This is a lesbian's view of the legal stuff: "The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions".

I read enough of it to get the gist: that the two are not equal because civil unions are recognized by States only. My answer to that is...it's up to the people. I wouldn't mind a national "civil union act" but 70% of Americans still do.

My own two cents: I think that in a human sense marriage is just a label for loving commitment. People can be everything a husband and wife can be without that label just as that label doesn't automatically make the couple a paradigm. In that sense I don't care who calls themselves married. In the legal sense I always thought of marriage as a declaration of two people as a single legal entity and all the entitlements that that brings are a natural progression of that. I guess that simple definition won't stand up to most people's standards but in my mind everything else is just an elaboration. I don't see why a state would interfere with that on the basis of genders. The only difference between a homosexual union and a heterosexual union (excepting sterility) is the ability to produce kids. There's plenty of evidence that even the ability to raise kids is the same.

So... Gay marriage legal? It's only a label and taxes. The label doesn't matter a damn and the main argument against tax equality boils down to "we give these guys tax cuts 'cos they breed". <sarc> I say give the children of unfit breeders to fit gays and give everyone who's raising kids the extra rights. </sarc> Or not. There is that whole over-population thing.

Well said.

Some predictions: At some point within the next 20 years, on our present course, gay marriage will be legal, except in whatever cities or states have been overrun by muslims. 20 years beyond that, homosexuality will be considered a genetic defect correctable in vitro.

This is a lesbian's view of the legal stuff: "The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions".

It's a short enough article so worth a read. IMO the important points start at "Taxes", halfway down the first page.

My own two cents: I think that in a human sense marriage is just a label for loving commitment. People can be everything a husband and wife can be without that label just as that label doesn't automatically make the couple a paradigm. In that sense I don't care who calls themselves married. In the legal sense I always thought of marriage as a declaration of two people as a single legal entity and all the entitlements that that brings are a natural progression of that. I guess that simple definition won't stand up to most people's standards but in my mind everything else is just an elaboration. I don't see why a state would interfere with that on the basis of genders. The only difference between a homosexual union and a heterosexual union (excepting sterility) is the ability to produce kids. There's plenty of evidence that even the ability to raise kids is the same.

So... Gay marriage legal? It's only a label and taxes. The label doesn't matter a damn and the main argument against tax equality boils down to "we give these guys tax cuts 'cos they breed". <sarc> I say give the children of unfit breeders to fit gays and give everyone who's raising kids the extra rights. </sarc> Or not. There is that whole over-population thing.>> ^quantumushroom:
For me, the gay "marriage" debate ended with the arrival of civil unions. If a gay couple has the same legal rights as a married couple, then that is, in essence, the libertarian goal. As Elton John put it: "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Obviously the 'loudest' gays are not happy with "civil unions"...

First of all, let me say thank you for the reasoned arguments. As liberalsift's only "conservatarian" a heavy (voluntary) responsibility weigh on my shoulders. I'll attempt to address the talking points.


Native Americans practiced same-sex coupling. Thousands of years even before that, there's evidence of humans pairing off for mutual protection and cooperation - two prehistoric dudes have a better chance of taking down large game than if they worked alone. Two female cave girls have a better chance of surviving and avoiding being raped by cave dudes than if they were separate.

But what you're describing isn't marriage, and even if there were homosexual acts under these circumstances, it's not something the tribe would recognize. Even the ancient Greek pederasts scoffed at the idea of gay marriage.

Same-sex coupling has existed as long as humans have. Hell, even modern day penguins are known to engage in same-sex coupling.

We shouldn't be looking to the animal kingdom for comparisons, where cannibalism and killing other beasts' offspring is normal.

Before people cite the Book of Matthew, let me remind them that "Man shall not lay with another man..." doesn't refer to homosexuality. There wasn't even a word for it when the bible was authored. The line references how we are not to treat men the same way we treat women. And just how were women treated during the days of the bible's authoring? Like cattle - merely objects to be bought, sold, and bartered for. The line speaks that we should not enslave men the way we enslave women. The line speaks to institutionalized misogyny, and has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

I have never heard this interpretation of Matthew so I remain...neutral.

The first amendment guarantees us freedom of religion. It also guarantees us freedom FROM religion. Every law needs a secular reason for existing. "God says it's wrong" isn't, nor will ever be, reason enough for a law. The 14th amendment guarantees equal rights and freedoms, even to people you don't like.

The First Amendment does NOT guarantee freedom "from" religion, this deliberate distortion is a 'gift' Progressivism. Equal rights and freedoms have very obvious limitations. You're free to ride a bicycle and you're free to drive a car on the freeway, but you're NOT free to ride your bicycle on the freeway.

The Judicial branch did it's job - protecting the people from themselves. Just because the majority voted for something doesn't mean jack shit. If it's unconstitutional, it won't fly, no matter how big the majority.

A judge made up things for a non-existent "right", similar to how abortion was made legal by non-existent privacy rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, the ruling was inept and corrupt. There was a time when slavery was considered constitutional, so it's true that things change.

And why is it "Small-Government" types always try to use the government to enforce their religious views? Seems HYPOCRITICAL to me.

Some libertarians vouch for the "privatization of marriage" which means the State doesn't recognize any marriage but can only enforce contracts between (any) people. (Unfortunately?) we don't live in a libertarian society---far from it---and the State (with much thanks to Statists) has its tentacles in all manner of arenas and areas in which it has no business. The main reasons governments evolved was to preserve private property rights and keep enemies outside the gates. Marriage is a legal contract, and since it affects taxation and a slew of other things it is the State's business, for better or worse.

For me, the gay "marriage" debate ended with the arrival of civil unions. If a gay couple has the same legal rights as a married couple, then that is, in essence, the libertarian goal. As Elton John put it: "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Obviously the 'loudest' gays are not happy with "civil unions", which brings me to my next point: there is indeed something special about the one man/one woman marriage. If there was not, these gay pawns (the latest pawns of Progressive Statist subversives) wouldn't be so adamant. Except for the fundamentalists, no one could care less about people's personal lives....but if you force a majority to recognize something as being on par with what they consider sacrosanct, then it will be received negatively.

I would be personally delighted if some judge ruled---against the will of the people---that all controlled substances drugs be made legal, prostitution be made legal, all excessive federal hurdles to owning firearms be abolished, perhaps the income tax be replaced with something else.......but it's not the way the system works. As a member of society I am as much a "victim" of traditional values as everyone else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.

Society is indeed stupid, but not all the time, and therefore the accumulated wisdom of centuries of trial and error shouldn't be readily abandoned.

----------------------------------------------------
Well, this is just one sifter's opinions. At present about 70% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Perhaps in 10 years only 30% will be opposed and society's values will radically change.

The vast majority of average gay folks aren't. But there is a fringe that looks on the gay movement as more of a societal prybar. As with the comment above, they look on this as a chance to 'change' religion/society/attitudes/people as opposed to obtaining simple secular rights.

Again, you reveal substantial ignorance of gay activism and advocacy. Most gay advocacy is directed toward fighting societal attitudes that harm LBGT folk. We don't want people to yell "faggot" or "dyke" at us, seek to have us fired from our workplaces for our orientation or sexual identity, or beat or even kill us for being open about who we are. We don't like being treated like dirt, so we try to change people's minds.

I don't see what's so radical about this.

However, the primary means for achieving these ends are education and persuasion. I'm unaware of any significant group that seeks to achieve that sort of change through the force of law; the notion is reprehensible, and the results would in fact be counter-productive.

But let's be hypothetical and say no-one currently is voicing these radical positions(it's untrue, but let's go with it). Laws have a nasty way of generating unintended consequences - and religious groups are rightfully concerned over the vague language in gay marriage legislation. Ask someone in the 60's whether anti-discrimination laws would be used to put girls in all-male schools, and they'd say "Don't be ridiculous... That isn't the intent!" And yet - that's what happened. Laws get passed, and then the law gets PUSHED in unintended ways. I think religious groups are more than justified in being concerned that these vague gay marriage laws (which contain no specific language to protect them) would be used in future legislation against them - 1st Ammendment or not.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to do this - let's take the time to do it right. Give gay couples their civil unions that extend all the secular benefits of marriage. Craft the law so it has concrete, specific language limiting the law to ONLY extend to secular standing. Let each church make it own rules for 'marriage' as they see fit, with protections that allow churches to refuse gay marriages without being sued for it.

First, I'd like to see an example of all-male schools being forced to accept girls. If it is happening, it must be a state or local issue; single-sex educational institutions, both public and private, are perfectly allowable under Federal law.

Second, I don't see how worries that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages are at all well-founded. Churches cannot be forced to accept female or black pastors, and cannot be forced to perform interracial marriages. Yet legal protections for the equality of women and racial minorities are far stronger and more firmly entrenched in the American legal system than protections for LGBT people.

There are simply no plausible legal avenues by which churches might be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

Who's talking about forcing churches to perform gay marriages if it's against their values?

The vast majority of average gay folks aren't. But there is a fringe that looks on the gay movement as more of a societal prybar. As with the comment above, they look on this as a chance to 'change' religion/society/attitudes/people as opposed to obtaining simple secular rights.

