The Big Gay Chip On My Shoulder . . . by Rob Thomas . . .

[OneBlueSky]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-thomas/the-big-gay-chip-on-my-sh_b_208183.html

I am a straight man, with a big gay chip on my shoulder.

(snip)

I believe that America is a great nation of even greater people. I also believe that anyone who says that this is a "Christian nation" has RHS, or revisionist history syndrome, and doesn't realize that most of our founding fathers were either atheist or at least could see, even in the 1700s, that all through Europe at the time, religion was the cause of so much persecution that they needed to put into their brand new constitution a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE so that the ideals of a group of people could never be forced onto the whole. (I also find it funny when people point out to me that it says "one nation under god" in our pledge of allegiance, not realizing that this was an addition made in 1954 during the communism scare of the McCarthy era. It's not surprising, however, knowing that these same people would punch me in the mouth if I called Jesus a Jew.)

I believe the fact that an atheist, who doesn't believe in God at all, is allowed to enter into the holy land of marriage while a gay Christian is not, shows that this law is arbitrary. Are we to believe that anyone who doesn't live their life according to the King James Bible isn't protected by the same laws that protect those who do? Using the same argument that I've seen on the 700 Club, that would mean that Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim weddings are also null and void.

(snip)

A civil union has to do with death. It's essentially a document that gives you lower taxes and the right to let your faux spouse collect your insurance when you pass away. A marriage is about life. It's about a commitment. And this argument is about allowing people to have the right to make that commitment, even if it doesn't make sense to you. Anything else falls under the category of "separate but equal" and we know how that works out. (my bold emphasis)

- more . . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-thomas/the-big-gay-chip-on-my-sh_b_208183.html

[cali]

1. great points but what I keep struggling with

is the question of whether civil unions are better than nothing in states where marriage, either through the judiciary or legislatively, doesn't stand a chance? Also, can they pave the way to marriage? I don't know about the former, but I do know that here in VT, CUs served a useful purpose on the road to real equality.

[dsc]

2. actually civil unions almost cost us marriage in vt

according to Douglass the existance of civil unions was why he vetoed them. I will say that it worked out in Vermont but in California it turned out, in retrospect, to be a huge mistake. In return for a couple of years of extra rights we lost marriage for probably a decade or more. I don't think we will overturn prop 8 until at least 2020.

[cali]

3. wrong. I live here and I've worked on marriage equality for over

10 years with the FTMTF. And you don't seem to know who Douglas is. Had we not had civil unions he would absolutely vetoed marriage equality. period. I know the little prick. CUs were instrumental in gaining the force of public opinion for marriage. Without that, it's very, very dubious that the legislature would have enacted marriage equality. As for CA, it's the stupid ballot initiative process that fucked marriage equality, more than any other factor. Now I'm not advocating for civil unions at this point; I largely think their usefulness is over, though as I say, I struggle with the question over whether CUs are better than nothing in states where marriage doesn't currently stand a chance. I leave that to the activists on the ground.

[dsc]

4. admittedly Douglass could be lying

but in California I don't think the court was, and the commercials in California repeatedly used the theme that civil unions were equal and that gays must want something nefarious to be wanting marriage. As to your other point, I do think in states like NC we will have to take what we can get which won't be marriage.

[cali]

5. take my word for it, Douglas is lying. he's far more of a right winger

than most people outside the state realize. he's NOT a moderate. He just plays one in election years. this is a guy who looves Sarah Palin. What does that tell you?

And yeah, the discussion over whether 2nd class rights are better than no rights at all, is a tough one. Sometimes I think if 2nd class protections can prevent people from going through the agony of being separated from a partner when he/she is ill or dying, that's much better than nothing. At other times I think that if 2nd class protections are accepted in places like N. Carolina how the hell do we move beyond that?

[dsc]

6. only by the nation making us

We are better than I would have guessed before moving here but we have way too far to go. Even an ENDA style law for state employees would be a tough measure to pass here. Heck a bill banning bullying and naming sexual orientation as one of the classes failed last year and will probably barely pass this year.

[WillyT]

7. Kick !!!

:kick: