple wives, I for one am fine with that. For the purposes of tax benefits and legal rights , a person may have only one spouse.
p.lukasiak
re: Obama’s “denouncing” McClurkin.
That’s kinda like Obama “denouncing” what Farrakhan says about Jews, then making him a featured speaker at a rally.
*****************
Actually, p.lukasiak, Obama does indeed tell them that gays and lesbians deserve equality. Re-read the Smith piece.
actually, he says that, get a less than stirring reaction, and then regains the crowd’s approval by diverting re-focussing attention on the the “un-Christian” things that “some people say”. Its really just the equivalent of “hate the sin, not the sinner.”
ThymeZone
Nope. My solution begins with taking government out of the marriage business. You can get a license to form a union or family or whatever you want to call it.
Whether it’s a marriage or not, or you call it that, is not the government’s business.
As for polygamy, that’s a really interesting thought.
How does it serve society — or families — that a family can have only two legal principals? Why is that a good thing?
It’s my opinion that once you take the moral and sex police out of the equation, you are free to start really examining what a family actually is, or what relationship you want the law to have with it. That to me is a fringe benefit of going about this the right way.
ThymeZone
Nope, what I am saying is clear, and if you insist on taking my words and turning them into your words, then we can’t have the conversation.
I am saying something that is obviously not what you are describing.
Jake
I don’t do snark tags but I have no idea who was or wasn’t in the audience. For his comments to have any power he’d have to be addressing a community where anti-Semitism, homophobia and xenophobia were bad enough to yes, cause people who didn’t want to deal with that shit to get out or stay away. If that isn’t the case then again, everyone in the audience can say “Well, there are two Jewish people and one gay guy and a Korean family so he’s not talking about US.”
As for “our gay brothers and sisters,” that’s funny. Haven’t you ever heard a preacher address his congregation as “My brothers and sisters”? If Obama had said “Our fellow gay and lesbian Americans,” it’d be the same thing.
And in other news, water is wet. He can’t blink without those fucks trying to figure out if it is code for “Attack the Infidels!” Of course they’re going to use this to smear him and they won’t let the fact that they’ve been claiming he’s a Jew hating stealth Islamokiller stop them from claiming he wants to make your kids marry gay Jewish immigrants.
DougJ
Wow, look at the Democrats fighting among themselves. This is why you will lose in November.
Thank God I’m an independent.
p.lukasiak
I just started watching some of the video…
did Obama “pick up” a little Texas drawl for the speech?
And maybe its just the sound quality, but in his debate performances, he generally articulates his consonants much more crisply than he does at the beginning of his speech here. (“wanna”, “wunnerful”).
ThymeZone
Adjusted.
DougJ
That could just be an after effect of the coke he snorted before the speech.
DougJ
My side wins every election because my side is the American people.
ThymeZone
“We’re the people.”
Ma Joad.
Now I know what the J is, you are Doug Joad.
Tom in Texas
Ok then, we agree.
I can’t search for the thread now (perhaps after work) but a few years ago when I first started posting I was arguing my position on this. It was, and remains, virtually identical to yours.
ThymeZone
This has always been my position. The gay marriage thing is really jus the tip of a big ugly iceberg.
The iceberg is a (sorry) marriage between church and state. When nobody was looking, they joined the church’s idea of marriage with all its crazy god stuff and moral nonsense and sexual power and control crap into the legal idea of giving families a basis for tax and other advantages so as to promote families.
Problem is, our understanding of what a family is has long outgrown the concept, but we are stuck with this ugly old useless idea of “marriage” anyway.
And along come the LGBTs and decide that they want marriage too! Thereby making it harder to fix the real problem and giving new life to all the dysfunctions and manipulations and dishonesties built into the old model. And instead of seeing that the LGBTs want you to think that this whole fight is all about them.
It isn’t. It’s about all of our rights to define what unions and familes really are, and make the government serve our real interests. One reason why gays can’t get straights to join in the fight more than they do is because the fight isn’t the right fight.
Zifnab
Sorry, that post was late as my intertubes were full of the poker chips Ted Stevens warned me about. I did not get your clarification.
That said, I’m in full agreement with you on the redefining marriage thing. To be fair, it was a religious institution long before it was a legal matter. Legal systems simply adopted the model because that was the easiest way to go about things.
But, much like any good invention of its time, marriage needs modernization. Again, I’m totally in agreement with you that it needs to be divorced (zing!) from the church and turned into a proper legal contract no different than a business license or a last will and testament.
That Republicans can bitch and moan about the Estate Tax, then turn around and try to tell me who I can or can’t split my bank account with makes them the most ridiculous jackass hucksters to grace our great nation.
Xenos
Oh, TZ, you have GOT to be kidding me. The history of marriage is a hell of a lot more complex and polymorphous than this. For example, in Massachusetts, there was nothing but civil, explicitly non-religious marriages for decades before the first religious marriage took place. The Catholics and the Anglicans consider marriage a sacrament because Jesus showed up at a wedding and brought the drinks. The puritans, who made the rules in colonial Massachusetts for the first 50 years thought that to be utter hogwash, and refused to marry anyone in the church. Or to recognize any church-based marriages.
When a priest marries someone here, they do so as an agent of the state. If they do not get prior authority to do so, and unless the license is properly secured and still valid at the time of the ceremony, there is no marriage. You can’t get a divorce, you can’t get an annulment, you can’t get a legal separation with rights to support – the marriage is a nullity. At best, you can seek to prove a partnership of such character that after separation one party is entitled to some sort of damages through equitable principles.
There are three parties to a wedding: two people and the government. The Church, any church, is just an optional stage setting allowable at the whim of the Commonwealth.
People were getting married under Roman law, Anglo-Saxon law, Britonic, Pictic, Gaelic, Danish and Norse law all without the presence of any religious authority, much less a church, long before the introduction of Christianity. Marriage predates and exists outside of the church, except where civil authorities have decided to cede that institution to a state religion. This was usually a matter of the institution of tyrrany, and certain English kings lost their heads and thrones over this sort of thing. (For example, the Ulster Presbyterians where once, as a people, stripped of birth legitimacy by a British law that declared all non-Anglican marriages void – in case you ever wondered how they got to be such bastards).
There is no jurisdiction in the United States where any church has a legal right to control marriage… that may have been the case in certain Anglican controlled colonies (I am thinking of Virginia here, but certainly not Pennsylvania, New York, or Maryland) prior to the revolution, but nowhere, nohow, since then.
ScottS
TZ,
I’m no fan of the political tactics of my gay brethren. Bitter minorities don’t play well. But bitterness it is. It is unfortunately unsurprising that the activist crowd went for the divisive but ineffectual Hillary and her politics of tokenism over the conflicted nuance of Obama, whose rhetoric of respect will do more to advance gay lives than the Clinton lip service trip. Why did they? Is it too self-loathing to say that some gays want revenge as much as they want respect?
Why did the State recognize and reward marriages in the first place? Because stable couples are good for kids and good for society? Or because it codified patriarchy?
To say that using the label of “marriage” enmeshed the State with the church is absurd. It’s a label, and as such, only means a little to me in terms of equality compared to all the privileges of a civil union. It’s a word, and religion doesn’t own it. It is a word whose meaning has shifted over time, and can shift again. The people that claim that humanity has defined the word marriage as one man and one woman are mistaken, as polygamy was rampant in biblical times. Moreover, not long ago people quoted scripture to defend marriage as limited to members of the same race. The limits on marriage have changed and are changing again, because the positive aspects to marriage are the same no matter what you call it: love, companionship, commitment, social peace. I believe that religions blessing marriages are reaffirming all of those things in addition to officially saying “God says you can fuck now.”
And btw, while I’m not one of them, quite a few gays believe in God, belong to a church, and wanted their church to affirm and witness the love in their relationship like their friends, neighbors, brothers, sisters, and fellow congregants. Getting pissy with them as if “gay marriage” was just a political tactic is disrespectful. Some people didn’t want to get married in a courthouse or have a civil union in a church. They wanted to be married in the eyes of God and church and State. It isn’t your place to kick them out of their own church and say that this politically inconvenient timing was stupid. Simultaneously asking that their church and their government respect their relationship isn’t inconsistent.
Cast the blame where it belongs, on those that believe that calling civil unions civil marriage somehow interferes in their religion, when in fact no government action is ever going to force a church to perform a marriage ceremony it doesn’t want to perform. Show me how a same-sex couple married by the State hurts someone else’s marriage. Show me how a same-sex couple married by the State affects someone else’s religion. Strong marriages and strong religions aren’t threatened by whatever label gay couples adopt upon taking vows.
