Marriage Equality: Where do we go from here?

[harry_pothead]

Marriage Equality: One year later, across the country, better organized, different demographics, marriage equality came from the legislature and not the courts....

...and the same fucking 52-48 against marriage equality?

What's the deal? Where do we go from here? I seriously don't know. Is our only option just to wait out the generational shift? Please tell me we have something more. I'd love to hear some thoughts from around DU.

[Penguin31]

1. Yet another election result that proves that...

...approximately one half of Americans are bigoted fools incapable of thinking beyond their own bubble of fear and superstition.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

69. TAKING AWAY THE CHURCH TAX EXEMPTIONS

WOULD BE A GOOD FIRST STEP IN RE-BUILDING OR DEMOCRACY.


NO SPECIAL INTERESTS.

NONE

[Lars39]

91. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

Matthew 22:21 Supposedly Jesus Christ himself said this.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I wish I knew. It does seem that the generational shift seems like the best hope, but as

I said to someone else it just sucks that it would take so long. :( So very wrong and I am so ashamed that half of my state is so hateful.

[vadawg]

3. honestly drop the word marraige, all the same rights but without the word

and you aould have an 85% to 15% victory on referendums...

[Eryemil]

5. Yeah, that's something to be proud of. Great country you have there.

Sometimes principles matter.

[vadawg]

11. yeah like those principles over a word are more important than the couple who need those rights toda

or tomorrow, you can tell them that its the principle of the winning that word that counts more than hospital visits etc etc....

[Eryemil]

24. They are important to me. Why would anyone want to contribute to a society that sees them as lesser?

I wouldn't. Which is why I am proud to call myself Canadian.

[vadawg]

38. so words are more important to you than rights or principles.....

[Eryemil]

46. It's not just a word. It's discrimination. Separate but equal.

In practice, water fountains that blacks were allowed to use were not as fancy as those of whites but if they had been would you have been in favor?

If you say it's different I'm gonna call you a cunt.

Oh and by the way, civil unions are banned in most state's that also ban same-sex marriage. So much for your theory.

[vadawg]

50. tell you what, what if you get the marraige word and the rest of society gets to call their unions

a different word, but you all have the same rights, would that be okay, because if it all comes down to the insistance that the individual must accept that they are the same then you will never win the argument, if you want to force the individual or church to accept them as the same it isnt going to happen, if its the same rights as straight marraige you want then why not fight for the rights rather than the word...

[Eryemil]

53. It happened in my country and as backwards as the United States is it will happen there too.

You didn't answer my question though.

Would you agree that separate water fountains for different races would be OK if they were exactly the same model? They would still be able to drink water anyway.

[vadawg]

56. well seeing as you tried to set me up to call me the c word i didnt answer that one

[Eryemil]

60. Well I think you're a cunt anyway, whether I say it or not you might as well imagine that I am.

But answer my fucking question and stop dodging. You are arguing that separate but equal is a valid way to deal with this issue. Would you agree that it would have also been a valid solution for the concerns that whites had with sharing facilities with people of other races?

Just answer.

People like you are a perfect example of everything that's wrong with the human race. It's like you are wholly incapable of rational thought or even following concepts to their logical conclusion.

It's embarrassing and it would almost be worth it if you could admit when you are wrong but I get the feeling that I could spend all night here, picking apart your asinine arguments and you'd still find a way to not answer my fucking questions.

[vadawg]

61. yeah like thats a great way to discuss stuff with people

im simply telling you why so many people are against marriage equality, if you are to dumb to realise that for a lot of people its the religious conitation of the word marriage, and that by dropping the word they could be peeled off from the lunatics then good luck to you..

[Eryemil]

72. I am many things, an occasional asshole being one of them but I am not dumb.

Yes, some people would choose to sacrifice self-respect for whatever crumbs the majority are willing to throw their way. I've never been one of those people.

I am a brilliant guy, not boasting unduly, it's just the truth. In a few years when I am done with my post-graduate studies I will be able to live and conduct my research practically anywhere. Any country would consider me an asset, yet I've chosen to settle down here. You know why? Because this particular country respects my worth as a human being.

When I finally become a full Canadian citizen I will be truly equal under the eyes of the law in every sense. That's priceless.

I'm sure that by appealing to the ridiculous superstitions of the majority, sexual minorities in the United States could make some progress. Do keep in mind however what I wrote earlier; most states not only ban same-sex marriage but also civil unions. It has never been about the word, that's just a convenient excuse that they use and one you've naively accepted. It is our nature that they reject, for all that some that have voted against marriage might not actively hate us they still consider themselves superior to us.

