Do BlogCritics want:
A - Gay Marriage nationally. After all, it's a Civil Right.
B - Gay Marriage where the local government has decided it is to be. After all, the 10th Amendment allows the several states to decide for themselves on such matters.
C - No Gay Marriages, but nationally-recognized Civil Unions. After all, gay couples should be allowed to enjoy the same benefits as married couples.
D - No Gay Marriages, but certain states may allow Civil Unions. After all, marriage is between a man and a woman, but voters in certain states should be allowed to give certain groups special rights.
E - No Gay Marriages, and no Civil Unions. After all, homosexuals are an affront to God.
Me, I'm torn between B and D.
Anyone else have an opinion?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mark Edward Manning
If D wasn't a choice, then I would go with B. However, on a matter as explosive as gay marriage, letting the states decide is the best option. I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, but I have no problem with civil unions that entail the benefits of marriage for homosexuals.
2 - Shark
You left off:
F) A Blogcritic Proclamation - Be It Resolved: this horse has been beaten to death; that any Blogcritic who shall post another essay about this dead horse will be beaten to death; and that banishment from the site will be recommended for anyone even contemplating posting about this dead horse of an issue. (Note: a daily update on the activities of someplace called 'Oregon' implies that we're missing at least 49 other daily entries -- not including Puerto Rico and other sovereign territories -- so please, for the love of Gawd, give it a rest.)
See also "Mel Gibson's Passion" for more.
3 - Doc
How about A?
But then again, when were the racists given votes about school integration or interacial marriages?
Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny no matter how much it gets dressed up as (im)morality.
4 - Bill
Being part of a gay couple for the last 30 years of my life, I find it repulsive that we are willing to let the civil rights of gay couples such as myself to be up to the states to grant. We pay taxes just as anyone else, although somewhat more since we are unable to file jointly. We have the same concerns as anyone else, although more, because if one of us is in the hospital, there is absolutly no reason the hospital will have to give the other the right to visit or to make medical decisions for my partner. If my partner dies, there is nothing that will dictate that I won't loose my home if his blood family decides that half of what we have built a lifetime to build, is half their's. Yes, this has actually happened to some of my friends.
If the decision to grant gay couples equality to married couples is left to the states, many will be without those rights, perhaps forever. And, in all cases, those couples will not be able to gain the over 1,000 federal rights afforded marriage.
Civil rights should not be left up to polls and popular opinion.
5 - boomcrashbaby
I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, but I have no problem with civil unions that entail the benefits of marriage for homosexuals.
I find such an ideal silly to say the least, however if something like this makes people happy, and does accord all couples the same thing then personally I'd settle for it.
However, it reads like this:
*turning to the person on my left*
Here, you may have this ice cream cone.
*turning to the person on my right*
Here, you may have this frozen dairy product on top of an edible holding device. But you may NOT call it an ice cream cone. That is biblically wrong.
Makes no sense but as long as I get my ice cream cone, you can call it whatever you want, if you feel you are obeying God's will by refusing to call it for what it really is.
6 - Roger
Civil Rights? Define specifically civil rights as it pertains to homosexual marriage. I'm sick of everyone hiding behind the term "civil rights".
Homosexuals are not minorities. That idiot Mayor up in New York, Jason West ( who was ultimately charged with 19 criminal counts )had the nerve to reference Rosa Parks and what African Americans endured in the 1960's to the gay marriage issue. That is whacked. There is no comparison between the two issues. He's an idiot who needs to go back to high-school and re-take American History.
7 - boomcrashbaby
Civil Rights? Define specifically civil rights as it pertains to homosexual marriage. I'm sick of everyone hiding behind the term "civil rights".
Sure, this one is easy. Allowing a spouse to co-sign on a home loan but then denying some people to have spouses is a violation of that person's civil rights. Allowing some couples to file taxes jointly but not other couples is a violation of that couples civil rights of equal treatment. Allowing some spouses to not be forced to testify against their partner, but requiring other spouse to, because you don't acknowledge their relationship is a violation of that couples civil rights. I could list 1,700 different violations of civil rights when it comes to marriage, but since we both know it won't change your mind, it would be a waste of space. It's not you we need to convince, it's just Lady Justice, who continually rules on our side anyway.
8 - Roger
This really doesn't even have a bearing on me. I was just taken aback by the civil rights comparison between gay marriage and the years and years of African Americans being denied the basics of life. That is a clear insult in African Americans.
As long you don't have people like Jason West going to bat for you, you might make some headway on the issue.
9 - boomcrashbaby
I was just taken aback by the civil rights comparison between gay marriage and the years and years of African Americans being denied the basics of life. That is a clear insult in African Americans.
There is a lot of debate in the gay community about comparing our fight for equality with the fight that African Americans went through. Granted, we don't have the lynchings that they went through in the past, but we do have crimes motivated by hate in which gay people are brutally killed and tortured every year.
