A conversation with friends.....eye opening.

[Mari333]

Every Sunday morning, I go to breakfast with a group of liberal Dem women, one of whom is the mayor of my small town.
We spend a few hours conversing, and have a great time. We discuss everything under the sun, including politics.


This morning, I brought up Obama's speech to the Human Rights Campaign, and calmly mentioned that I hope that Obama will support the rights of gay folks to marry someday. I assumed, of course, that all of my usually very liberal friends would just nod their heads in agreement.

Well. I heard it again. A meme I have heard on DU, and now I was hearing it from the women I always thought were VERY far left. I heard the 'excuses'.

'We dont need to worry about marriage...its silly! Why would gay people want to get married anyway??? I dont believe in marriage anyway!"

(my response: But, there are gay folks who want to be legally married, and therefore should be afforded the same civil right, no matter what your personal views on marriage are)

""BUT REALLY!" says another straight friend "REALLY, if they get the same rights without the word marriage whats the big deal???"

(my response: there were black and white drinking fountains in the south. the water was the same, and thats the same thing. The word marriage holds a great deal of weight in this culture. To deny that right to a group of citizens is to force them into a second class citizenship and sends the message that they are 'less than'.)


Finally, after all these straight, and priveledged women who I thought were really really LEFT, had finished with what were some of the most crazy circular arguments, I realized the mayor hadnt said anything.

Than, she spoke up.

"I agree with Mari. You cannot deny any group of people the same rights in the country that another group has. You cannot put them into a position of seperate but equal. "

Everyone pretty much shut up then.

But I learned something. a lot of people still have work to do on themselves, and hidden homophobia is still in some of the most progressive people I know.

[babylonsister]

1. Sounds like you and the mayor took advantage of a great

opportunity to educate the other women about why their opinions were so wrong. Maybe you opened their eyes; one can hope.

[Historic NY]

95. What is called a "teaching moment".

[nightrain]

2. yep. spend some time with folks, and we see the bumps and warts...

hope you can continue the discussion next Sunday....

[sandnsea]

3. It's not hidden homophobia

It's an attempt to make progress where you're at instead of allowing people to suffer while you wait for utopia. At least in the case of people fighting for civil unions of some sort because they know their particular state will not pass marriage in the foreseeable future. And yes, a lot of very good and liberal Democrats understand the difference, even if the utopians don't.

[Fumesucker]

4. I'm about as het as you can get and I disagree..

I think it is homophobia, for lack of a better word.

Gays are just considered less important than hets by most hets..

[Orwellian_Ghost]

7. I agree

I'd add that some, if not many, of these so-called progressives don't want to admit to themselves how they deem many, not just gays, to be inferior to themselves.

K&R to you Mari.

[Mari333]

8. I think thats what I felt this morning

one of the ladies said "after all, the whole idea is too difficult for people to handle, so they should be happy with what they get"

I told her "Oh, yes, you are straight, you and I dont have to worry about discrimination. You already have your right to marry. What would you do if tomorrow you lost it?"

She said "Well, not everyone will accept it!"

I saw her squirming. because it bothers HER. Thats what it boiled down to.

[petronius]

36. I'm sure that's it in some cases, but a lot of the time it's just ignorance and distance

from the question. Sort of like when people with good health insurance say things like "nobody is denied health care - ERs treat everyone for critical needs" as if that means everything is OK.

Civil unions sound logical, and it seems like they should be a reasonable compromise, so I can understand how people who are distant from the topic and haven't explored it deeply would support them...

[sandnsea]

45. Or who want progress today instead of in 20 years

And funny enough lots of gays around the country agree otherwise we wouldn't have passed civil unions in Vermont when Howard Dean was willing to sign marriage. Right?

[Sapphocrat]

103. Oh, goody!

I've been fighting for LGBT equality for 30 years -- and I only have another 20 years to wait? Hey, that is progress!

Heck, I'll only be 68 years old. Maybe Medicare will pay for my Hoveround, so I can attend the celebration march.

[Mari333]

104. yay you are on this thread.

Ill push you to the celebration in your wheelchair....wait, Ill be older than you.
:)

[Sapphocrat]

113. Damn. I knew I should have had kids.

Nahhhhhhhhh, not worth it. Oh, I know! We can hire some cute young gay men to push us around! :think:

[donco6]

135. Can you find some for me, too?

I told myself long ago I drive it straight off a cliff if I ever found myself in one of those scooter chairs.

[Sapphocrat]

138. Find you some kids, or some young gay men?

(And me too, re the scooter chairs.)

[donco6]

139. GAAAAK! Not kids - please!

Life is hard enough with dogs.

[Sapphocrat]

142. Smart man!

Ditto cats... although at least cats are like little, fur-covered Winnebagos: self-contained and easy to keep clean, although you have to empty the waste receptacle once in a while.

[sandnsea]

106. For gay marriage? Most likely.

If you think it's happening in the next 8 years, in every state in the union, you're out of your tree.

