The Ultimate Brokeback Forum

Author Topic: Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?  (Read 655557 times)

Offline adamblast

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • that's where our hearts both belong
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #30 on: January 02, 2006, 12:55:57 AM »
Here's a question though.  Let's say Elton emigrated to the US.  Could his husband enter the country as Elton's spouse under US law?
Certainly not.  The Federal government refuses to acknowledge gay marriages from other countries. 

And the state governments refuse to acknowledge them from other states.  Can you imagine if a straight couple was told they weren't  married anymore because they moved across the country? We currently have one state, Massechussetts, which has full legal marriage for gays, but it may well be overturned in 2008.  Interestingly for those who think civil unions will be so much easier to get, nearly all the 20+ states that have outlawed gay marriage in their state constitutions have also outlawed anything that seeks to approximate marriage, i.e. civil unions.  In other words, our relationships deserve *nothing.*  We are officially second-class Americans.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2006, 04:48:23 PM by adamblast »

Offline MellorSJ

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #31 on: January 02, 2006, 01:04:25 AM »
MellorSJ, it's really not an either/or question in terms of gay marriage vs. civil unions...   Yes, it's very true that America is far more likely to grant gays civil unions than full legalized marriage.  And if the rights and responsibilities of civil unions are equal (or near-equal) to that of marriage, it would be a huge step.  The sad fact is that gay couples today are legally *so* devalued and maligned that their relationships have basically no standing whatsoever--so even gay civil unions are a vast improvement.  Most gay folks, including gay activists, would be very glad to see gay couples given increased legal rights, even under the banner of civil unions. 

But don't forget for a second that, while it may be better than the *nothing* we have now, it is also a severe compromise--in effect an enshrining of second-class relationships.  By saying our couplehoods don't deserve the name "real marriage" society is also telling us we are inferior, and that they can take those rights away from us again whenever they choose.  It's a legal apartheid system, separate and unequal.  So it's hard to tell gay folks they should be pushing for civil unions instead of marriage, even if it is the politically more realistic move today.

It's hard to get behind a civil rights crusade for "near-equality."

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I don't think I was clear.  I think we have three (effective) choices:
1.  "Marriage."  The goods and the name.
2.  "Civil Union." The goods without the name
3.  A watered down "civil union." A second-class form of marriage.

I think we should *never* settle for #3, because then we have lost the high ground.  The argument is this: "This <thing> (to use Ennis' priceless word for what he has going with Jack) is about equality under the law.  Now if Joe Blow's religion says it's immoral to eat pork, does that mean we should make the eating of pork illegal?  Obviously not.  Same goes for us."  We have to hold on to that principle, for once it is lost it is impossible (in a reasonable time frame) to get it back.

But the success of "dog-whistle politics" means we have to be realistic.  Going for #1 just brings on the Fundies.  Next thing you know, we have nothing.  

So I say #2.  Call it "Civil union" but *insist* on exactly the same rights as in a marriage.  It's only a word.

Offline MellorSJ

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #32 on: January 02, 2006, 01:19:21 AM »
Certainly not.  The Federal government refuses to acknowledge gay marriages from other countries. 

And the state governments refuse to acknowledge them from other states.  Can you imagine if a straight couple was told they weren't  married anymore because they moved across the country? We currently have one state, Massechussetts, which has full legal marriage for gays, but it may well be overturned in 2007.  Interestingly for those who think civil unions will be so much easier to get, nearly all the 20+ states that have outlawed gay marriage in their state constitutions have also outlawed anything that seeks to approximate marriage, i.e. civil unions.  In other words, our relationships deserve *nothing.*  We are officially second-class Americans.

Thanks for the data in your first para.  It's what I thought, but it pays to know!

My understanding is that the US consititution requires the other States to recognize MA's laws.
Quote
Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
(I had to take a test, remember!)

I understand, too, what you say in the rest of your post.  But IMO, that is a measure of the success of their strategy and the failure of ours.  Had we said "We don't want marriage!  Just the rights every other citizen has!" I think (and of course we can't run a controlled experiment), we'd have fared better


Offline adamblast

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • that's where our hearts both belong
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #33 on: January 02, 2006, 01:28:02 AM »
Not sure I can agree that there's any worthwhile distinction to be had between your #2 and #3. 

The harder you insist that civil unions carry the exact same legal standing as marriage, the harder they will be to accomplish.  A seperate marriage-lite system "for gays only" will, by definition, have a different body of laws governing it.  In fighting for #2 I don't see how you end up with anything but #3.  And realistic or not, I don't think we can ask gay people to fight for #3.

Equality is only a word as well.  And if you don't have it, you don't have it.  You can't tell people not to want it.

« Last Edit: January 02, 2006, 01:40:58 AM by adamblast »

Offline adamblast

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • that's where our hearts both belong
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #34 on: January 02, 2006, 01:29:59 AM »
My understanding is that the US consititution requires the other States to recognize MA's laws.
Yes, you would think so.  Which is why 20+ states have written new articles into their constitutions claiming they *don't* have to on this point.  And once it's in the state contitutions, judges can't overturn them.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2006, 01:33:51 AM by adamblast »

Offline MellorSJ

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #35 on: January 02, 2006, 02:19:00 AM »
My understanding is that the US consititution requires the other States to recognize MA's laws.
Yes, you would think so.  Which is why 20+ states have written new articles into their constitutions claiming they *don't* have to on this point.  And once it's in the state contitutions, judges can't overturn them.

Bzzzzt.  The Federal Constitution can override State Constititions.  See anything to do with the Civil rights era.