Any reference to the civil rights marches of Dr. Martin Luther King or the civil rights struggles of the past are more of a reference to the 'separate but equal' philosophy.
There was a time when society had separate drinking fountains for those of different races, there were separate restaurants, separate places to sit on the bus, etc.
The judicial system decided that a separate but equal philosophy doesn't work and does not fit in with the concept of what America was meant to be.
Yet here we are in 2004, where people want marriage AND civil unions that offer the same benefits but are just called different things. Marriage is your drinking fountain and civil unions are mine. Let's disregard the fact that this country has already learned separate but equal doesn't work and let's just spend our time repeating history, huh?
10 - Roger
That's weak. Plain and simple. No matter what your explanation, what happened to African American's should have never been brought up in the issue.
Gay Marriage your water fountain? My ass! Don't try to back peddle for that idiot(Jason West) and explain his ignorant comparison.
11 - boomcrashbaby
That's weak. Plain and simple.
Luckily, Lady Justice doesn't think so.
12 - Roger
I have an idea. Use the voting process to start. Next use influencial gay figures along with people like yourself to work behind the scenes and get some results. Being an ill loud mouth like Rosie doesn't help the cause. Extremism does not ease tensions.
If I'm doing an investigation for an individual in a domestic matter more times than not their ex is talking in excess about all of the great things they're going to do. Meanwhile I'll relentlessly go from one town to the next, courthouse to courthouse and do whatever is needed to deliver a devastating blow to the loud mouth.
Keep doing your part within the law and you'll get your results.
13 - boomcrashbaby
I have an idea. Use the voting process to start. Next use influencial gay figures along with people like yourself to work behind the scenes and get some results.
So you've got how to accomplish gay marriage all figured out. Good for you. However, it's completely wrong.
First, one should not use the voting process to determine who federal benefits are applied to and who gets discriminated against. A democracy does not mean 'mob rule'.
Second, we have been working 'behind the scenes' as you put it, for decades. The sodomy law that was struck down took 8 years to make it to the Supreme Court. The Mass. ruling did not come about by filing a lawsuit the day before. We HAVE been working and making major advancements, and we still have more to go, due to the idiocy of perceptions like, who qualifies for what tax breaks and who gets treated how by the federal government should be put to popular vote.
Third, at no time in my discussion with you, was I defending any straight mayor or judge or court clerk who has decided to take a stand for what is right. They are reviewing their state constitutions and their laws and making decisions based on their interpretation. If there are existing laws that conflict with their constitiution, they are making their own decisions as to which takes priority. Only time and the justice system will determine if they are right or not. Neither you or I will.
Fourth, and in terms of extremism, if there are gay LAW-ABIDING people out there who are tired of being compared to animal humpers, Satan, child molesters and all sorts of other paranoia comparisons, and they are speaking out about it, loudly well then good for them.
The extremism and loud in-your-face rhetoric comes strongest from the anti-gay establishment and it comes FIRST. Any shouting back is simply that, shouting BACK.
14 - Roger
I disagree on voting. Having the right Politicians in office and Justices on the bench can make or break any issue. Trust me, I can personally attest to this.
When I use the term extremist I feel that way toward all causes, even my own beleifs. I am pro-life, but I can't stand driving to my home and seeing loud mouths with 6ft high pics of bloody fetuses, or even worse someone claiming to christian murdering a doctor or nurse because they work in a womens clinic.
One question. Why has the issue of gay marriage sky-rocketed so much in the last few years?
15 - Natalie Davis
More people are out and more of us are fucking sick of silently living in hell as second-class citizens while America goes on with its lie about being a land of equality. A lot of us have had enough. We're fed up and we won't put up with this crap anymore.
16 - Roger
MERCY!!! Somebody call TWISTED SISTER:
We're Not Gonna Take It
Oh we're not gonna take it
No, we ain't gonna take it
Oh we're not gonna take it anymore
We've got the right to choose it
There ain't no way we'll lost it
This is our life, this is our song
We'll fight the powers that be just
Don't pick our destiny 'cause
You don't know us, you don't belong
Oh we're not gonna take it
No, we ain't gonna take it
Oh we're not gonna take it anymore
Oh you're so condescending
Your gall is neverending
We don't want nothin', not a thing from you
Your life is trite and jaded
Boring and confiscated
If that's your best, your best won't do
Oh Oh
We're right (yeah)
We're free (yeah)
We'll fight (yeah)
You'll see (yeah)
!
17 - boomcrashbaby
So if one has nothing substantiative to add, we just cut and paste song lyrics?
I believe there are many reasons why gay marriage has come to the forefront in recent years. Probably more reasons than I can get into, but I will try to list at least some.