[Sapphocrat]

115. Boy, am I glad you're not a California Supreme Court Justice!

Those schizophrenics recognized my right to marry in the first place.

Oh, and if there ever came a day you didn't think I was out of my tree on any issue, I'd seriously reassess my position.

[sandnsea]

123. California has what to do with the other 49 states?

Can you read?

[Sapphocrat]

127. I can always count on you, sandnsea!

Why, if I thought you could ever engage in a civil discussion rather than throw inane insults around, I'd... I'd... I'd be shocked, that's what!

Oh, and since you always insist on having the last word, I won't reply to your next reply... unless, of course, it's as funny as the first two.

[donco6]

128. I had to laugh outloud at just the heading on this one.

Golly - what WOULD California have to do with the other 49 states? Thinking . . . thinking . . .

[sandnsea]

130. Absolutely nothing when it comes to the State Supreme Court

You guys are hateful, truly.

[donco6]

132. Nothing personal

You can save the accusations. I feel nothing toward you at all.

[Shanti Mama]

152. I'd agree, too, though I've heard and sometimes am swayed

by a different argument, which is... Marriage is, fundamentally, a religious union. We've codified it into our laws, as has every other Western country, and you can have a civil marriage ceremony, but it's roots are religious. So, laws applying to marriage of any sort are unconstitutional and we need to rethink the entire structure of legal unions.

One approach would be that everyone must have a civil union ceremony to be "unionized":)under the law. Those who want also to be religiously married can do so, in a service of their choosing. I'm beginning to like this idea more and more.

Just a thought...

[FlaGranny]

156. Religious belief is the

whole problem. Some people are never, ever going to accept marriage as anything but between a man and a woman because that's what the bible, or their preacher, tells them. The only way they would be able to accept the concept of 2 gays united is if religion could be entirely removed from the equation. I don't know if that will ever happen, but it should. Those vehemently against gay marriage deep down inside their souls are against it out of religious belief. How can that be changed? I wish I knew. Too many people "need" their religious beliefs.

[sandnsea]

37. Heterosexuals fighting for civil unions and hate crimes laws

and equal employment and housing laws and adoption rights laws... are heterosexuals who think gays are less important?? That's logical to you?

[Mari333]

48. Unless they fully support the rights of a gay couple to be legally married

yes, thats homophobia.

[TCJ70]

105. What if they view it as a means to an end?

Civil Unions today, to get the benefits of marriage conferred on couples who need them. Marriage tomorrow when society is more accepting of the idea.

It's a different strategy, but it's far from homophobia.

[Mari333]

109. no black and white fountains.

the homophobes would win. to tell gay couples they can only call it a civil union and not marriage because it might offend a mob of bigots is merely feeding the hatred.
fuck the bigots.

[TCJ70]

110. So you didn't read the end of my post? Ya know...

...the part where I mentioned working for the word marriage? Some water is better than no water. And at this point, gay couples have no water. Let's get them a water fountain and then work to merge them.

[Mari333]

112. gay equal rights=marriage. not calling it anything else.

no reason to feed the bigots. all the rights without the name isnt the same.

[TCJ70]

114. It's amazing to me that you can't see that that's exactly what I've said. n/t

[Fumesucker]

50. In my experience the people you speak of are a small minority of hets

[unapatriciated]

140. it's great that you are involved but...

my daughter is NOT less than equal. Sadly that is what many would have her settle for.
Why must they settle for less than? Equal but separate is not the answer.

[Mari333]

5. so, basically, keep those black and white drinking fountains

they get the same water.

[sandnsea]

34. Well gosh, if blacks were getting NO water

Then, Yes, a black drinking fountain would be a significant improvement, correct?

Are you saying that all the people who fought for civil rights in the past were haters because they didn't get every single thing passed all in one swoop?

[donco6]

120. LOL! Wow, we've regressed 50 years.

I guess those "Coloreds Only" signs were a step up!

Amazing.

[TCJ70]

121. I believe it was a step up from slavery...

...and then to desegregation. Slaves didn't go from slave to equal citizen overnight. It's amazing to me that people don't see the real similarities in these situations. Rights were gained over time. If someone believes it a better use of their time to fight for rights before (note, the word before means that the next step will come eventually. It does NOT imply stopping short of.) the word marriage...it is just as noble a goal as the "give us everything now" strategy.

[donco6]

122. And someone even defends it.

Even more amazing. But not surprising when you've seen how far DU has fallen.

Just a minor correction - rights are never "gained." Rights exist and are denied by people such as yourself who don't see any problem with a "Coloreds Only" fountain. After all, it's a step in the "right direction."

[TCJ70]

151. Do you think I don't think you should be married?

Because I've never expressed that anywhere. I see a route to marriage that ends suffering in the short-term while working towards the long-term goal. I feel sorry that it seems you'd rather have no rights than have them with a certain word attached. Have fun being thirsty.