ThymeZone
Why? Who decided that? Where is the Consitutional basis for it? What is the moral basis for it? On what basis does the law as it exists truly serve the interests of society at large, or familes in general, or particular familes? Why should the law defer to the church for its definition of marriage and what it can be?
Why should people be forced to hew to an ancient and obsolete definition of marriage, union, and family in order to enjoy the benefits that are accorded some families? Why should any family have to do that, gay or straight?
If marriage is such a good idea, why is the divorce rate so high? If the family rests on the foundation of our legal marraige, then isn’t it in serious, probably morbid trouble right now as we speak, and shouldn’t we be reexamining it?
When the morons talk about One man and One woman, where do you think that idea comes from? Is that an American idea? Is it a Constitutional principle? Did the Founders worry about it? Is it essential to America, freedom, or any of the benefits of the American Experiment? Why should it be codified?
Why should people who want to build a family in 2008 be constrained by ideas from that list of ancients that you cite, or the church, or any other external authority or legacy?
I certainly am not kidding, but I think you are. If you are telling me that people today have to kneel to that list of stuff that you posted in order to form and preserve a family under the law, then I tell you, the law is broken. Throw the law away, and start over.
ThymeZone
That’s the way it should be, but not the way it is.
The reason why you hear about DOMA is because there are people out there who think that religion does own it, and are looking to tighten up that ownership at your peril.
ThymeZone
It won’t, when government is rightly and finally taken out of the marriage business.
As for the family and union, the real institutions we should be caring about, same sex families dont hurt mixed sex ones, or vice versa. Which is why you have to get government out of the business of approving who can be a family.
ThymeZone
Amen. Er, right on.
John S.
As of today, I am officially a Jew-hating Jew (though not a stealth Islamofascist). Well, at least one Jew anyway. Matan Vilnai, Israel’s deputy defense minister.
What. A. Putz.
metalgrid
Well said Scott, you saved me the trouble of writing a long(er) post.
One of the best results we can get from going for marriage is that it will help decouple marriage as a religious perk. It never was religious – it was always a social construct, that churches and governments attempted to co-opt. Since societies elect governments, it’s only natural that social structures achieve a parallel structure within the law. However, since societies also indulge in religion, it is not surprising that churches too decided to co-opt such structures such as marriage.
Next, I would like to point out that only by going for marriage will gays actually be able to achieve civil unions. It’s the whole thing with the Overton Window. No doubt it’ll happen incrementally, from domestic partnerships to civil unions to full marriages, but the homos needs to rally around marriage to get the centric heteros to shift from a heterosexist definition of marriage to CUs, and the uncomfortable heteros to shift from “gays better get into miserable marriages with people of the opposite sex and get their sex in public bathrooms like upstanding Republicans” thought process to going along with DPs or CUs.
Obama hasn’t exactly won me over after the McClurkin incident. First for insulting homos with the reperative therapy failure and then telling us that we were “hermetically sealed” from communities of faith. The latter was honestly more insulting than the former. I’m not hermetically sealed from communities of faith. I’m quite aware of them and their goals of making gay lives so miserable that gay kids will kill themselves at an early age and so save the communities of faith from having to beat and kill them when they grow upto be gay adults. I’m sure xtians are quite relieved at the rate of gay teen suicide – after all, if all those kids grew up, there’ll be a lot more sin going on.
Xenos
But it doesn’t. And it hasn’t. For example, instead of having puritan forefathers, you Arizonians have a marital system that is rooted purely in civil code – no barbarian legal traditions.
But what are the roots of that civil code? It is NOT the church Canon law. It is based on pagan Roman law, such as that codified under Justinian. Where did Roman Catholic Canon law come from? It was adapted from… Justinian’s code. My point? It all goes back to Pagan law.
If you take the church out of the picture, then your points are more libertarian than anything- why should heterosexual monogamy be privileged with legal status, and so on? Any answers have to be rooted outside of religious authority. This is something that needs to be worked out, but in the meantime NOTHING should be ceded to the control of religious authorities, not even a not-legally-significant control over the term “marriage”.
metalgrid
We don’t have to throw the law away – a few tweaks here and there, a few judicial rulings to expand child support to more than 1 parent, and the laws will change with the social structures we create for ourselves.
It’s easier to change a law than it is to change the words of some god.
Martin
I think you guys are descending into legal minutae unnecessarily. The challenge isn’t how marriage is defined by the state as it might be tied to the church. The challenge is that by the state expanding who can be ‘married’, the church sees it as a violation of whatever codes they want to use to represent marriage. In that respect, it *does* potentially hurt someone else’s marriage, because they have some specific divine blessing tied to it. If you use a different word for the civil union, the church doesn’t need to defend it’s term and worry that people will think that it is supportive of the state right.
The terms need to be separate not because there is an inherent tie between civil union and religious marriage, but because you’ll never muster support from a population that is afraid that the term will be shifted out from under their own use. It’s votes (and perhaps some respect), not law that drives the need.
John S provides a convenient little example:
Why are they loath to use the word to describe other things? Because they don’t want the emotional attachment and memory of Shoah to be undermined. That’s a good thing. If you diminish the meaning of the word by expanding it, you diminish the listeners connection to the event. It’s why some black comedians use ‘nigger’ – they are defusing it by shifting it’s meaning. Shifting the meaning of ‘marriage’ doesn’t matter one whit to me being an atheist, but it matters a shitload to people that attach a certain divine meaning to it – and ‘gay marriage’ blows a big fucking hole in that meaning. You have to respect the fact that THEY care if you want to make any headway on the problem. Simply use a different term at the state level and a decent chunk of opposition goes away since the church retains control of the definition of ‘marriage’.
Xenos
Shorter Martin: “Just surrender to the Ayatollahs, already.”
The word marriage has an established meaning: whatever the STATE says it is, subject to changes in the laws through democratic processes within a constitutional framework. We don’t need to make marriage secular — it already is, and except for times of religious tyranny, it always has been.
There is no damn way that because religious authoritarians won’t back down from this fight that the religious moderates, agnostics, atheists, and passionate constitutionalists should just say “heck, they are going to burn the house down if we don’t give it to them, so let them have it.”
Molon Labe (come and take it from me)!
Come on Americans – are not some fights worth having?
Darkrose
If the LBGT community wants all the legal, tax and other associated benefits of being married, then they should push for civil unions and be done with it. That would be the pragmatic approach.
Except for one thing:
DOMA.
I live in California with my Registered Domestic Partner. As far as the State of CA is concerned, we’re equivalent to any other family unit. To the Feds, though, whether we call it a “domestic partnership” or a “civil union” or a “marriage” is irrelevant, because, thanks to DOMA, we can’t be considered a family unit.
Personally, I don’t care what it’s called, as long as I get the same rights and responsibilities as my straight, married co-workers. Right now, though, even without the word “marriage”, I’m still screwed–and not only that, but the fundies are trying to take that away as well. Look at Kentucky, which passed a referendum in 2006 that denied state insistutions the ability to offer domestic partner benefits. Or Texas, which specifically referenced “marriage or any other arrangements similar to marriage” as being off-limits to two people of the same gender.
It doesn’t matter what word we use. The fundies would prefer that we don’t exist at all, or if we do, for God’s sake, don’t tell anyone.
Martin
Shorter Xenos: “I’ll give up my word when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.”
Dude, it’s a word. Give them the word. They have as much right to it as the state since it originated in a place where they were the same thing.
So let the ayatollahs have their word and define it however they damn well want. Over here, the adults will have their word, the one with legally binding power, and we will define it the way we want. If they want to throw rice after signing our piece of paper, that’s cool.
Conservatively Liberal
I find it interesting that Clinton supporters like to point out that the other side has certain people who are accused of not supporting ‘this’ or ‘that’ cause. In the case of McClurkin it is GLBT issues. Time for a reality check here; your hot issue has to get in line with every other issue out there for Obama to win. Despite McClurkin, Obama’s campaign is saying what needs to be said about GLBT issues without dividing people.
To me, it sometimes seems that the GLBT crowd want to win by clubbing everyone to death with their issues. I think that approach is counterproductive in the long run. If you want to change minds, you have to work at changing them with dialog. Some people react defensively because they have the perception that they are under attack (as the right wing meme feeds them). Changing that perception takes talk, and Obama is striking a fair balance between the two sides.