And you still haven't answered my question. Would you personally have supported a "separate but equal" approach in matters of racial discrimination?

[Missy Vixen]

49. Oh, yeah.

Let those gay people sit in the back of the bus. After all, "domestic partnership" doesn't confer the over 1,400 rights a married couple automatically has, but it's not that big of a deal.

Maybe in another four years, huh?

:sarcasm: :eyes:

Oh, yeah: The fundies even go after "domestic partnerships". It's happening tonight in Washington State. Luckily, the sane are prevailing, at least right now.

[vadawg]

52. okay i dont know what part of me saying its the 1,400 rights that arte important not the word

jeez tell me if tomorrow you could have those rights automatically conferred on any union, would you be happy to give up on the marraige word.

[Missy Vixen]

58. No

Why don't you surrender some of your civil rights? I'm sure it'll be no problem for you. After all, they're just words, aren't they?

:eyes:

Why should my husband and I enjoy all rights and privileges of marriage, while another of-age, consenting couple does not?

[vadawg]

62. okay once again you get all the rights and privilidges of marriage

you even get a certificate from the state same as the certificate that straight people get, only difference is that the word marriage is dropped from the unions and thats left to the churches to perform their own ceromonies.... not sure what part of everything is the same from the legal aspect that you are missing..

[Missy Vixen]

71. You're not listening

Either all marriages are called "domestic partnerships" and the word is stricken from the dictionary and our society, or all consenting adults of legal age are allowed to marry.

Domestic partnerships are not the same thing, and you will NEVER get all 1,400+ rights and privileges of the married with a domestic partnership. End of story.

[vadawg]

74. al unions are called civil unions and the government never uses the marriage word

all civil unions give all 1400 rights, and marriage is only used in a religious context, end of story see that works.

[Missy Vixen]

88. The license we signed in 1993 is a "certificate of marriage"

I'm through discussing this with you; you have no intention of admitting that what's happening to LGBT is a violation of their civil rights.

[vadawg]

89. and, how would that effect things if the civil and religious sides were seperated

and their you have it its civil rights, so we work to pass laws that grant the civil rights, we take marriage out of the governments purview and right away you peel of a percentage of people who have issues just because of the marriage word and its religious meaning.

[raw oysters]

94. That sounds fine in theory, but the fundies will no more cede the word than they will the concept.

All an attempt to do what you suggest (and I would love to see it come to fruition) would accomplish, for the foreseeable future at least, is shift the fight from 'rights to the institution' to 'rights to the word'. Religionists aren't about to compromise on this...and let's not forget that there's virtually no daylight between rightwing Christians and rightwing anything elses on this.

[jgraz]

8. And drop the word "rights". Better that people think you don't have any.

:banghead:

[eShirl]

16. "separate but equal" is not "equal"

sorry

[vadawg]

18. lol you do realise that we are talking about equal were it matters, in contracts and in the

governments eyes, the word dosent matter and you will never be seen as equal in the majority of the churches eyes anyway no matter what words are used..

[eShirl]

43. by the way I am straight

:eyes:

[vadawg]

45. never even occured to me that you were or were not, i was using you as a general term

just to make answering your question easier :) sometimes my language usage confuses people :)

[eShirl]

48. no kidding

[LeftyMom]

32. Fuck off.

[vadawg]

33. you really a genius at this counterpoint stuff,

idiot

[LeftyMom]

34. I don't waste good material the likes of you.

Sorry, there's just no point.

[vadawg]

35. rofl, yeah like you have good material going by these replies...

[eShirl]

55. +1

[struggle4progress]

73. The opinion polls, unfortunately, seem to me to support vadawg's POV. So one confronts

the perennial political question: half a loaf or none?

Our side might have won in Maine by tailoring the message slightly differently to siphon a few votes from the other side -- or by turning out a few more voters. I don't know which, if either, was doable

[LeftyMom]

78. I find your username amusing.

Not for the first time.