[vadawg]

6. also lets be honest not everyone has gay rights at the top of their agenda

i believe anytime there were polls even on DU asking for stuff ranked inimportance gay rights always came in low, and resulted in the polls getting locked. Lets face reality when people are losing their jobs and homes these things will take priority over everything else. Then there is the religious portion of the argument whether people like it or not, you will never convince the major churches to accept it as you want, so some people think compromise is better than both sides maintaining a loggerheads stance...

[Mari333]

9. doesnt matter if the churches accept it or not.

Its a civil rights issue.

[vadawg]

12. to you its a civil rights issue, to many others also, to a lot of others its a religous issue

personally i think the problem is with the word marraige, not sure how you solve it.

[Mari333]

14. doesnt matter if they dont like it due to religious reasons

its still a civil rights issue.
and we should not deny a gay couple the right to walk into a city clerks office in any town in the USA the right to apply for a marriage lisence. they should have the same right as hetero couples to do so. religion has nothing to do with that civil right.

[vadawg]

19. no i got no problem with any couple going into the courthouse and getting a licence

and then getting hitched, as i said i think its the blurred lines between the civil and religious that we need to sort out.

[donco6]

29. Just as long as your religious concepts don't actually have to change.

How much like the Pharisees you are. All whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.

[vadawg]

35. why should the concepts change, thats the thing about religion

it dosent have to make sense to everybody, your not going to change the major religions no matter how much you think you can. Same as your going to have to accept that many cultures wont accept gay marriage either.

[donco6]

43. I only need one culture to change.

And you're standing in the way. Fortunately, as we've already seen with Europe, your power structure is crumbling and will be swept away someday. I'm working to make sure it's sooner rather than later.

[ArbustoBuster]

148. My religion requires me to kill people to please the gods.

May I practice it?

No? It's evil and destructive, you say?

Then by the same principles, any religion which denies the rights of gay people must also be forced out of the way - or by whatever God you believe in, we will break it if it won't bend. The First Amendment allows free practice of religion. It doesn't allow religion to dictate what others may do.

[donco6]

150. You know what's odd, though -

Quite a few major denominations already accept equal marriage. Unitarians, United Church of Christ, Episcopalians, Quakers . . . and Presbyterians, Methodists and some Lutherans will be coming along soon.

And you do know that "marriage" as a legal term has been written into thousands of laws in the US. So to say it's only a religious term flies in the face of reality.

And believe me, I know better than most that "religion doesn't have to make sense to everybody."

[NMMNG]

116. Did you have to go to every church in America to get approval for your marriage?

Then why the fuck should we?

[donco6]

18. God, save me from your followers.

That's all I have to say about that.

[Fumesucker]

22. I grew up in the deep South, "race" was a religious issue here then too..

Just because something is a religious issue doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

[BR_Parkway]

111. You point to MA where gays have been getting married for over 5 years

and point out the fact that NONE of the doom and gloom that they predicted has happened. And that state leads in having the least divorces in the country.

If their religion doesn't recognize it, that's fine - there's plenty that due. Hell, Jews haven't been recognizing Christmas for centuries - both sides do find with that.

[vadawg]

15. problem is that different people see it differently.

i think the main problem is using the term marriage, for a majority of people it denotes a certain thing and thats what a majority of those opposed are fighting for. I have had this argument before about finding a different term that is used by government and that everyone has the same rights under this term and then the religions can do there own seperate religious ceromonies and call it marriage, but i dont think anyone is willing to compromise and we will still be arguing this years from now...

[donco6]

20. So the church owns the word "Marriage"?

And we already have our own churches who will marry us now - using the word "marriage." So they're not "good" enough for you?

[vadawg]

23. Not my church so i dont care what they do, what i said was the word marriage is the hang up

for a lot of people, you can keep shouting at me but that wont change the fact that a lot of people who are on the fence will stay there as long as they are attacked for having a different view on the word marriage..

[donco6]

26. While you defend them and keep them confortably on the fence.

I have no use for you. You are like a mouthful of lukewarm water.

[vadawg]

38. lol i just dont agree with you, be prepared to meet a whole world of people who disagree with you

[donco6]

40. Then you side with discrimination.

Big surprise.

[vadawg]

51. lol i dont see how its discrimination to say that the rights should be the same

regardless, not sure if your method of attack is the best to get people to stand with you...

[donco6]

53. And again, back where we started.

"The water in the fountain is the same, what's the problem?"

This happens a lot with you. Again, no surprise.

[vadawg]

55. lol so me saying the rights should be the exact same is somehow me saying they should be different

im not sure if you just dont want support or what, the issue i am saying is with the word marriage if you cant see that and realise its not some secret word of power but just a word albeit a word that means something different from what you want it to mean...

[donco6]

57. So, prithee, define the word "marriage" for me.

Now I'm curious.

[vadawg]

58. well going by what the common usage is its a union between a man and a women

now i know you are going to go all philosophical and pull out other definitions, but this is the common thought on the word and the way it is used by the major religions whether you like it or not...

[donco6]

59. So, without two sexes, there can be no "marriage."

Just making sure that's what I'm reading.