First, Natalie is speaking the truth when she says more and more of us are out now than before. You would be hard pressed to find a homosexual in the 1950's who wasn't closeted. With domestic partnerships coming in and gay people on tv showing America we aren't really the boogeyman, the gay youth of today does not experience the level of bigotry and hatred and lies that their predecessors did. So they don't understand the motivations behind bigotry as much and are more likely to speak out against it. Their level of self-esteem is much higher, although because of homophobia still being so prevalent in society, the gay teen suicide rate is still 5 times that of a straight teen.
Secondly, there are an estimated 10 million kids growing up in gay households today, in this country alone. As my daughter, now 20 months old, begins to find her place in this world, I realize I am not fighting for me anymore but for her. For far too long, I was silent when the lies and slander and discrimination was around, because my own self-esteem wasn't very good. But my daughter's family is just as good as the family next door and she is entitled to all the privileges and benefits that their children receive, including the rewards that go to families via tax credits, insurance policies and whatnot.
Third, this has been in the works for decades, we have been fighting this the whole time. The federal amendment was in the works for no less than two years but was hardly a blip on the evening news. Then suddenly a heterosexual president endorsed it, and it was HIM doing so that put it in your face.
18 - Natalie Davis
Oh -- and, thankfully, more and more hets are growing up and realizing three things:
19 - Roger
Yeah, paste song lyrics! At this point we're beating a dead horse. For the love of God, Dateline NBC just ran a story 30 mins ago still debateing whether or not J. Edgar Hoover was a cross dresser.
Imagine the years and years to follow if and when gay marriage is legal.
You think it's as simple as the President and some Politicians signing a paper making it legal. If it is made legal on a Federal level there will be years of back and forth actions and appeals by Local and State governments in areas arguing the "States constitution" and rights.
You think it's crazy now. Wait and see what happens if it is made legal. You will be in for one big show.
20 - boomcrashbaby
You think it's as simple as the President and some Politicians signing a paper making it legal. If it is made legal on a Federal level there will be years of back and forth actions and appeals by Local and State governments in areas arguing the "States constitution" and rights.
So what else is new for us? I never thought it would be that simple.
You think it's crazy now. Wait and see what happens if it is made legal. You will be in for one big show.
We've fought this for decades, we know it won't be solved overnight. We've already seen 'the show' and we'll see it to the end. It's a show of your own making.
21 - Natalie Davis
Indeed. To coin a phrase, the chickens are coming home to roost.
22 - Roger
Are we angry or what? Chill. It'll all work out in the end.
As far as "we've already seen the show". You're dreaming. It's gonna get a hell of a lot wilder, crazier and nastier than you could imagine.
23 - boomcrashbaby
Are we angry or what? Chill. It'll all work out in the end.
Just to clarify for you and anybody else who might be reading me, I'm not angry when I post here, although it does sound like that sometimes, granted.
As far as "we've already seen the show". You're dreaming. It's gonna get a hell of a lot wilder, crazier and nastier than you could imagine.
You can't possibly imagine what we have already seen though.
24 - Roger
I'm sorry someone or something has done you wrong. You sound really upset. If you only realized how many gay men and women I have worked with not to mention a close friendship with a gay person, you wouldn't be giving me hell.
I took a lot of shit from people, especially close friends because I was friends and regularly had breakfast,
(three to four times a week)with gay guy during a two to three hour gap between classes while in college. He respected me and I likewise respected him. Nothing more nothing less.
Live and enjoy life. Sorry if I offended and I hope you can not be so angry. Life's to damn short.
Goodbye...
25 - RJ Elliott
It is not possible to take the position of opposing gay marriage in a debate with a homosexual, and not have the other individual's personal emotions become involved. And I completely understand that. If I was gay, I would support gay marriage too. A "conflict-of-interest" is involved here, and it's impossible to expect a gay person to not take his/her own side in the argument.
It is futile to debate this issue with BCB or ND any further. It is ludicrous to expect to be able to change their minds on this matter.
FWIW, my mind is made up as well: I oppose court-imposed gay marriages, but I suspect (as Eric points out) that they are inevitable. The Constitutional Amendment won't pass. The DOMA will be overturned by the USSC at some point. And that's that.
I also believe that the definition of marriage will face further redefinitions beyond that, since it will then be viewed as an infinitely malleable "right" instead of an unwavering bedrock of American culture. Polygamists will likely find a receptive audience in a future USSC. Incestuous couples as well. "Relationships" between humans and other sentient animals (dolphins, other primates) will be decriminalized. The age-of-consent will be lowered by the courts to European standards (13 in some countries, if I remember correctly). Etc.
Just my predicition. I could be wrong. But once you start sliding down that slippery-slope, you are likely to see an increased push at "reforms." Those who want radical change rarely are satisfied with a victory. It merely emboldens others with an issue with the status quo.