Change is incremental, not sudden. You win and lose lots of battles, but it is not over until you win the war. Trench warfare, like we have between the two sides now, does not work. You are not engaging your ‘enemy’, and that only makes the battle drag on.
Obama needs everyone to win, and that is why he has people he disagrees with working for him. He is willing to work with everyone to find a reasonable common ground to start with.
AkaDad
I really need to get this off my chest. I completely denounce and reject bad stuff.
Thanks for listening.
p.lukasiak
To me, it sometimes seems that the GLBT crowd want to win by clubbing everyone to death with their issues.
gosh. sorry. Its just that as a gay man, I’d like a candidate who cares as much about overt homophocia as s/he does about overt anti-semitism.
I’ll try to remember my place from now on.
jake
Exactly. A question for the older folks: If I’d told you 15 years ago that state school boards would cave in to the knuckle draggers who want to call evolution a theory or teach creationism, oops, “intelligent design” as science, who here wouldn’t have told me to lay off the smack?
I happen to feel very strongly that any member of a school board who agrees to this bullshit ought to be forced to sit on a Bunsen buner. But, according to the Just A Wordists, it doesn’t really matter if we call evolution a theory or a science. Or we should just make up another term for evolution and let the fUndies have “science,” because there’s no point in fighting over a silly little word. It just upsets some nasty people and, well, it’s too hard. Isn’t that how it works? Did I miss anything?
Yep, a few loud mouths and the entire group must be rotten. This is what we get for failing to have message discipline like the meek little lambs on the Right. I sure wish you’d provide some examples of this clubbing to death tho’. I live right outside the Hedonists’ Republic of D.C. and we’re too busy holding orgies and crack smoking contests to get up to much else. Never mind, I’ll take your word for it.
Xenos
Pretty much. The civil war was worth half a million dead to determine what the word “person” in the constitution really meant. It may (may!) not be worth open warfare to determine what “marriage” means, but we are not worthy of our liberty if we cave in on this sort of thing.
These are not legalisms, this is the law. These are not curious historical trivia, this is our patrimony. This is not “culture war”, this is jihad waged on me and my five young children, who would live in liberty purchased with their ancestors’ blood, sweat and tears. Fuck the bastards.
PaulB
“If the LBGT community wants all the legal, tax and other associated benefits of being married, then they should push for civil unions and be done with it. That would be the pragmatic approach.”
Unfortunately, civil unions do not, in fact, offer “all the legal, tax, and other associated benefits of being married.” Hence, the reluctance to adopt that approach.
As for TZ’s approach, to try to redefine the civil institution of marriage such that it is no longer called “marriage,” since there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening any time in the next 100 years or so, forgive me if I find the argument pointless, not to mention more than a little silly in its denial of reality.
PaulB
“If you use a different word for the civil union, the church doesn’t need to defend it’s term and worry that people will think that it is supportive of the state right.”
There is only one problem with this argument: it will never happen. Those who are fighting same-sex marriage will fight just as hard any attempt to redefine the civil institution of marriage, even if all you’re doing is changing the word. This will not end until those dinosaurs die out, at which point it will no longer matter because same-sex marriage will already be accepted everywhere.
Conservatively Liberal
Maybe I should have added the word ‘some’? Hey, we all have differing points of view here, and I am only offering mine. That does not make it the ‘right’ opinion, it is just someone expressing their thoughts and it carries no more weight than that.
I am not gay, so I can’t speak for gay issues from that POV. I can only speak of them from my POV, and that is all I did. No offense was meant, and you just keep doing whatever you think is right.
I think a good way to note the difference between our views when you associate antisemitism with discrimination of GLBT’s. While you may see it that way, I do not. This does not automatically mean that I am right though, it just means that we do not see it the same way.
I don’t think the government should be in the marriage approval business. I would be fine if the government made it so that marriage was superfluous by making civil unions the law of the land. Then if you want to take the additional step of a church wedding, do so. That way everyone is equal, and the government is out of the marriage business for good.
Let the churches do marriages, but it has to be approved with a civil union to be legal. Make the ‘marriage’ an option for those so inclined. That way kind of takes the air out of the argument on both sides, IMO.
John S.
I’ll tell you right now to lay off the smack.
Here in Florida – and many other states – evolution is still called a theory, so your example sucks.
It really doesn’t matter how you refer to it. Kids that are taught it properly will come to understand that it is a theory whose hypothesis is easily provable. They will understand the concept of the thing itself regardless of what they call it. If they choose to reject those facts on the basis of faith, that is their perogative, but how they refer to it doesn’t shape their understanding – their understanding shapes how they refer to it.
At the end of the day what I call the science of evolution and what a creationist calls the theory of evolution is the same fucking thing. The process of adaptation by any other name is still evolution.
John S.
In some places it does grant equal rights. In other places, not so much.
It depends entirely on how the civil union is legally defined and whether or not the appropriate agencies (IRS, insurance, government) are required to acknowledge them under that law. You simply cannot fault the term ‘civil union’ for failing to deliver the goods. It is the fault of the people defining the scope and reach of the term.
And I don’t buy that it is because of this that the approach is rejected. It’s rejected because the greater LGBT community at large has decided they aren’t willing to settle for anything less than ‘marriage’.
PaulB
“In some places it does grant equal rights.”
No. You’re forgetting federal rights, privileges, and responsibilities, none of which are available to someone in a “civil union.”
PaulB
“You simply cannot fault the term ‘civil union’ for failing to deliver the goods.”
Um, yes, actually I can. The word simply does not mean the same thing that “marriage” does, nor, as noted, does it grant the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities. In any case, you simply cannot leave emotion out of the equation.
“It is the fault of the people defining the scope and reach of the term.”
No, it’s the fault of the people who think that “separate but equal” is valid, not to mention the fault of the bigots who will fight tooth and nail to prevent same-sex relationships from being recognized in any way.
“And I don’t buy that it is because of this that the approach is rejected.”
That’s your problem. Since you have failed to support your assertion, forgive me if I fail to take it seriously.
“It’s rejected because the greater LGBT community at large has decided they aren’t willing to settle for anything less than ‘marriage’.”
Appropriately so, nor have you provided any reason why they should, in fact, settle for anything less.
jake
PaulB has already addressed why the idea of creating a new thing that is exactly the same as marriage but isn’t really marriage is met with loud raspberries. Suppose the next President said “We’ll undo the damage the Bush Administration has done to the Constitution, but it’ll take a hundred years or so.”
But what you’re describing isn’t different from what happens now. Unless I missed something when friends & relatives have gotten married they have to go to the court house to get a license.
A pastor, priest, mullah, rabbi, shaman can talk and wave his arms over a couple until he’s blue in the face but he can’t create a legal marriage, but he can sign the paper that the couple got from the state. And guess what? The priest etc can and does place all sorts of restrictions on what he’ll sign. Ever met a non-Catholic who wanted to marry a Catholic in a Catholic church? Yikes. I don’t know this for a fact, but I’m going to guess if John and Jane Goy decide to marry they can’t bop into a synagogue and demand the Rabbi marry them.
The idea that same-sex marriage will infringe on religions is distractovision. File it with “We have to listen to your calls or terrorists will kill you!” and forget it.
PaulB
By the way, John, citing the IRS in your post was particularly disingenuous, since you know damn well that the IRS does not recognize civil unions.
Martin
Except you can simply dismiss them out of hand at that point. They have no moral argument because their argument is based on something that we just cut off and tossed away. Sure, you’ll have 25% of the country raising hell over it, but you don’t need to win everyone – just 2/3rds.
John S.
Such as?
Yeah, the word actually does mean the same thing. If it doesn’t grant the same rights as marriage, that isn’t the fault of the word, it is the fault of the people defining it.
No. It is the fault of the people that continue to allow the civil union laws that exist to be defined under a doctrine of ‘separate but equal’. Same-sex relationships are already recognized in some places and people need to focus on ensuring that those laws are made to grant the same legal priveleges as marriage. Again, the word is insignificant except for emotional value, as you noted.
Ditto.
They shouldn’t settle for anything less, but neither should they get hung up on a word. I find that incredibly foolish.
John S.
You should try reading for context.
I guess it was disingenuous for me to imply that the IRS isn’t required to acknowlede civil unions, eh?
jake
Did I say anything about Florida? Nope. Oh well.
