MEME MEMO: Not gay marriage - marriage rights

[ClassWarrior]

The expression "gay marriage" seems to conjure up the image of homosexual sex to middle Americans, not a very savory subject in their eyes. Yet most of those same folks would agree that people have the right to marry whomever they like. So if we avoid the expression "gay marriage," and use a more general term like "marriage rights," we can take the focus away from sex and put it on personal freedom where it belongs.

[donhakman]

1. Ban Gay

[Selwynn]

2. I'd rather not make apology for being gay or marrying gay.

[ClassWarrior]

3. Who says it's an apology?

Don't you agree that the issue is personal rights?

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

4. I appreciate the tenor of your idea, but . . .

the vehicle may need some fine tuning to reach the ends you envision. I'd take "marriage" completely out of the equation. Civil rights? Civil unions? Legal rights? Codification of moral responsibility? Inheritance rights?

[ClassWarrior]

5. Too true.

n/t

[merh]

6. Can we include in the amendment a mandatory waiting period and

background check, 3 strikes and your out provision, and please, please, a ban on all reality t.v. marriages? If so, then by all means "marriage rights" legislation sounds good to me.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Oh sure...

...you're one of those marriage-control nuts, arentcha? Sorry, you'll have to pry my marriage from my cold, dead hands.

[shraby]

8. Why a background check?

What is the object of that, and what is the object of a mandatory waiting period? I would think that two consenting adults who want to get married should be able to without hassleing (sp?) them.

[merh]

13. Like I said, those who propose the "marriage right" legislation or

amendment purport to be concerned with the sanctity of the union, so, if that is the case, the mandatory waiting period (engagements for at least a year with mandatory pre-marriage counseling)and mandatory background and credit checks are vital. 3 strikes and your out allows for mistakes yet maintains control of those irrational and irresponsible individuals who cannot or refuse to respect and honor the institution (Rush Limbaugh would qualify, but then again, I think he would easily fail the background check).

States have enacted legislation to protect the "public interests" regarding marriage (Age limits, divorce, etc.)

Marriage is not an issue that requires government control or involvement. And yes, it is about individual rights and equality.

[merh]

9. The marriage rights issue is based on preserving the sanctity

of the union, isn't that the argument. Monogamy should also being including, if you are not faithful -- off with the head of your choice!

"`Are their heads off?' shouted the Queen. `Their heads are gone, if it please your Majesty!' the soldiers shouted in reply. `That's right!' shouted the Queen. `Can you play croquet?'"


(p.s. - i'm just a control freak, not really picky about what I try to control.)

[Djinn]

10. I'd say most of them

would STILL have a problem with it regardless of what terms we use.

As for whether it's "unsavoury" to them - well the idea of ignorant middle american fundies screwing leaves me pretty cold - reckon we can ban them from marrying and particularly reproducing! :)

[ClassWarrior]

12. That's exactly why I don't use language that conjures up...

...the image of ignorant middle american fundies screwing. Now thank me.

And I wouldn't say most of them. Many of them, sure. But not most.

[Must_B_Free]

11. Anti Discrimination & Equal Rights

are what this is about. I agree.

[Technowitch]

14. Separate is never equal

Okay, sure -- the argument that I and my wife (same-sex spouses, together seven years, married in SF on March 9th) use is that the main reason and rationale is we want those 1100+ special rights available to hetero couples. Including to those who get married while drunk at 4am in Vegas -- it's just as legally valid throughout the union as the most solemn religious ceremony.

Yet we same-sex types can't get a piece of that pie, even if we stay together and have completely merged finances, households, Wills, and even child custody agreements -- no matter how long we stay together.

As soon as you have something that goes by a separate name, there will be pressures by some states NOT to recognize those Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, or you name it. Just look at DOMA, which grants precisely that right (whether Constitutional or not, as it's not yet been tested in court). Religions will demand the right to discriminate against "non-married" couples (with respect to church-based employment, insurance, and so on), on the basis that they don't approve of same-sex unions of any sort.

Here's the ONLY truly fair and ultimately equitable solution: Civil Unions for everybody. Leave marriages to religion only. The government has no business doing anything more than registering the paperwork, a legal contract entered into freely by any two non-related consenting adults. If there are rights to be had, they should be available to everyone -- not just hetero couples, because that's what the controlling theocratic powers-that-be demand of everyone, even those who don't follow their narrow-minded bigoted ignorant retributive "angry god" faiths.

Whew! Rants are fun!

Technowitch

[merh]

15. You tell 'em . . .

You have said it all and said it correctly. Thanks

(Congratulations on the nuptials! Best wishes to you and yours!)

(and I am spiritual, so may I add - I know God blesses you both and your union)

[cmayer]

18. I certainly agree with Technowitch

and have for a while.

But the problem we have is this year in the context of a Presidential campaign.

"Marriage Rights" looks like the best way to frame the question at the moment. I'm on board. You can't get everything all at once.

When you frame it that way you make people change their perspective. Long term winning strategy.

Edit: for spelling

[ClassWarrior]

16. kick

n/t

[calimary]

17. It should be referred to as The Marriage Discrimination Amendment.

The word "discrimination" should be surgically attached to the concept. It'll get that way if we repeat the heck out of it. Because this is exactly what such a proposed amendment is - an amendment that seeks to legalize and legitimize DISCRIMINATION. And, uh, excuse me, but aren't we, as Americans, supposed to be against such things?