[vadawg]

60. i would say that is the basic understanding of the word as it is used today

[donco6]

61. So, okay -

When a Metropolitan Community Church performs a wedding ceremony and refers to the new couple as "married", how does their relationship differ from the man and woman who were married across the street?

[vadawg]

63. okay as ive stated i dont think it does, but im not the one you have to convince

this is a minefield that could easily be circumvented by making all marriages civil unions, and then let the individual churches have a religious ceremony that they can set the rules for. The problem is by insisting in the using the word marriage its like poking the bear, your gonna get a negative reaction, when actually getting the rights in place is more important than winning a name game..

[Mari333]

65. see my post below.

there were a lot of negative reactions when the right to MARRY was given to inter racial couples. the word isnt going to change. MARRIAGE.

who cares if there are negative reactions? bigots are bigots. who gives a gnats fart.

again, its a civil rights issue and peoples reactions dont mean diddley squat.

[donco6]

66. But your church does believe there's a difference.

And you still stay with them? Why?

[vadawg]

69. for a lot of reasons, cultural, im a believer, the church has always been there

i got deep roots in it, a myriad of reasons.

[donco6]

74. So, this discriminatory practice doesn't make you uncomfortable?

I would be uncomfortable. Maybe it's just me.

[vadawg]

76. nope it dosent, like all things you have to measure the bad with the good

we all have times when we have to do this and for me the church has always been there and fed us when needed and protected us when needed as well.

[donco6]

78. OK. Good to know. n/t

[vadawg]

79. no problem....

[Mari333]

80. what I always hear is (looking behind peoples words)

"Oh comeon! appease the homophobes, be glad with what little you can get, and dont rock the boat" or, "I myself am uncomfortable with the idea of gay folks using the word marriage so therefore I will use all kinds of inane arguments to justify myself and my own fears which I cannot admit to you or to myself because than I might have to look in the mirror."

[vadawg]

83. well you must be having a difficulty with the accent then

or your just projecting your own predjucies onto other people... you think i look behind peoples words when they complain about my grammar or spelling and assume they are being bigots, no thats because i can see other peoples arguments and understand that people all think differently and have different views..

[CreekDog]

155. laws against interracial marriage weren't voted out of existance, the Supreme Court did it

if we had a decent supreme court, they wouldn't be able to justify a laws about marrage that discriminate on the basis of gender.

[Mari333]

62. and the word marriage once only applied to couple of the same color

and 72 percent of the public religiously believed that marriage was supposed to only be between 2 people of the same race.
and that was changed.
and now change needs to happen again.

[vadawg]

64. and it will, but do you want to get those rights or is winning the name game more important..

[Mari333]

68. Sounds to me like it might bother YOU that the word 'marriage' be ascribed to gay couples

does it?

[vadawg]

72. lol as a call out this one sucks, i dont really care as ive stated before

it makes no difference to me, i just understand why people have a problem with it, you might not get it but i do...

[Mari333]

87. I DO get it. I am the only person in my family who supports gay marriage

I come from a right wing Catholic highly bigoted family . I am VERY well aware of the reasons that many people use to say why gay folks shouldnt get married. my god, I havent been living in a cave on Mars. I have read all of their frigging biblical passages they use to hate homosexuals. I also have read all the passages they used to condone slavery.

Bigots should never be given a pass. They do not own the word 'marriage'.

Legislation should not be based on whether the bigots and homophobes like it or not. period.

[vadawg]

89. and once again you do realise that those bigots and homophobes

have a big say on any legislation that does get passed, probuably going by the amendments passed in the states a lot of say in what happens, you can shout at them all day long or you can come to the middle and recognise their concerns as well. You know if both sides shout at each other neither side will hear the other...

[Mari333]

91. 72 percent of the american public was against inter racial marriage

it still became law. sometimes law has to change despite the bigots.
same thing with de segregation . majority of southern voters were against it.
it became law.
sometimes law has to change despite the bigots.

[vadawg]

93. and you know that the majority of people see this as something totally different

you think that fighting for the next 20 years to get something is better than working to get the rights enshrined in law today and then worry about the word marriage later.. if so then you are nuts...

[Mari333]

94. you worry too much about majority opinion

majority opinion doesnt make the laws.
fighting through the courts does. the constitution does. the majority think that jesus is coming back, too.
who gives a gnats fart what they think? this is about the law, and civil rights.
this will end up in the supreme court.
within the next 20 yrs or even sooner, gay folks being able to be legally married will be the law of the land in every state.
people can either deal with it, or hide from it. its already legal in many states, it will be federally recognized.
its just a matter of time.

[vadawg]

96. okay if your happy to wait for however many years

and by then who knows what the supreme court makeup will be, you do realise that the majority gets to vote in the pols who get to fill the courts benches...