Actually, the IDers say it isn’t easily provable and want their own just as not easily provable theory stuck alongside evolution and taught the same way. But I’m sure the fourth graders will be able to figure out that one not easily provable theory is more easily provable than any other theories they’re being taught.
Or you could just say “Look assholes, we’re not teaching your religion as science no matter how much you scream that it really truly is science.”
My way is much easier.
Leo
“The civil war was worth half a million dead to determine what the word “person” in the constitution really meant.”
This is so stupid. We didn’t fight over the word “person,” we fought over the SLAVERY. You know, the real, material non-semantic degradation of a vast number of people? Words matter, but some things matter more.
John S.
Oh, I guess you live on planet “Florida Isn’t Part of the United States”, then.
So on your planet, they teach Biology to 4th graders? Fascinating.
Too bad it doesn’t actually work. At least on this planet.
John S.
Precisely.
The words ‘civil union’ or ‘marriage’ aren’t nearly as important as making sure that same-sex couples are granted the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
States like New Jersey have done what they can to make sure this applies, but they only have jurisdiction over their own state. The next logical step is to make sure certain federal agencies do the same.
PaulB
“I guess it was disingenuous for me to imply that the IRS isn’t required to acknowlede civil unions, eh?”
LOL… John, give it up. When you’re trying to defend a post that claims that civil unions are identical to marriages, citing an organization where the two are emphatically different is silly.
John S.
Again, reading for context is your friend.
Yeah, that sounds exactly like your synopsis. Not.
Although, I should have clarified that it grants equal rights in some cases within the state where the law applies. My mistake.
PaulB
“Such as?”
Oh, please. You know damn well that there are roughly 1000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities that go along with the term “marriage” that are not available to those in a “civil union.” And if you don’t, then what the hell are you doing discussing this topic? Again, see “disingenuous.”
“Yeah, the word actually does mean the same thing.”
No, it doesn’t, not practically, not legally, and not emotionally.
“If it doesn’t grant the same rights as marriage, that isn’t the fault of the word, it is the fault of the people defining it.”
LOL…. Hmm… gee, how about if we use the word farglesnoot to define relationships from now on? It means the same thing as “marriage.” And there’s no difference, right? Give me a flipping break.
“No. It is the fault of the people that continue to allow the civil union laws that exist to be defined under a doctrine of ‘separate but equal’.”
Um, John, they are, in fact, not equal, so I’m not sure what point you think you are making.
“Same-sex relationships are already recognized in some places and people need to focus on ensuring that those laws are made to grant the same legal priveleges as marriage. Again, the word is insignificant except for emotional value, as you noted.”
“But aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” John, why are you so blithely tossing aside emotion?
“Ditto.”
LOL… Dear heart, which assertion would that be? That civil unions are not the same thing as marriages? There is ample evidence on this thread. Your assertion, on the other hand, about the motivations of gay men and women, is wholly unsupported.
“They shouldn’t settle for anything less, but neither should they get hung up on a word.”
Fine, John. Go tell all your friends that their relationships are now “civil unions” and that they are not “married,” they’re “united.” Then report back as to how many “get hung up on a word.”
PaulB
“Although, I should have clarified that it grants equal rights in some cases within the state where the law applies”
Since you’d be equally wrong, I’m not sure what difference the change would be. There is no state in the United States where a civil union grants equal rights to a marriage. None. Do try to get that through your head, won’t you?
PaulB
“The words ‘civil union’ or ‘marriage’ aren’t nearly as important as making sure that same-sex couples are granted the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.”
John, they *both* matter, and it’s foolish to pretend otherwise. It’s like claiming that sitting in the back of the bus doesn’t matter because the back of the bus arrives at the destination at the same time as the front of the bus. It’s trivially true, and really stupid.
In any case, your whole argument is foolish because no state or federal government is going to arbitrarily throw out the word “marriage” and substitute civil unions. Since that’s the reality we are dealt with, why should we pretend otherwise?
PaulB
“Except you can simply dismiss them out of hand at that point.”
At which point? At the point where they are down to that 25% level? At that point, we’ll have support for same-sex marriage, so the whole “civil union” argument will be moot.
“They have no moral argument because their argument is based on something that we just cut off and tossed away.”
It’s just not gonna happen, not in my lifetime. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, likely will, at least in quite a few states.
John S.
Then naming a few should be easy. Outside of federal taxes, what is there? In New Jersey, the law specfically “expands the rights provided by the Domestic Partnership Act and establishes the same legal rights and financial benefits currently available to married heterosexual couples to same-sex couples who comply with the procedures set in the law”.
Right. I mean, never mind that a marriage is essentially a civil union, or that a civil union is defined as “parties to a civil union have all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under Vermont law as spouses in a marriage”. But I will grant you emotionally.
If ‘farglesnoot’ legally grants you the same righs as a marriage, I’m all for it. Honestly, who gives a fuck? I guess Shakespeare was silly when he wrote “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. After all, if it was called ‘farglesnoot’, it would smell like shit.
That’s a winning argument.
jake
And what do you know. In some states the religious type person has to register with the state before he can perform marriages. Someone inform Bill Donohue about this outrageous interference!
OK, now you’re just fucking around. Come on, finish the joke. Tell us when they start teaching kids bio in your neck of the woods.
John S.
Perhaps you could explain New Jersey and Vermont?
Oh, and Vermont thinks your semantic fit is silly, too:
John S.
You say so?
Ya, I’m sort of getting the drift of your comments.
PaulB
“Then naming a few should be easy. Outside of federal taxes, what is there?”
Do you really not know? Are you really this ill-informed? I’m quite serious in this question.
“In New Jersey, the law specfically “expands the rights provided by the Domestic Partnership Act and establishes the same legal rights and financial benefits currently available to married heterosexual couples to same-sex couples who comply with the procedures set in the law”.”
John, New Jersey has no federal jurisdiction. All you’re doing is proving my point — that there is no state in the United States where someone in a civil union has all of the same rights, responsibilites, and privileges of someone in a marriage.
“Right. I mean, never mind that a marriage is essentially a civil union”
LOL…. Wrong on your very first assertion. That’s precisely why we’re having this discussion — because a marriage is not, “essentially” a civil union.
“That’s a winning argument.”
LOL… Compared to the tripe you’ve been tossing around, I’d say it’s a winner.
PaulB
“You say so?”
ROFL… John, since that is the entire sum of your argument, forgive me if I don’t take this any more seriously than I do the rest of the bilge you’ve been spewing.
“Perhaps you could explain New Jersey and Vermont?”
John, dear, let me use small words: someone in a civil union in Vermont does not have all of the rights, responsibilities and privileges of someone in that same state who is married. And it’s really incredibly foolish of you to pretend otherwise.
Is any of this sinking in?
John S.
Dude, seriously.
I realize that schools begin teaching basic concepts of Life Science in middle school, but nobody really starts delving into the full scope of evolution until around 10th grade. It’s not exactly a concept that is easily explained to a 10-year-old. Schools gear kids up for it by introducing them to the concept when they are young, but you can’t tell me that you really think a 6th grader understands what evolution really is.
PaulB
By the way, John, since you really do seem to be wholly ignorant of this issue, I strongly suggest you check out this link, in which the GAO provides you with the information you appear to be lacking regarding the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that are not available to any couple in a civil union anywhere in the United States. The broad categories are:
Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
Veterans’ Benefits
Taxation
Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
Employment Benefits and Related Laws
Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
Indians
Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Crimes and Family Violence
Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture
Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws
Miscellaneous Laws
Once you’ve done that, we might be able to have a serious discussion. Until then, I’m going to continue to laugh at your lame attempts to pretend that the two types of relationships really are “equal”.
John S.
Obviously. Perhaps you could point out where I said otherwise? No?
Except in the state where that civil union exists. As I’ve said. Are you really this stupid?
No, we’re having this argument because you can’t read and are too emotionally invested in a fucking word.
These are very compelling rebuttals.
Except for the fact that unlike you I have explained the reasoning behind my position and even including sources to the pertaining information.
Paul, dear, had you bothered to follow the links I provided you would have seen:
Never mind. I realize you are impervious to information that you have simply waved off as ridiculous.
Conservatively Liberal
This is exactly why when the issue comes up people dig in and nothing changes. You have two extremes battling over a position, and as long as this is the case I see no resolution.
The way I see it, ‘our side’ has what you want, and as long as ‘your side’ continues to club people over the head, nothing will change.
Just my opinion, and I am bowing out of it now. Have fun!
John S.