[struggle4progress]

90. One wins fights for what one wants by analyzing conditions as they are, not by pretending conditions

are as one would prefer. To obtain the situation one really wants, one must begin from the actual current situation. Polling for years has shown that much of the opposition to "marriage" vanishes when one advocates "civil unions" instead. That is a fact, not a statement of opinion. If one wants to change what is, one must first notice clearly what is: noticing what is is not the same as accepting what is. For real progress, first analyze existing conditions, then construct a strategy for the struggle against those conditions: indulging in fantasies won't work

I'll provide some representative links:

Here's June's Franklin & Marshall poll on Pennsylvania:
CU2. Would you favor or oppose a state law that would allow homosexual couples to legally
form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples?*
Strongly favor | Somewhat favor | Somewhat oppose | Strongly oppose | Don’t know
Jun 2009 33% 25% 7% 30% 5%
Feb 2004 21% 21% 11% 39% 8%
CU3. Would you favor or oppose a state constitutional amendment that would define
marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay and
lesbian couples?
Strongly favor | Somewhat favor | Somewhat oppose | Strongly oppose | Don’t know
Jun 2009 38% 10% 15% 31% 6%
Feb 2004 37% 12% 12% 31% 8%
<pdf>: http://edisk.fandm.edu/FLI/keystone/pdf/June%202009%20Franklin%20and%20Marshall%20College%20Poll%20Release.pdf

Here's July's Quinnipiac poll on Ohio: Voters support 57 - 35 percent pending state legislation that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. Ohio voters oppose same-sex marriage 60 - 33 percent and tie 46 - 47 percent on support for same-sex civil unions. Democrats split 47 - 46 percent on same-sex marriage, which is opposed 82 -16 percent by Republicans and 56 - 35 percent by independent voters. Opposition is 61 - 31 percent among white Catholics, 68 - 26 percent among white Protestants and 80 - 16 percent among white evangelical Christians. Same-sex civil unions wins 53 - 40 percent support from Democrats and 50 - 39 percent support from independent voters, with Republicans opposed 62 - 33 percent. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1346

Here's October's Pew poll on the US: A clear majority of Americans (57%) favors allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples, a status commonly known as civil unions ... Supporters of same-sex marriage are divided over the best way to pursue its legalization; 45% favor pushing hard to legalize it as soon as possible, while 42% of same-sex marriage advocates say they should not push too hard ... Attitudes on same-sex marriage currently stand almost exactly where they did 12 months ago, with just over half of Americans (53%) opposed and 39% in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally ... Among most political groups, half or more support civil unions, including 59% of moderate and liberal Republicans, 63% of independents, 54% of moderate and conservative Democrats and 76% of liberal Democrats. The only exception to this pattern is conservative Republicans, among whom a slim majority (53%) opposes civil unions. http://people-press.org/report/553/same-sex-marriage

[Veruca Salt]

95. "...in 1968 (a year after the Loving decision), 72% opposed interracial marriage."

"If the Supreme Court would have waited for favorable polling data, interracial couples would have been excluded from marriage until 1991"

I'm just going to keep quoting that to everyone who wants us to remain separate but equal, just like you do.

http://www.marriageequality.org/index.php?page=polls-and-studies

[struggle4progress]

96. Light a candle in memory of Earl Warren. Sadly, that is not the Court we have today.

To get a better Court, we need control of the Presidency and the Senate when several hardline conservatives retire, an unpredictable date that might be tomorrow -- or several decades from now

[donheld]

36. Separate but not equal?

[vadawg]

37. nope, its equal in every way, just realise that marraige is just a word

personally i would be more interested in having the rights than owning the word, but by doing this you automatically peel off a large portion of the no voters who everyone on DU knows someone who has issues with the word. I think some people are more concerned with winning the word than the rights that go along with it...

[donheld]

40. Wrong

In Colorado in the same election (2004) we had both. 1 was about marriage 1 was about civil unions. Both lost. Anyway you slice it, they hate us.

[vadawg]

41. and what about the polls in the rest of the states, what about what DU'ers

say about people they know who for them its about the word.....

[donheld]

42. Yea, they say it to your face then get in a voting booth and stab you in the back

[Starry Messenger]

44. Marriage equality is a tenet of this website.

I'm getting fucking sick of the separate but equal bullshit here. Civil rights should not be put to a popular vote.

[vadawg]

47. its a legitimate question when you think of it, what is more important the word

or the rights, you get the rights then you can use any word you like.

[Starry Messenger]

57. The rights come with the word.

Marriage equality is working just fine in states that have not put the issue to popular vote. This needs to be solved in the courts and the bigots' power taken away.

[vadawg]

64. fine if thats what you want to do, but easier solution is to make the civil side for everyone

that infers all the legal rights, and leave the marraige part to churches, in effect making it just a ceromonial thing..