[Mari333]

97. you are telling gay folks to be happy with the black water fountain

the majority (mob rule) will not win this one. Right now , states like Iowa and Massachusetts recognize the legality of gay couples right to be legally married. But, if they go into another state, they are denied their legal rights.
That will change because the constitution cannot be ignored for that long. In the meantime, they will get 'some' of the benefits of marriage via civil unions.
Thats not enough. marriage offers 1049 legal rights that civil unions do NOT give.

[vadawg]

98. now i think you are intentionally missing the point

i say get the same 1049 rights call it civil union and then the names just different and the religious side is happy, your happy i am happy and the rights are conferred...

[Mari333]

100. do YOU yourself have a problem with the word marriage being used for gay couples?

just asking.
why do you have an issue with it being called marriage? if its the same damned thing as some second rate civil union with the same benefits??
again, who gives a shit what bigots think?
how would you like it if, tomorrow, the US govt told you that YOUR marriage was no longer a marriage and could only be called a civil union...You do realize there are many many people of religion who are gay, right?
never mind. this is just one of those circular arguments you are using to justify the homophobes in the churches.

[BlooInBloo]

85. I was wondering why it took so long for someone to mention this.

[Mari333]

44. Im sure every gay american knows all too well about the bigots and homophobes hiding behind religion

who cares what the bigots and homophobes hiding behind religion think?
doesnt mean anything.
its a civil rights issue.

[Zix]

82. Poster was prepared and answered. and you just...

squirmed... and slithered...

[vadawg]

84. erm dont think so, i think i stood and made my point whether you or the poster agree with it

[donco6]

16. There's ALWAYS something more important than doing the right thing.

I've been around a long long time, and I've heard it all. "We have to get X elected first!" "We have to give him time to set up his chess moves!" "We've got to back off and wait for Issue X to be resolved."

It never ends.

And who gives a shit what the churches think? We have our own churches that will marry us already.

[vadawg]

21. yup i think you need to get the civil side fixed, get the same civil rights sorted

then who really cares what its called...

[donco6]

24. No, YOU need to get your act together and stop discriminating.

I haven't done anything wrong. It's YOUR side holding all the cards.

[vadawg]

32. Once again from my side as you say it the big problem is with the word marriage

, but this word has a meaning for a large part of the world, and your not going to get people to accept the change, thats why i was saying get the same civil rights on the books, have the same civil ceremony and let the churches do their thing, call it whatever you want, let them call it whatever they want but realise that marriage will still mean something different to the majority than what you want it to read...

[Mari333]

39. doesnt matter what they think. its a civil rights issue.

Its not about changing people's minds. Its about LEGAL CIVIL RIGHTS. It needs to be Federal Law that gay folks have the right to be legally married. In every state.
If people in some of their religious beliefs dont like that, tough shit.
People used religion as an excuse to condone slavery too.

Religion has nothing to do with the need for civil rights of marriage for gay folks. It should not even be considered into the argument or the legislation.

[donco6]

46. Exactly. The concept of "changing people's minds" -

implies that it's an issue to be voted upon - something that a majority has to be convinced of. It's not. It's a simple matter of obvious justice. No one can proffer a cogent argument against it. And to think it's all on OUR back to CONVINCE the majority to ALLOW us our inherent rights is preposterous.

[vadawg]

47. not sure why we are reading past each other, i got no problem with the same rights being shared

as i have stated from what i see neither does the majority of churches, its just the simple use of the word marriage thats the big stumbling block, cant see why the word cant just be relegated to the religious ceremony and then have everyone regardless have a civil union with the same rights.

[unapatriciated]

144. No one is asking the churches to accept it...

Some churches refuse to perform marriages of different faiths, no one forces them to do so.
Until the government cease to issue "marriage certificates" the major churches have no say in this.

[donco6]

13. Yes it is.

It's fear of actually having to stand up for what's right, by substituting what you can get away with while still saving face with your homophobic friends.

That's Barney all over.

[sandnsea]

41. YOU make the assumption

that someone fighting for civil unions in the legislature is NOT saying they support gay marriage to their friends. YOU assume that and YOU label people as homophobes. That makes YOU the hater.

[donco6]

49. Pfft. You know them by their fruit.

I care little what people say. What they DO reveals all.

[sandnsea]

107. And I fight for progress, while you throw fits and hate people n/t

[donco6]

119. What fit would that be?

Just having a little chat.

[nashville_brook]

117. not a homophobia as fear of homosexuality, but certainly a dismissal of their rights as humans.

which seems worse than straight-up fear, really.

[sandnsea]

124. Who dismissed their rights?

Standing up for equal rights today, under any form, while fighting for the name tomorrow, IS NOT homophobic or a dismissal of any sort.

Or are you saying gays that fight for civil unions are homophobes themselves?

[donco6]

129. Yeah, that's exactly what we're saying.

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

131. Hey what's the difference?

Why are you not a homophobe when fighting for civil unions - but necessarily EVERY heterosexual who fights for civil unions IS a homophobe? Who the fuck do you think you are to dump that on someone?

[donco6]

133. Take a breath.

Why so worked up? Just having a nice little discussion.

[sandnsea]

134. Right, attacking people as homophobes

is just a "nice little discussion".