Thanks for the link, and the list. I didn’t really think about some of those other agencies that weren’t impacted by state laws. Obviously, there is a lot of work that needs to be done to see that federal agencies recognize the equal status granted to civil unions in states like VT and NJ. It will be a hard fight, though, like getting the DEA to respect the laws of California.
Unfortunately, I don’t think a serious discussion is possible as long as you pretend that I said that civil unions granted couples federal rights. Reading comprehension just isn’t your strength.
Krista
What? They don’t? That’s really freaking bizarre. I don’t understand at all why that is. When the husband and I got married, there was not one whit of religion in our ceremony. Nada. Nyet. None. But as far as our government is concerned, we are just as married as a couple who went to the freaking cathedral, took Communion, and had their entire ceremony in Latin.
I guess it’s a bit of a difference in practice: in Canada, we have civil ceremonies, or religious ceremonies. But marriage is marriage is marriage, whether the ceremony was Catholic, Mormon, Pagan, civil or what-have-you. The nature of the ceremony has NO bearing whatsoever on the final product. Some people sign their wedding papers in a church under the watchful eye of a priest. I signed mine on Bow Bridge with a borrowed pen. But I’ve got my marriage certificate, and so in the eyes of the government, I’m just as married as Mr. and Mrs. Churchgoer. End of story.
Why should you guys be so different? Why can’t marriage just be marriage, regardless of whether there is any religious element?
Now there’s also common-law unions here, but there needs to be no ceremony. Basically, if you live with someone for two years, (or one year if you have a kid together), you’re considered common-law partners automatically, and can file your taxes as such. But common-law is just more of a situation where people don’t care to get married, but still want some sort of spousal benefit due to having been together for a long time.
John S.
The dumbest thing is that Paul and I actually agree that same-sex couples should have equal legal rights – both at the state and federal level.
We just seem to disagree on tactics.
PaulB
“Obviously. Perhaps you could point out where I said otherwise?”
ROFL… That would be where you pretended that Vermont and New Jersey residents in civil unions had the same rights, privileges, and responsbilities as those in marriages. You do read your own posts, don’t you?
“Except in the state where that civil union exists. As I’ve said.”
ROFL…. Dear heart, your saying does not make it true. Let me repeat: there is *no* state in the United States where a couple in a civil union has all of the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as a married couple.
“Are you really this stupid?”
ROFL…. Oh, the irony….
“No, we’re having this argument because you can’t read and are too emotionally invested in a fucking word.”
ROFLMAO…. I do so love it when an idiot describes himself, with a total lack of self-awareness.
“These are very compelling rebuttals.”
Dear heart, you aren’t making a serious enough argument to warrant a “compelling rebuttal.” It’s nothing but assertions, and demonstrably false ones at that.
“Except for the fact that unlike you I have explained the reasoning behind my position and even including sources to the pertaining information.”
Dear heart, see my post about the GAO.
“Paul, dear, had you bothered to follow the links I provided you would have seen:”
I didn’t need to, John, since I clearly know more about this topic than you do. My statement still stands, nor have you been able to prove otherwise. You’re *still* ignoring federal law.
“Never mind. I realize you are impervious to information that you have simply waved off as ridiculous.”
ROFL…. Oh, the irony….
PaulB
“Unfortunately, I don’t think a serious discussion is possible as long as you pretend that I said that civil unions granted couples federal rights.”
Dear heart, you said, repeatedly, that residents of Vermont in civil unions had the same rights as those in a marriage. They don’t.
“Reading comprehension just isn’t your strength.”
ROFL…. Oh, the irony….
John S.
Despite my repeated statements otherwise.
Oh well, I suppose you’ve outlived your ‘usefulness’ on this topic, as I have I. Although I do find your feminizing condescension combined with a very heavy use of the appeal to ridicule fallacy a rather interesting argument style.
I’m going to go on a limb here – based on your ‘experience’ comment – in thinking that you’re a homosexual. If so, I sincerely hope you get the legal right to claim the same benefits as heterosexual couples as recognized by the United States within your lifetime.
Although if everyone trying to make their case does so in a similar fashion as you, I don’t think it will happen.
PaulB
“We just seem to disagree on tactics.”
Your tactic seems to be denial, along with an attempt to redefine a word that has enormous significance and enormous emotional baggage, all the while pretending that that significance and emotion simply don’t matter. Since that redefinition is just not going to happen, I’d prefer to stick with the tactics that are, slowly but surely, working.
John S.
Based on how Vermont and New Jersey describe their own laws as I’ve cited, how is it otherwise?
I seriously would like to know, since you’re an expert on the subject.
John S.
Damn, that strawman is so fucking juicy — can I join you in smashing it to pieces?
PaulB
“Despite my repeated statements otherwise.”
Dear heart, since your “repeated statements” contradict each other, forgive me if I’m not impressed. You cannot pretend that residents of Vermont in a civil union have all of the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as a married couple without pretending that federal laws don’t matter. It is this pretense of yours that is at the heart of our disagreement.
“Oh well, I suppose you’ve outlived your ‘usefulness’ on this topic, as I have I. Although I do find your feminizing condescension combined with a very heavy use of the appeal to ridicule fallacy a rather interesting argument style.”
It’s called mockery, along with a degree of trolling. I employ it when I’m dealing with someone obviously not worth taking seriously.
“Although if everyone trying to make their case does so in a similar fashion as you, I don’t think it will happen.”
Dear heart, I’m arguing with an idiot on a comment board, not making the case on a television show or in front of a legislature. I adjust my arguments and my tone based on the audience.
PaulB
“Damn, that strawman is so fucking juicy—can I join you in smashing it to pieces?”
By all means, dear. You do read your own posts, don’t you?
PaulB
“Based on how Vermont and New Jersey describe their own laws as I’ve cited, how is it otherwise? I seriously would like to know, since you’re an expert on the subject.”
ROFL… Dear heart, I’ve given you the information you crave several times. Do try to keep up, won’t you?
jake
10th grade? Um. Wow. But even if we restrict our discussion to learning the “full scope” of evolution, it doesn’t get you past the fact that the IDers want their theory taught alongside that other theory. So when your kid finally gets to [snerk] 10th grade he’ll be just as confused as he was when he started on the basics of the theory of evolution and ID. Way back in 9th grade.
[Sigh] Because the Godless Maple Syrup Bedaubed Royal Mounted Canuks have no morals. In America we have so many morals that we have to spend our time shoving our morals around or they’ll spontaneously combust.
In fact, way back before the United States of America was founded there was a big meeting between the Soon to be Americans and Eventual Canadians. And the leaders asked “OK, who wants to live in a country where people spend a lot of time worrying about what other consenting adults are doing?” and all the Eventual Canadians said “Fuck this,” and they left a lot of their morals behind and moved north and invented Rush and decent beer. Meanwhile, the Soon to be Americans were left with shit loads of morals and a lot of them are kept in the south, which is why it gets so damn hot there.
John S.
Which looks exactly like what I actually said.
Where do you get all that straw from? Seriously.
At least we’re both laughing, though.
PaulB
What’s hilarious about John’s post is that he keeps going around in circles, wholly unaware of the contradictions in his posts.
Nope, he’s not ignoring federal law, but hey, Vermont citizens in a civil union have all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of those in a marriage.
And even though I’ve spelled it out for him numerous times, he *still* doesn’t get it! It’s rare to find such obtuseness.
PaulB
“Which looks exactly like what I actually said.”
ROFL…. Dear heart, you said that citizens of Vermont in a civil union have all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of those in a marriage. They don’t. Do try to get that through your head, won’t you?
John S.
Uh, no. Because I plan on teaching my kid things like that. As a parent, it is my responsibility to teach my child just as much as it is the school.
And if someone calls it ‘intelligent design’, he’ll know what that means.
John S.
Within the state of Vermont. Somehow, you keep mising that.
Straw for sale?
PaulB
Oh, and John? Remember that what we’re talking about is that whole “separate but equal” thing — the fact that you continue to pretend that a civil union is just like a marriage. When you finally come to terms with the fact that a Vermont resident in a civil union is missing over 1000 rights, privileges and responsibilities granted to someone in a marriage, then we can get back to that whole “civil union is just like marriage” discussion, at which point you might finally start to realize just why your argument is so silly and why many in the gay community have been pushing for same-sex marriage.
PaulB
“Within the state of Vermont.”