[Starry Messenger]

67. Not really.

PER SKINNER:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4689492&mesg_id=4690268

[vadawg]

70. and what does that have to do with what would be a solution to marginalise the loonies

and its no different than what a lot of democrats say all the time, its about the rights not the word, you make the legal part the same for everyone, and then let the churches do their thing,

[Starry Messenger]

75. The legal rights are the same with marriage.

Civil marriage is the secular institution in this country. Church marriages have no more civil sway than Masonic rituals. Sorry, you are misinformed. :shrug:

[vadawg]

77. but you miss the point its the word marriage that does mean something to the religious

whether they have civil sway or not, its the word... cant believe that people dont get that even when they see and hear it from the opposition on a daily basis...

[Starry Messenger]

79. I don't fucking care.

Quit talking to me. Your defense of bigots disgusts me.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starry Messenger]

81. You are the same jerk who defended Prop 8.

Eff off.

[vadawg]

82. no idea what you are talking about, muddying the waters

or maybe that i said i prefer the people to make the laws rather than judges as it seems more democratic is what you elude to..

[NMMNG]

51. How about *you* give up marriage and take Civil Unions instead?

I mean if all "marriage" is to you is a word, and Civil Unions are just as good, you shouldn't have a problem with it, right?

[vadawg]

54. absolutely no problem with it, as long as the government gives me the same rights

they can call it whatever they want... same as my business partnerships are called by different words but they essentially all confer the same rights...

[NMMNG]

59. Stop pretending Separate is Equal

It's not.

Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, no matter what they say on paper and no matter how well intentioned they are, simply are not equivalent to Marriage. Ask anybody who has one. Ask the people who have had to fight to get benefits for their partners because said benefits are only provided to married couples.

Marriage matters. The bigots claim it's because of their "religion" but it's just their excuse. They know by denying us marriage they can keep us from having the rights they have. That's why they keep us in unions that are Lesser Than--if they allow us anything at all.

Now forgive me if I'm not going to continue to fight with someone on a "progressive" message board who insists I should give up anything to appease RW bigots.

[tavalon]

86. Make the straights separate the term marriage from all legal rights of partnership

Marriage shouldn't have ever been taken out of the church context.

[vadawg]

87. yup thats what i have been saying, then the churches keep the word

and on the civil side there is equality....

[Veruca Salt]

92. No, NO and HELL NO.

No more tyranny of the majority, this needs to be settled by the courts. I want my own Loving v Virginia.

LESSONS OF LOVING
The ban on interracial marriages existed in the United States until the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967. California was the first state in the nation to end the ban on interracial marriage in 1948 with the State Supreme Court ruling in Perez v. Sharp. As can be seen in the table below, these court decisions didn’t reflect the popular sentiment at the time. In 1958 (10 years after the Perez decision), the first Gallup poll on this issue showed 94% of Americans opposed interracial marriage and in 1968 (a year after the Loving decision), 72% opposed interracial marriage.

If the Supreme Court would have waited for favorable polling data, interracial couples would have been excluded from marriage until 1991 which was the year of the first Gallup poll that showed more Americans in favor of interracial marriage than opposed. It’s unthinkable today to consider that type of ban existing for so long.

http://www.marriageequality.org/index.php?page=polls-and-studies

[theHandpuppet]

93. Oh yeah? Then explain THIS if it's just a matter of "the word"

After all, Virginia is your home state:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36314-2004Jun12.html
Marriage Affirmation Act. (Virginia)

The act -- really an amendment to an earlier law -- was passed in April, over Gov. Mark R. Warner's objections, and it takes effect July 1. It says, "A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited." It goes on to add that any such union, contract or arrangement entered into in any other state, "and any contractual rights created thereby," are "void and unenforceable in Virginia."

When gay marriage came up, Virginia was among the first states to preemptively ban it, in 1997. Moreover, Virginia is the only state to forbid even private companies, unless self-insured, from extending health insurance benefits to unmarried couples. That provision affects cohabiting straights but works a far greater hardship on gay couples, who cannot marry.

Those steps, however, impinge on the power of third parties (corporations and the government) to recognize gay couples. In the Marriage Affirmation Act, Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals' right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts. If a gay Californian was hit by a bus in Arlington, her medical power of attorney might be worthless there. "Sorry," the hospital might have to say to her frantic partner, "your contract means nothing here. Now leave before we call security."

[Toasterlad]

97. Ha Ha. Everyone Hates You. Now You Know What It's Like To Be Gay!

Except you still have your rights, and you didn't have to compromise with anyone to get them.

[Zoeisright]

4. We just have to keep going. This will change.

Repukes have lost on every single issue they have ever espoused. Things have changed and will continue to change.

I know the waiting must be just heartbreaking, and I'm so sad that the people in Maine weren't smarter. But marriage equality WILL come.

[harry_pothead]

7. On the good side, at least separate but kinda-sorta-but-not-really equal will get approved in WA

Which is better than nothing I suppose.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. Honestly, the bigots were probably a little bit more galvanized to come out for the vote.

There's nothing that gets them energized than voting to strip rights away from others. Very sad.

I remain optimistic, though. I truly think that in our lifetimes, things will progress. Look at how far we've come. Still more work to do...

[jgraz]

6. No where but up. More bigots die every year.

10 years from now, everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.

[Jennicut]

10. The younger you are, the less opposed you are to gay marriage.

The older people will get really old and die and more and more younger people will take their place. In time, the #'s will be even, and then equality will be ahead.

[Skittles]

14. that's GENERALLY true

but lots of us old fucks were always for gay marriage, just so you know

[Eryemil]

21. That's a given and irrelevant.

[Skittles]

27. ?

how is it irrelevant to let a young person know not ALL of us older folk are BIGOTS???

[Jennicut]

28. I know that, I think of my parents as they are bigoted and both 62.

For the most part, many that age are against gay marriage. I am glad you are not! :)
I am not that young, either. I will be 34 in December so I am getting up there.

[Skittles]

29. aw I had guessed you were younger

well, I am 52 and hey my English mum - age 78 says, "Gays should be able to do what they bloody want." :rofl:

[Jennicut]

39. That is great by her!

I think the young adults behind my generation, Gen Y and the Millenials, are even more tolerant then the Gen Xers. I think time will have the effect of gay marriage finally being more accepted.

At least it is still legal in CT and last year we rejected the being able to vote on anything to do with the Constitution of CT.

[Eryemil]

31. Well, it's a given that not all old people will be homophobes. Just most are, statistically.

[Skittles]

84. agreed

[Skittles]

12. CORRECT

[JVS]

76. Your line of thinking on this is dangerously close to what people thought about legalizing pot.

It was once assumed that pot would be legalized soon when the old people who hadn't used it ever and were afraid of its effect died off, but then the demographic that was supposed to do the legalizing got older and changed their minds about it. I think it is important for married gay people (whether recognized by their states or not) to be visible and out about their marriages, in order to raise people's consciousness about the issue and show that the social changes are happening / have happened and that it is the law that needs to catch up.

[Bonobo]

9. Dump the word "marriage" and demand an amendment granting equal status 'contracts'

or whatever the fuck the haters want to call it.

It should be a non-issue. To fight over a word is to fight over a stupid piece of land.

That's what I think anyway. Few people can argue against equal rights. Dummies want to make it over who gets to wear a dress and a tuxedo and call whom 'husband', yadaya yadaya yadaya.

Demand and gain the right in an amendment for a civil contract granting equal rights in all ways and call it whatever you want later.

[VMI Dem]

13. Withold donations and votes to Democrats that are opposed to gay civil rights.

That would be most of them.

[Initech]

15. It's disgusting that civil rights are even a ballot issue to begin with.

[KharmaTrain]

23. True...

But then you're asking for rule by fiat...one that could go the other way. This would allow a rushpublican state legislature to forbid any gay marriage or civil unions and no referendum would over-turn it.

I think it's a matter of time until GMA do pass in many states...if anything, this is a call for supporters to retool the message and learn from these losses. IMO, they should be more pro-active...get either full marriage ammendments or even civil unions on the ballots before the biggots do. The opponents have their acts together in this game and by the time their money and message is countered it appears it's too big of a road for pro marriage folks to overcome.

Yes, it's sad we even have to have this issue as a political football but it is and until pro GMA advocates figure a way to win "the game"...energize their voters and get them to the polls, the right wing will continue to use this as a wedge issue.

[EndersDame]

19. My experience waiting tables in Wacko Texas

I was waiting tables in a restaurant in Wacko Texas with some crazies who fear a complete socialist takeover from Barack "Hussien" Obama . In May we hired a very openly gay man named Bubba! (the exclamation point was his signature) who just moved from Dallas to be close to his family. I coming from Austin thought, my god how are these country fried assholes gonna treat him (again to be fair alot of my former co workers though George W. Was a good and intelligent man and Obama was Adolf Stalin) I was pleasantly surprised when everyone treated him with respect. Even the daughters of a Baptist Preacher . Sure it took some education on most peoples part but when I stepped outside for a smoke I over heard the bar tender confess her former ignorance/bigotry and she came to the conclusion that if her son came out as gay she would love him the same and would want him to be happy and able to marry.