I am so sick of it. You alienate more people than you bring to your side.

[donco6]

136. Sorry you feel that way.

Have a lovely day.

[monmouth]

10. One of the many important reasons "marriage" legally is a must for the

GLBT community is a simple trip to the hospital, a decision must be made and a myriad of other reasons (that's all I could think of at the moment). Straight people, and I am one, have no clue as to the obstructions in life, in the workplace and a place like a hospital that the GLBT community have to deal with. I hesitate to comment on their threads but this is a matter of civil rights, and should be important to everyone. I didn't like two fountains and I sure as hell don't like the fact that my gay friends cannot enjoy the same privilages as straight marrieds do. Civil rights.....

[Thickasabrick]

11. K&R

[samsingh]

17. i support Gay Marriage

[Warpy]

25. People have these automatic cutoff points in their heads

and I think that's what you were up against. It's hard to reach them because their brains shut down once those cutoff points are reached. I know I've got a few and it's extremely frustrating when they engage and I realize I've got a lot of work to do adjusting them.

I'm able to make a slightly more persuasive argument in favor of gay marriage because I've seen first hand the consequences of not being able to marry.

I was an RN in Boston during the worst parts of the AIDS epidemic, when the time from diagnosis to death was measured in hours, sometimes, and there was nothing we could do except hope to pull them through an acute infection so they could go home and settle their affairs.

Once in a while, blood relatives who had been estranged from the patient because of his orientation would show up, announce "that man" had ruined their son/brother and bar him from visiting. This was incredibly cruel to the patient, who needed all the will to live he could muster. This is the kind of human right that would be conferred by gay marriage, the right to visit a dying partner in a hospital.

As it was, we used to send the families home by midnight and then sneak the life partner in, jeopardizing our jobs but doing the best we could for the patient.

When the patient died, as so many of them did, the partner, often a partner of many years, was prevented from claiming the body an planning the funeral if a single homophobic blood relative objected. One or two families even refused to make funeral arrangements in favor of anonymous cremation by the city. They simply would not let the partner have a funeral for his loved one.

Marriage would do a lot to end the tyranny of spiteful families. It confers simple human rights that go along with legally elevating one's life partner to first degree relative status.

And that is what the fight is all about. It's not about sex, procreation, pushing things straight people find icky, or any other ridiculous agenda the preachers scream about.

It's about the simple human right to visit someone you love in the hospital. It's about the simple human right to bury someone you love.

[Mari333]

28. Thank you.

[Fumesucker]

30. Nicely said.. +1

[donco6]

31. Great post, thanks.

Brings back a lot of memories.

[nashville_brook]

118. amen.

[TuxedoKat]

27. Kudos to you and the mayor for speaking up

I wouldn't be surprised if some of those friends disagreeing with you initially change their
minds after some reflection, or at least I hope they do. Maybe some of them had never thought
about it that much until you and the mayor stated it the way you did.

I love your analogy and the mayor's statement -- going to use them both if their is ever a need.

[boobooday]

33. Glad the most enlightened one is mayor

:applause:

[cleverusername]

42. Staight ally

I'm a straight ally. So are most of my friends.

People against gay marriage never have a legitimate reason. It always comes down to it offends me personally. It always comes down to their "beliefs," which they want to impose on others.

I believe that progress will be made as the older generation dies. There is a huge attitude difference among the older and younger generations. Progress is too slow IMHO.

[Mari333]

52. You know, theres some truth in that

Im almost 60 and the young people I meet are sooo much more open minded. The older ones still seem a bit uptight and preprogrammed or something.

[unapatriciated]

147. This almost 60 has been fighting for gay rights longer than her gay daughter.

but I must confess I didn't understand why civil unions were not the same as marriage until last year.
When someone on DU typed the words "Separate but Equal" and it was very clear from that moment on.
You can not be equal if you are separate. You are less than, why would I want anyone to be less than myself.

[glitch]

54. Of course it's about Civil Rights. And people are still being fired and losing their careers

or being outright murdered because they are gay, FFS.

It's ALL about Civil Rights, and there really is no excuse for justifying (or even mildly rationalizing) the intentional stratification of any people in our alleged "civilization".

[CrispyQ]

56. Thumbsup to you & the mayor, Mari!

I'm so glad you spoke out! Hopefully the message will reach some of the others.

I support gay marriage, too.

[davsand]

67. I can't claim to support legislation to force the right to gay "marriage" because...

I honestly see "marriage" as being a religious thing. I don't think the government has any right to force churches into performing specific ceremonies. Just as I do not want a government run by theologians, I do not want to see religions run by politicians. (Somewhere along the line somebody else felt this same way or else we would not have a First Amendment present in our Bill of Rights...)

Let's be real honest, there is no way any of us will ever live to see the day when certain churches will recognize gay relationships, let alone sanctify them. There is no amount of legislation that can ever be passed that will ensure that. It sucks, but that is a reality.