ROFLMAO…. So now Vermont isn’t in the United States? Gee, I must have missed their secession. Dear heart, we were discussing this in the context of “a civil union is just like a marriage,” remember? Hey, guess what … it isn’t, not even in Vermont.
“Somehow, you keep mising that.”
No, dear, I don’t, but you sure do keep missing my point.
John S.
What’s hilarious about Paul’s post is that he keeps fighting something that doesn’t exist.
But hey, lets pretend Vermont citizens in a civil union don’t have all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of those in a marriage within the state of Vermont. Or better yet, let’s pretend that someone is arguing that the federal government recognizes those laws.
And even though I’ve said that the application of the law is confined to the state several times, he still doesn’t get it! It’s rare to find such disingenousness.
Krista
“Dear heart”? “Dear heart” ad nauseum, no less? Let me guess. Someone’s just graduated from “How To Be Incredibly Condescending 101.”
I realize that the mockery is directed towards someone who you feel to be unworthy of a more serious argument. Nonetheless, the merits of your argument are being seriously harmed by your manner of delivery.
John S.
When? I acknowledged as much when I said:
Where do you get all that fabulous straw?
jake
I get the feeling I’m participating in some sort of John S public humiliation fantasy. Always happy to oblige!
I see, the schools can lie to the kiddies all they want. Your tax dollars at work ladies and gents. Of course, if it goes on long enough the parents won’t know any better because they will have learned that evolution and ID are two equally valid theories along with whatever other crap some loons shoveled into the curriculum but that’s OK because it’s only words!
Yep, John S craves the verbal paddle of correction.
And when they change the term, as they’ve done once before, your teaching junior to shun the words “Intelligent Design” will do what?
PaulB
And all of this because John just cannot bring himself to admit that he was wrong when he said that: “In some places [a civil union] does grant equal rights.” And because that statement is wrong, his whole argument about how civil unions and marriages are the same simply falls apart.
Not to mention the fact that poor John still has no argument for dealing with the emotional context of the term, “marriage.” And until you can deal with that emotional baggage, any point you want to make about how “civil union” means the same thing is just noise.
Xenos
John S-
I don’t have time to go into the details, but you are full of it. The states have powers, some of which are pre-empted by the federal government. One of the state powers is over marriage. The federal government can’t marry anyone unless they are in a territory. So when a federal statute like ERISA, the Health Information Privacy Act, or the Immigration and Naturalization Act grant rights to spouses, the federal law is accepting as married whomever the states say is married.
So, for example, marriages between first cousins are allowed in some states and not others. If you are in New York, you can’t marry your first cousin, so your first cousin does not have an inalienable right to the survivors’ share of you pension, or to access your medical records, or to get a green card on the basis of your marriage.
Rhode Island allows marriages between first cousins. So if you live there, your cousin gets to marry you and automatically gets a whole basket of federal rights. If DOMA had a provision excluding first-cousin marriages from being recognized a marriages under federal law, though, you would be out of luck. Even without DOMA, if you form a civil union with your first cousin in Rhode Island, you get no federal rights as spouses.
It is not ‘just a name’. In the law, there is no such thing as ‘just a name’. You have something, or you don’t. The mere fact that a distinct name has been coined will compel a court, under the canons of statutory interpretation, to find a distinct set of rights. Separate is unavoidably unequal.
PaulB
“When?”
ROFL… Dear heart, do you ever actually read your own posts? You’ve said it several times, dear. See above.
Now what was that you were saying about “straw,” dear?
John S.
I’m starting to get the feeling there is an associated workshop on “Effective Strategies for Trolling”.
Xenos
If we are playing around for terms, I think we should use the official French term for civil union: concubinage.
John S.
You have control over the curriculum? Really?
Shun the word? No, it’s about teaching someone critical thinking. And knowing what evolution is, and what intelligent design is not. Why on Earth would such things perplex someone who can think logically about such matters?
Oh well, I guess being a smug prick is what passes for making a point tonight.
PaulB
“I realize that the mockery is directed towards someone who you feel to be unworthy of a more serious argument.”
Yup. The condescension is quite deliberate and I’m well aware of its effect. John is an idiot and no amount of serious argument on my part will matter one whit to his view. Moreover, he’s not providing any real information that merits a serious effort to contradict. The fact that he was so wholly ignorant of federal law is enough to disqualify him from this discussion.
“Nonetheless, the merits of your argument are being seriously harmed by your manner of delivery.”
Um … why? John is beyond reach. If someone else should join this discussion who really does have something to say, I’ll adjust my responses accordingly. I doubt there are many left who are still reading this thread, though, or who would be swayed one way or another on this topic.
On the topic of whether a civil union is the same thing as a marriage, well, there really is no serious discussion to be had. It’s not, and no amount of handwaving will make it so.
On the topic of the tactics of the various gay organizations, that really isn’t a provable discussion one way or another — you either believe the tactics were warranted or you don’t. Neither side has any real overwhelming data. Someone could point to the many “defense of marriage” laws and amendments as evidence that the tactics were counter-productive. Someone else could point to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and civil unions in quite a few states as evidence that the tactics are working. Or you could look at opinion polls which show growing support for at least some recognition of same-sex relationships.
Since the whole topic is bound up in emotional issues that are hard to quantify, it’s not too surprising that the discussion would be somewhat unproductive.
John S.
Ok, let me restate what point I meant to get across.
“In some states with civil union laws, equal rights are granted within the scope of the legal reach of those state laws. This does not include any priveleges that are restricted by federal law.”
Is that bullshit? Because if so, I really don’t understand the phrasing of NJ and VT law. And again, my point from the beginning is that now that there are a few first steps towards the goal of granting equal rights, steps need to be taken to see that the obstacle posed by federal laws is overcome. I just don’t think phrasing should be an impediment to this effort. That’s all.
If tomorrow the congress agreed to recognize a civil union as having the same rights and priveleges as a marriage, I’d say that’s a victory.
PaulB
“Oh well, I guess being a smug prick is what passes for making a point tonight.”
ROFL… Oh, the irony…
John S.
So, what you are saying is that within the states of Vermont and New Jersey, a civil union and a marriage don’t grant the same rights that are within the power of those states to grant?
John S.
ROFL… Oh, the irony…
Hey, this is fun!
PaulB
“Is that bullshit?”
Nope, but it’s pointless to this discussion, since you’ve been pretending that there really is no difference between a civil union and a marriage. Or that, “in some places [a civil union] does grant equal rights.”
“I just don’t think phrasing should be an impediment to this effort. That’s all.”
While many believe, with greater reason, that the phrasing cuts to the very heart of the matter, and that you cannot blithely wish it away, particularly when there is so much emotional baggage tied to it.
Xenos
Exactly. They claim to, but they don’t, because they can’t, even if they say they do.
PaulB
“So, what you are saying is that within the states of Vermont and New Jersey, a civil union and a marriage don’t grant the same rights that are within the power of those states to grant?”
Dear heart, since that isn’t what you originally claimed, I’m not sure what point you think you’re making with this statement, other than an implicit acknowledgement of just how silly, and wrong, some of your earlier statements were.
In any case, dear, with all of this hand-waving you’re just proving my point — that a civil union and a marrage are not, in fact, “equal”, anywhere in the United States, which renders your argument null and void.
John S.
Now there is some irony.
To the contrary, though, I have learned much from you. I learned how many federal laws there are that need to be impacted by the extension of existing state civil union laws. It prompts a lot of thinking about state and federal government interaction on such matters. It’s interesting because it’s the reverse of Civil Rights movement, where the federal government was trying to force states to change separate but equal indoctrination found in the state laws. With this issue, it’s states trying to get the federal government to remove separate but equal indoctrination.
I also learned you cannot have a reasonable conversation about an issue with someone who is emotionally attached to it. So overall, a decent effort. Thanks again and good night.
PaulB
“They claim to, but they don’t, because they can’t, even if they say they do.”
No, on this one, John has finally grasped the point. His latest statement is indeed technically accurate, I believe, while at the same time, meaningless. The qualifier, “within the power of those states to grant,” finally gives him cover.
What’s interesting is his refusal to see how that qualifier pretty much demolishes his argument.
John S.
Actually, it is. But you obviously preferred otherwise. It worked out bettr for your snark factor. And obviously, you felt the need for an ego boost.
I’m glad you found what you were looking for.
:)
tBone
Because it’s hard to take someone seriously when they serially abuse LOL and ROFL, for one thing. 1998 called, and it wants its acronyms back.
John S.