It gives me hope when this is coming out of Wacko Texas. Again I know that they are young but they certainly are not into being politically revolutionary or anything. I think a Waco youth is equivalent of a thirty forty something when it comes to change.

I think what needs to be done is more education and more grass roots organizing much like the '60s civil rights movement and it needs to spread outside of liberal/progressive enclaves

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

20. Marriage is a bullshit and antiquated concept

It should be used in a religious context only. Civil unions should be what the states, municipalities and corporations recognize for legal and financial purposes for both hetero and homosexuals.

No court has the balls to go there and define it as such though.

[vadawg]

25. yup do this and the majority of the no votes disappear overnight

have everybody get a civil union as the legal part, then let the churches do their thing...

[Shallah Kali]

68. I agree with civil union contracts for all! The ones who want religion can get it from their clergy

.

[Davis_X_Machina]

22. Pass it again, in two or three years, and...

...they'll try another 'people's veto' and it will lose.

The 1998 legislature passed an anti-discrimination law -- housing, credit, employment, etc. and it was defeated on a 'people's veto'. Ditto two years later. The legislature passed it again in 2005, and that time the veto attempt was pretty decisively beaten -- 56-44 -- even though it was an off-year election.

[Unvanguard]

26. We fight it out again, and again, and again, until we win.

Never forget: the day after Election Day 2008, we had two states with marriage equality.

The day after Election Day 2009, we will have five.

[Libertas1776]

30. Where do we go

from here? Canada.


No, but seriously, we keep on fighting. Never stop fighting until the fight is done. They knock us down, we get up again and so on. To many this seems hopeless if not pointless, but that's the way it is in America. Your civil rights may be guaranteed in the Bill of Rights but some group of assholes will always interpret it to deny you your fair share. That is why we must keep fighting until they interpret it the right way; the equal rights for all way.

[janet118]

63. Ban all state marriage . . . civil unions for everyone

Marriage should be relegated to a religious ceremony and only civil unions should be recognized by the state - with the same rights for hetero- and homosexual unions. Maybe then we can have a real separation of church and state. There are lots of churches who will perform gay marriages or commitment ceremonies. It's up to the state to ensure that both couples have the same responsibilities and privileges.

It's the rights that must be equal - the rites are irrelevant.

[vadawg]

65. get ready to be called all sorts for even daring to suggest this

good luck...

[vadawg]

66. get ready to be called all sorts for even daring to suggest this

good luck...

[janet118]

98. Time Magazine has article proposing this very thing

I just found this on Yahoo News.

A Gay Marriage Solution: End Marriage?

When a Jewish boy turns 13, he heads to a temple for a deeply meaningful rite of passage, his bar mitzvah. When a Catholic girl reaches about the same age, she stands in front of the local bishop, who touches her forehead with holy oil as she is confirmed into a 2,000-year-old faith tradition. But missing in each of those cases — and in countless others of equal religious importance — is any role for government. There is no baptism certificate issued by the local courthouse and no federal tax benefit attached to the confessional booth, the into-the-water-and-out born-again ceremony or any of the other sacraments that believers hold sacred.

Only marriage gets that treatment, and it's a tradition that some legal scholars have been arguing should be abandoned. In a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle, two law professors from Pepperdine University issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage. The authors — one of whom voted for and one against Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage in California — say the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether.

[DainBramaged]

83. Nothing is working, nothing so what is the plan? Why not keep the special interests out first?

Maybe the first plan is to work on the target state legislature to prevent OUTSIDE money from tainting the cause and preventing outsiders from polluting the issue that has a chance to pass UNTIL they use their money to scare people into forgetting what equality really means.

Change the local laws first. Elect gay-friendly politicians. Put THEIR feet to the fire. Lobby them and threaten their political existence like the special interests do AND organize AGAINST THEM. Take up the tactics your enemy uses against you, consistently, and only then will your RIGHT be affirmed.


My opinion. Sorry if it isn't good enough.

[Shallah Kali]

85. Ballot measures to ban other things condemned in Leviticus like shellfish & pork?

to show up the silliness of cherry picking old testament laws to enforce?

More seriously working to elect pro-equality politicians at all levels of government the same way the gop has done the opposite can't but help...