Having said that, I do feel that there is a bundle of "rights" (benefits, maybe is a better way to express this) that the government confers based on a religious ceremony that needs to be extended to any couple who seeks it. THAT can be fixed with legislation if the political will is there.

I am troubled by the tack the discussion has taken that somehow "civil unions" are less than a wedding. I think it kind of confuses and distracts everyone from the fundamental issue of legal equality for all. IMO the issue is less about a church policy than it is about a legal policy and we allow people to continue suffering when we are distracted from that.

We can't FORCE morals on specific churches, but we sure can force legal changes to society as a whole.

Just my two cents, and I'm sorry if I have offended somebody with it.


Laura

[Mari333]

71. there are many churches who perform gay marriages. but they arent recognized by all states.

But this is not a religious issue. Its a civil rights issue.
If a gay couple wants to walk into the city clerks office in any state and obtain a marriage lisence, they are denied that in many states.
That means they are being discriminated against.
and that has nothing to do with religion.

PS>>>no church would be forced to perform marriages if federal legislation were passed for gay marriage. doh.

[davsand]

81. Those religious ceremonies are not recognized in the legal sense. THAT can be fixed.

If the political will is there, it can be made law that ANY ceremony joining two adults is "recognized" legally. Personally, I fail to understand why that has not happened yet.

If two people choose to be joined legally, there needs to be an ability to do so--irrespective of who the two adults are. To me, that is a fundamental human rights issue.


The nature of the discussion has become incredibly polarized because our culture chooses to use the term "marriage" when it discusses a union between two adults--be it religious or civil. We are fighting the language here, not each other, I suspect.


Laura

[unapatriciated]

145. It truly amazes me that you would need to explain that to anyone on DU.

"PS>>>no church would be forced to perform marriages if federal legislation were passed for gay marriage. doh."

There are many churches who refuse to marry those of different faiths and the government doesn't show up on the church steps to force them to do so.

[donco6]

77. No one forces a church to perform a wedding.

I used to work in one, so I know intimately. You CANNOT walk into a church and expect them to perform your wedding. It doesn't happen that way. THEY get to decide if they'll do it, what you'll do in return (classes, join the church, etc.), who you can have perform, what songs they'll sing - everything.

I couldn't care less if 99% of churches never accept equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. There are already churches out there who DO.

No one is forcing any morality on any church.

[davsand]

99. Donco6, you are correct, we can't FORCE any church to do something. We CAN, however, change laws.

I agree with you 100%. We will never be able to legislate changes to a church policy. As much as I dislike their resistance to accepting the validity of gay relationships, I will never be able to make them change. It pisses me off, but it is a reality just as racism is still a reality--just as sexism still exists.

We do, however, have the ability (and I feel a moral obligation) to push for the legal equality of all couples who choose to be united. THAT is a legal or legislative thing, and it is something we can continue to work for. I suspect that state level action is probably the first avenue we will see the most success stories, but ultimately, it must come at a federal level if we want real equality for all adults.

Again, I say that I think the reality of the debate is lost on a lot of people because they get distracted by the language. Sad to say, I think it is happening to both sides of the discussion.


Laura

[MadMaddie]

86. Thus the reason for separation of "Church and State"!

No where in the laws that are trying to correct injustice does it say that all churches will be mandated to marry gay couples.

As it stands today there are many conservative churches that won't marry heterosexual couples because the couple may have lived together or have a baby already. The churches are not forced to marry anyone they don't want to. Churches have no business trying to dictate civil rights issues.

I find it interesting these very same churches and it's members scream about religious freedom and about the government staying out of their lives but they have absolutely no problem interfering and negatively impacting other Americans lives.

These same churches get to use our roads, our public water supplies, our public schools, our public police and fire departments with our tax money. They pay no taxes yet they get to use everything and then abuse the very system that allows them to worship freely. These churches spend millions of untaxed dollars fighting against things they don't like.

Remember they are going after gays now, they will eventually go after hetereosexual couples who don't want to get married, and they will go after those that are not religious and then the religions will end up going against each other.....where does it stop?

[BlooInBloo]

70. "priveleged", but yah to your main points.

[Mari333]

73. I type fast when my blood pressure rises.

:)

[BlooInBloo]

75. It's ok. I fucked it up, too. It's "privileged".

Glad you responded. I wouldn't have looked at it again otherwise.

:rofl:

[blm]

88. Interesting....and...I'll bet that scene could be repeated by many of us.

Sad....but....maybe not for long.

[calimary]

90. Hi Mari333!

:patriot:

[Mari333]

92. HI darling!!

:P

[MrScorpio]

101. It's great to know that you've got such a supercool mayor, Mari

To go along with your coolness

[Mari333]

102. I love you! shes running against a real wingnut in Nov

Hes an angry guy, who doesnt like the ladies much. you know the type. bloviating, good old boy.

[DireStrike]

108. I wouldn't call it homophobia

Just lack of understanding. Many of these people can be convinced. I was.