Offline dallaskweer

  • Feet Wet
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #36 on: January 02, 2006, 03:15:34 AM »
One of the marvelous things about the yahoo lawyers in the South writing up these anti-gay marriage amendments is that, due to poor use of language, and poor law school educations, they have shot themselves in the foot.

The new Texas law, in its second clause, essentially invalidates ALL marriage, via bad syntax. This state amendment will eventually wend its way up to the SCOTUS and the can of worms will open up and all hell will break loose. Thank God!

(Ivy League, snotty old money Boston faggot here who lives in Dallas and just LOVES to rib his native cowboy husband about how fucking ignorant these bubbas are.)

Offline adamblast

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • that's where our hearts both belong
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #37 on: January 02, 2006, 08:23:35 AM »
My understanding is that the US consititution requires the other States to recognize MA's laws.
Yes, you would think so.  Which is why 20+ states have written new articles into their constitutions claiming they *don't* have to on this point.  And once it's in the state contitutions, judges can't overturn them.

Bzzzzt.  The Federal Constitution can override State Constititions.  See anything to do with the Civil rights era.
Yet again, you're talking about what should or should have happened.  Not what did.

Offline MellorSJ

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #38 on: January 02, 2006, 01:41:14 PM »
My understanding is that the US consititution requires the other States to recognize MA's laws.
Yes, you would think so.  Which is why 20+ states have written new articles into their constitutions claiming they *don't* have to on this point.  And once it's in the state contitutions, judges can't overturn them.

Bzzzzt.  The Federal Constitution can override State Constititions.  See anything to do with the Civil rights era.
Yet again, you're talking about what should or should have happened.  Not what did.

Hmmm.  Are you telling me there's been a court case where this was decided?  Details please, for I am ignorant.

Offline doodler

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15461
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #39 on: January 02, 2006, 07:43:05 PM »
A religious ceremony does not a marriage make. For it to be legal, a license must be issued by the state. The same license works for a church ceremony or one before the justice of the peace. So calling it marriage or civil union, it amounts to the same thing.
In 2010, 606 people (all ages) were accidentally killed by guns.
Almost 3000 teens (15-19) die in traffic accidents a year.
1100 kids under 19 drown each year.
44 kids under 5 died of heat stroke in hot cars in 2013.
HIGH school sports account for 1.2 million trips to the ER annually.

Offline red_sun

  • Getting Acquainted
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #40 on: January 03, 2006, 02:18:23 AM »
I don't mean to change the subject, but is anyone paying attention to the Canadian fedreal election (I'm from Canada). The Conservatives seem to be catching up to the Liberals. I'm, hoping that they won't form government, but if they do what effect do you guys think it will have on Gay marriage in canada (it is legal now)? I think that they will be unable to repeal the law, but will still try their hardest to.

Offline adamblast

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • that's where our hearts both belong
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #41 on: January 03, 2006, 10:04:28 AM »
Hmmm.  Are you telling me there's been a court case where this was decided?  Details please, for I am ignorant.
No, my point--and I'm sorry if I haven't been clear--is that pending any federal decisions (which we have every reason to fear may be biased against us) the state constitutions *are* the law, and neither gay marriages or civil unions are transferrable from state to state.  Obviously, like yourself, I feel that it's wrong, and not something that would be tolerated for any other minority.  Your insistance that the full faith & credit clause triumphs over all the state constitutions just isn't an accurate picture of the current state of affairs.  These state ammendments were written to explicitly say otherwise, however poorly and unjustly.

Offline jim ...

  • Global Moderator
  • Expert
  • ******
  • Posts: 442
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2006, 05:43:33 PM »
I don't mean to change the subject, but is anyone paying attention to the Canadian fedreal election (I'm from Canada). The Conservatives seem to be catching up to the Liberals. I'm, hoping that they won't form government, but if they do what effect do you guys think it will have on Gay marriage in canada (it is legal now)? I think that they will be unable to repeal the law, but will still try their hardest to.

in all honesty, I haven't paid as much attention to the election as I should.  I can assume however that if the conservatives find themselves in the majority, your legal right to marry will most likely be threatened.  Perhaps some of our friends from north of the border could enlighten us.

Offline red_sun

  • Getting Acquainted
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2006, 11:25:35 PM »
The Liberals have been loosing support not because of their suipport of gay marriage ( 3 of the 4 major political parties supported it, the Liberals being the "softest" supporters though). What's killing them is a series of financial scandals that keep coming. However, our Conservartive party isn't nearly as bad as the Republicans. The conservative leader said that if he is elected he will call another vote to decide the fate of gay marriage. If it fails to pass he said he will keep it legal. if not he will ban it (no one knows how though... lol) but will still keep civil unions with full rights. But it angers me why they claim the right to marriage. Marriage was not invented by Christians, there has also been evidence of gay mariages occuring in Roman times. I guess no single party can hold power for 14 straight years *sigh*

Offline jim ...

  • Global Moderator
  • Expert
  • ******
  • Posts: 442
Re: Gay Marriage
« Reply #44 on: January 06, 2006, 06:49:34 AM »
The conservative leader said that if he is elected he will call another vote to decide the fate of gay marriage. If it fails to pass he said he will keep it legal. if not he will ban it (no one knows how though... lol) but will still keep civil unions with full rights.

thanks for the info red-sun.  In Canada, what exactly is the difference between "gay marriage" and "civil unions with full rights"?  If Canada did make gay marriage illegal, what rights would be lost?