I find it more interesting that you continue to pretend that my argument was otherwise. Obviously, when I said that states with civil union laws only have jurisdiction over their own state and that the next logical step was to gain federal acceptance I wasn’t being clear enough.
My sincerest apologies.
John S.
Care to elaborate?
I mean besides the obvious areas where the federal government claims jurisdiction (IRS, VA benefits,etc.), don’t these states have the power to grant adoption rights, state tax filing status, inheritance rights, insurance priveleges, etc.?
PaulB
“I also learned you cannot have a reasonable conversation about an issue with someone who is emotionally attached to it.”
LOL…. Actually, you can. It’s just a matter of knowing something about the topic on which you are pontificating and not making foolish, and false, assertions.
“Actually, it is.”
ROFL…. No, dear, it isn’t. You really shouldn’t make such foolishly false statements, dear, when the evidence is in this very thread: “in some places [a civil union] does grant equal rights.” The statement was foolishly wrong when you made it; it is still foolishly wrong.
“But you obviously preferred otherwise.”
No, dear, I didn’t. I’d much rather have a discussion with someone who knows what they are talking about. It’s less fun, perhaps, but ever so much more intellectually satisfying.
“It worked out bettr for your snark factor. And obviously, you felt the need for an ego boost.”
LOL… Dear heart, you give yourself too much credit. I could care less about you. After you established yourself as someone not worth taking seriously, I engaged you solely for my own amusement.
“I’m glad you found what you were looking for.”
No, dear, I didn’t. Perhaps next time you won’t be so foolish and I actually will find what I am looking for.
PaulB
“What? They don’t?”
Correct, they do not.
“That’s really freaking bizarre.”
Yes and no. I think it will be considered bizarre in a few decades, just as the laws against mixed-race couples seem bizarre to us today, but right now, there’s so much emotional investment in the term “marriage” that it’s not really a surprise how this process is being carried out.
“I don’t understand at all why that is. When the husband and I got married, there was not one whit of religion in our ceremony. Nada. Nyet. None. But as far as our government is concerned, we are just as married as a couple who went to the freaking cathedral, took Communion, and had their entire ceremony in Latin.”
They are two different things. What you went through was a civil marriage ceremony. That really isn’t the same thing as a “civil union,” as it is defined in most places, anyway. Neither of them involves religion, but one confers far more rights, privileges, and responsibilities than does the other.
“Why should you guys be so different? Why can’t marriage just be marriage, regardless of whether there is any religious element?”
It should be, and I think one day it will be, but not yet.
PaulB
“I find it more interesting that you continue to pretend that my argument was otherwise.”
Dear heart, why are you running so hard away from your own words?
“Obviously, when I said that states with civil union laws only have jurisdiction over their own state and that the next logical step was to gain federal acceptance I wasn’t being clear enough.”
ROFL…. Dear heart, since you didn’t say that until after you got caught being so blatantly and stupidly wrong, forgive me if I don’t take this bit of sarcasm any more seriously than I do the rest of your arguments.
John S.
Yes, I should have – and did – clarify what I meant. I just figured it was common understanding that state laws don’t have any bearing on federal laws, and that I didn’t need to explain that. Nonetheless, I quickly clarified my position. You simply refuse to acknowledge that in any way, but I guess can expect that of someone like you.
As evidenced by your continual engagement of me. I’m bored and can’t sleep, so I’m enjoying having an argument. What’s your excuse? Oh right…
See: Ego Boost. Oh wait, that’s not the same as what you said…you used different words.
John S.
I have a funny way of running from them by continually bringing them up. It’s a curious habit.
No need for apologies. I realize you completely misconstrued what I meant on account of my phrasing, but if you weren’t so married to playing the role you have chosen, you’d see that all my comments are part of one congruous train of thought.
But you’ve got all this darn emotional baggage…
PaulB
“1998 called, and it wants its acronyms back.”
Hmm… Well, I was going to do another “LOL” but I guess I can’t now. Suffice to say that I did laugh at this well-deserved hit. Nicely done, sir.
John S.
And on that note, I bid you adieu. The eyes are finally weary.
PaulB
“I have a funny way of running from them by continually bringing them up. It’s a curious habit.”
Yes, dear, just as curious as your refusal to recognize your own false statements. Funny how you don’t bring those up.
“No need for apologies. I realize you completely misconstrued what I meant on account of my phrasing, but if you weren’t so married to playing the role you have chosen, you’d see that all my comments are part of one congruous train of thought.”
Dear heart, I knew precisely what your “train of thought” was, from the very beginning. Since your “train of thought” was quite obviously based on insufficient information and a denial of reality, I was, and am, unimpressed.
“But you’ve got all this darn emotional baggage”
Yes, dear, whatever you say.
PaulB
“And on that note, I bid you adieu. The eyes are finally weary”
Dear heart, it would be ever so much better if you argued with the words I actually did write instead of making shit up. Just a bit of friendly advice.
Mr Furious
SGEW Says:
I still hold McClurkin against Obama. Has anyone heard of any sort of “rejection or denunciation” of homophobic McClurkin’s remarks?
Google search for “Obama, McClurkin” revealed this statement from the Obama website:
PaulB
“Yes, I should have – and did – clarify what I meant.”
Yes, dear, you should have also educated yourself on this topic before spouting forth on something you obviously knew little about.
“I just figured it was common understanding that state laws don’t have any bearing on federal laws, and that I didn’t need to explain that.”
Since it wholly undermined your case, and since you demonstrated quite clearly that you knew little or nothing about those federal laws, I’m afraid that your explanation does not suffice.
“Nonetheless, I quickly clarified my position. You simply refuse to acknowledge that in any way, but I guess can expect that of someone like you.”
LOL…. Yes, dear, whatever you say.
“As evidenced by your continual engagement of me.”
Like I said, you give yourself too much credit. I was having fun at your expense, dear. That is hardly evidence that I care one whit about you.
“See: Ego Boost.”
No, dear. “Amusement” is not the same thing as “ego boost.” You do seem to have trouble grasping basic concepts, don’t you?
“Oh wait, that’s not the same as what you said”
Precisely, dear. Do try to keep up, won’t you?
PaulB
Oh, and my “excuse”, dear? I’m working late tonight and I’ve got a lot of free time while my code is compiling. I’ve enjoyed laughing at your silliness, dear; it’s definitely made the time pass more quickly.
Conservatively Liberal
In reading this I come to the conclusion that PaulB loves the sound of his voice. Damn, with an attitude like yours, GLBT’s are going to have a hard time getting anything done. I mean, they are such experts at everything gay and the rest of us are just poor dumb schmucks. Why even waste our time with your concerns when you already have all the answers?
This is exactly why I disengage when issues like this are discussed with people like PaulB. They are always right and you are always wrong, so why even bother? Sad, because I too believe that GLBT’s are treated unfairly. But with people like PaulB fighting for the cause, I sometimes wonder if I should even waste my time. They seem to do more damage than good by speaking in insulting tones and condescendingly. Not a very good tactic to winning people over to your point of view, IMO.
I would have to say that JohnS can take this crap a lot better than I would of, good thing I bowed out when I did.
:)
SGEW
Wow. That was a heady exchange, to say the least.
Yeah, arguing about core human rights does that to people. ‘Nuff said.
Thanks. I already caught that further upthreadn (h/t Woodrow “asim” Jarvis Hill). I was asking more about specific statements directed towards McClurkin personally, but this statement’s good enough for me.
John S.
I try not to take these things too seriously. It is the intertrons, after all. Besides, anyone who feels the need to pound their chest about their chess-playing abilities while playing a game of checkers, well, you just have to cut them a little slack.
John S.
I mean, after that three act production that Paul put on, to close with this:
I mean seriously, you just have to laugh. If he had an open guitar case in front of himself on whatever street corner he was performing on, I would definitely throw in a few coins.
Chris C
THINK AGAIN AMERICA! Adolf Hitler rose to power because of his orations and speeches. Jim Jones was a preacher whose followers drank poisoned kool-aid because of his ‘words’ Obama’s has ties to Louis Farrakhan and Obama’s church promotes black supremacy and anti-Semitism. You don’t get elected in Chicago playing nice. I need to elect someone with a proven background! And who is giving him all his donations?
PaulB
“I mean, after that three act production that Paul put on, to close with this:”
ROFL…. Dear heart, had you actually bothered to read the post I was responding to, you would have noticed that you had, in fact, made shit up.
Free word of advice: when you want to play games like this, try to cover your tracks better.