[JNelson6563]

125. Very enlightening.

Thanks for posting this. I believed this to be true all along. "I agree with Mari" too. :-)

Good to see you Mari, I hope all is well with you and yours. :hi:

Julie

[grantcart]

126. The receptability for equality in marriage has more to do with actually knowing

gay people than in ideology.


Republicans who have gay friends tend to be very open for marriage equality.

[bigwillq]

137. Thanks for sharing your story.

And a thank you to your mayor, and to you. :hug:

[lonestarnot]

141. Glad you hang with a good mayor, but I feel sorry for you in that you actually

didn't know the women that you have been going to regular breakfast with for some time, and you even called them friends. I'd rather not have any friends if my friends were like that.

[omega minimo]

143. Did they talk about what they think the difference is and why the word is so important to them?

""BUT REALLY!" says another straight friend "REALLY, if they get the same rights without the word marriage whats the big deal???"

That might be helpful to discuss, for them to either it explain it understandably or realize themselves that they can't?

[lumberjack_jeff]

146. To me it's simple. Equal protection under the law.

I don't need to be comfortable about "it". I don't need to approve. I don't need to empathize.

The fact that I do is irrelevant.

But I will say that having a discussion about the merits of gay marriage with a group of "very far left" women is bound to be fraught with cognitive dissonance. "I like gays, so I'm for it. But I hate marriage, so..."

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. Well Mari the only reason why civil marriage should be considered

is that it should be considered for EVERYBODY.

Understand I grew up in a country where the Preacher could NOT officiate an official marriage before the state. For that you went down to your local registrar and were married by the Justice of the Peace. ONLY AFTER you got that certificate of CIVIL MARRIAGE did you go and talk to insert priest, rabbi et al here if you wanted a religious ceremony.

For some stupid reason I want that system to come to the US... fully separating church and state insofar as marriage is concerned. And yes, that is a civil marriage.

[barbtries]

153. that's disturbing.

it's such a no-brainer. civil rights for everyone! simple. i had a discussion with a fundie friend and it was almost embarrassing how easy it was to point out the weakness of her "argument." she finally offered that she didn't like them because "they make so much noise." i said sandy if black people hadn't "made so much noise" they'd still be slaves, if women hadn't "made so much noise" you and i wouldn't have a vote, and she said, yeah, well...like fish in a barrel.

but she's owned by her "church" so my money says she still voted yes on 8. :(

[glowing]

154. Honestly, if you aren't faced with the issue, often you don't think about the issue.

For most of your friends, they may be more concerned with health care or the 2 wars or the economic recession or a number of issues that are all on "fire" as I put it. If you aren't gay or don't have gay friends.. or don't have gay friends that speak about issues such as equal rights, its not something they may have thought of before. AND many of us saw the 2000 and 2004 elections become a "value" issue with the decisive gay ammendments turning out the lunatics from the right to work for the Pukes. These people are not equating the issue of Civil Rights as a key issue in all these battles that we are engaged with. Health care is a civil rights issue, economic disparity becomes a civil rights issue, and the wars and who fights/ profits off the wars are a Civil Rights issue. Its is the old devide and conquer method. We all need to stand up for everyone's rights, and then we will have unity and a more perfected union.

[MindandSoul]

157. Marriage rights

Absolutely! I totally agree with your statement that hidden homophobia is still rampant. What is more difficult to address is that it is not necessarily "hidden," it is unrecognized by many good people who truly believe they have absolutely no prejudices!
And until one recognizes one has a problem. . .obviously it can't be addressed!

But. . .if marriage was not important for gay people. . .why would it be important for heterosexual couples?
I think we should make a deal: Either EVERYONE has the right to marriage (if they choose to marry), or NO ONE has the right to marriage. . .and we all go to civil union only!

I tell you what, if you told people who now argue that "marriage is not important, why would anyone want to get married anyway" that, starting on January 1st the institution of marriage is illegal or unrecognized for ALL, gays and straight couples. . .the people who today believe it is not important and don't want to get married (both straight and gay) would have a fit and would march on Washington by hundreds of thousands!!!!

Equality for all. . .either the courts recognize ONLY civil unions for all, or they recognize marriage rights for all!

In my country of origin (Belgium), the two (civil union and marriage) are totally separated. . .
To be a couple recognized by the government and the law, you MUST have a civil union. If you also want to get a religious marriage. ..you are absolutely free to do that, but the religious ceremony of marriage is not recognized as a legally binding contract by the government or the law. . .it is an "addendum" to the civil union. And the civil union MUST be performed PRIOR to a religious marriage.

Most couple choose to have both (civil union and marriage) on the same day or one day after the other, but some decided to get the civil union then to get a religious ceremony months, or years later.
And the two ceremonies do NOT occur in the same setting: The civil union ALWAYS occurs in a "official" building (town hall, usually), while the religious ceremony occurs anywhere (usually in a church, but could also be a back yard, a beach, or any gathering place!).

So. . .there is no confusion, and there is a REAL separation of church and government. . .although the Belgian Constitution doesn't even require that!