PaulB
“Besides, anyone who feels the need to pound their chest about their chess-playing abilities while playing a game of checkers, well, you just have to cut them a little slack.”
LOL…. Says the guy who was wholly ignorant about the federal impact on this very issue that he was attempting to argue about. And who pretended that the emotional impact of the term “marriage” could simply be hand-waved away.
Dear heart, you weren’t even playing checkers. More like tiddly-winks.
PaulB
“In reading this I come to the conclusion that PaulB loves the sound of his voice.”
If that’s the only conclusion you reached, I do feel sorry for you.
“Damn, with an attitude like yours, GLBT’s are going to have a hard time getting anything done.”
Dear heart, who ever said that I was gay? Quite a revealing attitude of yours, I must say.
“I mean, they are such experts at everything gay and the rest of us are just poor dumb schmucks.”
You said it, dear, I didn’t. As for John S., given his admitted ignorance on this issue, I would have to say that the term “dumb schmuck” does indeed apply.
“Why even waste our time with your concerns when you already have all the answers?”
I don’t have all the answers, dear; just enough to deal with idiots like John.
“This is exactly why I disengage when issues like this are discussed with people like PaulB. They are always right and you are always wrong”
Dear heart, since John was, in fact, wrong, and demonstrably so, I’m not sure what point you think you are making. If I said even one word that was incorrect above, feel free to point it out to me. John S. entirely failed to do so. Maybe you can do a better job?
“Sad, because I too believe that GLBT’s are treated unfairly. But with people like PaulB fighting for the cause, I sometimes wonder if I should even waste my time.”
ROFL… I do so love it when people play silly games like this. It lets me know not to take them seriously. “Those people are so uppity; It’s *their* fault I can’t support them.”
“They seem to do more damage than good by speaking in insulting tones and condescendingly. Not a very good tactic to winning people over to your point of view, IMO.”
Dear heart, I wasn’t trying to “win” John over to my point of view. He made it quite clear, very early in the thread, that he was wholly ignorant of this issue and wholly beyond reach. At that point, mockery becomes the most suitable response.
“I would have to say that JohnS can take this crap a lot better than I would of, good thing I bowed out when I did.”
I note that you completely failed to support even a single one of your assertions, much less identify any “crap”. I think we’ll just let this stand without further comment.
John S.
Bravo!
/tosses a few coins into Paul’s guitar case
PaulB
“Bravo!”
LOL… I do so love it when someone who gets called on their bullshit subsequently tries to change the subject. Dear heart, anytime you care to have a serious discussion on this issue, I’ll be right here. Until then, I’ll continue making fun of you.
John S.
Ooh, an encore!
/tosses a few more coins into Paul’s guitar case
John S.
And a legend in his own mind. Thankfully for the GLBT movement, Paul is not their official spokesperson.
PaulB
“Ooh, an encore!”
Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that I can play just as many silly games as you can?
“And a legend in his own mind.”
No, dear; only when compared to idiots like you.
“Thankfully for the GLBT movement, Paul is not their official spokesperson.”
Dear heart, this is a blog comments thread. Nobody here takes this shit seriously, least of all me.
PaulB
Since I’m working again tonight and have a few minutes to play with dear little John, let’s examine John’s arguments in detail, shall we? After all, I’m sure we have so much to learn.
Now, just why should the LGBT community do that? Alas, John doesn’t say. Why should they settle for “separate but equal?” John doesn’t say. Who in the LGBT community is pushing for marriage and who is pushing for civil unions? John doesn’t say. What difference would it have made had the entire LGBT community pushed for civil unions all along? John doesn’t say.
And the evidence for this is, what, exactly? John doesn’t say. Of course, the fact that the LGBT community has gotten considerably more than “nothing” over the past dozen years or so seems to have escaped John’s notice.
Why is this case different since it is, in fact, “separate but equal” (albeit, in this case, “separate but unequal”)? John doesn’t say.
Of course, the fact that putting in place a separate structure for recognition of same-sex relationships does, in fact, create “socially acceptable segregation” seems to have escaped John’s notice. I wonder why that is? And the fact that same-sex couples will understand that their relationships aren’t “good enough” to be called “marriage” seems to have escaped his notice, as well. I wonder why that is?
Why is that? John doesn’t say.
The bottom line is that the heart of John’s argument is based on not one verifiable fact, not one shred of data, not one iota of logic or reason. The entire post is a mass of unsupported assertions.
PaulB
Okay, but that was just John’s first major post, right? Maybe he actually did support his assertions in the later posts? Let’s take a look, shall we?
Now, it was pointed out to John that civil unions in the United States do not, in fact, grant all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage. This is an uncontroversial fact. John’s response?
That’s right, kiddies. In John’s world, there are places in the U.S. where civil unions do grant “equal rights.” Needless to say, this is where we recognize that John isn’t worth taking seriously.
Ah, but wait, there’s more. Here was John’s next statement:
That’s right, kids. John has ESP and has used his great mental powers to divine that “the greater LGBT community” isn’t pushing for marriage because they don’t like the fact that civil unions don’t grant all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage. No, John, the wonder-boy, has determined that all of those folks just aren’t willing to settle for anything less than marriage. Evidence for this assertion? None, of course. Why should the LGBT community settle for anything less than marriage? John doesn’t say. What would change if the entire community did “settle”? John doesn’t say.
So far, John is batting in negative numbers. Not only are his posts nothing but unsupported assertions, but the one verifiable fact in his posts thus far was false.
PaulB
We’ll skip over a couple of posts. John has finally had to accept that he knew diddly-squat about the many rights, privileges, and responsibility that come with a marriage that are not available for those in a civil union. And he’s had to accept that he was wrong in asserting that they were currently the same. Now we get to another topic: is a “civil union” identical to “marriage”? John’s response:
Note the part in bold. They are the same “except for emotional value.” But why should we ignore that “emotional value,” when it’s at the very heart of the controversy? John doesn’t say. When that “emotional value” is the difference that establishes that socially-acceptable segregation that John pretends to condemn? John doesn’t say. So what does John have to say about the emotional value of that word?
Note that “get[ting] hung up on a word” is precisely the root cause of the discrimination! But no, it’s that damn “foolish” LGBT community that’s really at fault here. How dare they not settle for “separate but equal?”
Well, that’s pretty much it. From that point on, John just descended into parody. What I found hilarious was John accusing me of argument by assertion, when that was the sum and extent of his every post on this thread! Not one shred of actual data, well, other than the irrelevant posting of Vermont law, which mattered not one whit to the points that anyone was making. And what was even more hilarious? John wasn’t even aware of this!
Savor that, if you will, for it’s rare to find someone so blissfully unaware. Oh, and if you should happen to point out that John was basically full of shit and had not supported his views? Well, gee, that’s because you’re obviously homosexual, not to mention that you have that “darn emotional baggage.” The hell with the merits of the case or the validity of the criticism.
Now, would someone care to tell me why I should take John seriously? Why John doesn’t deserve the mockery and trolling that I’ve been engaging in at his expense? Can someone point me to anything on this thread that John has written which supports any of his assertions? Anyone? Anyone?
Ah, well, I enjoyed myself hugely at John’s expense. Maybe next time this topic comes up, we’ll actually have someone who really can muster a coherent argument.
John S.
I’d like to see that, too. The drag queen act sort of undermines your ability to do so.
But what a performance!
/tosses a few dollars into Paul’s guitar case
PaulB
ROFL…. Thanks for conceding my point, dear, and for confirming my opinion of you. Oh, and dear? The “I know you are but what am I?” schtick stops working once you reach kindergarten. You should work on that.
What I find most hilarious about John is his total lack of self-awareness. See, for example, his claim that I’m arguing by assertion, while being blissfully unaware that this is precisely what he has done in this entire thread!
One more bit of advice, John, dear. You really should get out more if you think that a “drag queen” behaves or sounds anything like me. Were you in a discussion with a drag queen, dear, you’d know it.
PaulB
One more point, dear: like all of the best snark, mine is rooted in truth. The points I raised above are valid, regardless of how I choose to frame them. Your utter failure to respond to those points, your utter failure to support your assertions, your utter failure to respond to the counter-arguments, your utter failure to recognize your own prejudices, tells us everything we need to know about you.
Aside from that, though, it’s been a hell of a lot of fun playing with you. It’s rare to find someone so determinedly obtuse, not to mention so much fun. I’m sure we’ll run into each other again, dear, and I can hardly wait. I can always use a good laugh.