But let's be hypothetical and say no-one currently is voicing these radical positions(it's untrue, but let's go with it). Laws have a nasty way of generating unintended consequences - and religious groups are rightfully concerned over the vague language in gay marriage legislation. Ask someone in the 60's whether anti-discrimination laws would be used to put girls in all-male schools, and they'd say "Don't be ridiculous... That isn't the intent!" And yet - that's what happened. Laws get passed, and then the law gets PUSHED in unintended ways. I think religious groups are more than justified in being concerned that these vague gay marriage laws (which contain no specific language to protect them) would be used in future legislation against them - 1st Ammendment or not.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to do this - let's take the time to do it right. Give gay couples their civil unions that extend all the secular benefits of marriage. Craft the law so it has concrete, specific language limiting the law to ONLY extend to secular standing. Let each church make it own rules for 'marriage' as they see fit, with protections that allow churches to refuse gay marriages without being sued for it.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.
It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Who's talking about forcing churches to perform gay marriages if it's against their values? I'm not aware of any prominent gay rights advocates who oppose people's right to dissent from such actions or conscientiously decline to involve themselves in such ceremonies. Churches can't even be forced to perform interracial marriages, if the members of the church are opposed.

I am aware that some opposed to the legalization of gay marriage have claimed that churches conscientiously opposed to gay marriages would be forced to perform them, but such claims do not have legal justification, and misrepresent the goals of gay rights advocates. We don't want to force people by law to accept us--we just want to be able to live our lives with the same freedoms and privileges everyone else has.

Further, it must be noted that there is no shortage of churches actively supportive of gay marriage. There are plenty of them even right here in Oklahoma, in the middle of the Bible Belt. Surely, if freedom of religion is that important to you, you would want to defend the rights of these churches to affirm same-sex unions as marriage.

>> ^dannym3141:

How do you get to be kinda gay? Not that i'm interested or anythin.....


Short answer: Being born that way.

Long answer: Sexuality's complicated sometimes. I like girls enough that, if I met just the right one, I might be interested in making a go of it. But not enough that, generally speaking, I'm terribly interested in more than appreciating a woman's good looks sometimes. I sort of fall between the cracks between "bisexual" and "gay."

Things such as "gay marriage being accepted by the church" isn't radical, it's just asking for equal treatment.

Simple, basic rulings that say gays can visit relatives in hospitals and such are fine. These things deal with secular rights. I've never met a single person opposed to these kinds of issues. But gay 'marriage' as a concept is inherently tied to the marriage ritual, which is a sectarian ordinance that confers secular benefits. That's where the radicalism enters in...

Human society developed in such a way that Churches are where marriages tend to be performed, while secular laws were passed to promote marriage because the nuclear family unit was beneficial to society. So on the one hand if you want marriage you (as often as not) are going to a religious organization. But when you want the societal benefits of marriage, you are talking about secular rules.

So if you tell the gay community they can get 'married', then they are going to go to churches and demand the sectarian ritual to obtain the secular benefits. But many churches are highly opposed to homosexuality as a moral violation. To ask them to perform such a ritual for a gay couple would be highly offensive - the equivalent of marching into a vegan's house and DEMANDING that they personally butcher a cow and chow down on the resulting BBQ.

So when advocates demand gay marriage and DO NOT account for these distinctions, then the legislation moves from sensible to radicalism. Most gay couples just want the secular benefits. Most religions have no problem with that. But when marriage laws are proposed, they MUST contain concrete language protecting the rights of those who oppose the lifestyle on a sectarian level. Without that language, the proposal is radical because it violates 1st Ammendment protections - no matter how many 'sensible' things it may confer. This is what the bruhaha over Prop-8 was all about.

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.

It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Then you can attempt to tackle the argument of forcing a religion to change its core values

The fact that there are people IN AMERICA saying these kinds of things is why religious groups are so sensitive on the subject. "Forcing a religion to change its core values" is the language of a totalitarian regime, not the USA. I know it's hard to tell with Obama in office, but it's still a free country...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Nothing wrong with this. If the gay movement stuck to sensible steps like this then they'd find people much more amenable to their agenda. Sadly, they tend to tie far too many radical agenda items in with too few good ones, and act all surprised when there is opposition. It is a problem with agenda groups on all sides.


Now maybe--being kinda gay myself--my perspective is just a bit skewed, but I don't know what you're talking about here. Most of the gay activism in my area is concerned with things like funding for a new health clinic to help deal with LGBT concerns, or putting laws on the books against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation--in half of all states in the US, you can be fired simply for being gay. Heck, until a couple years ago, school administrators could discriminate against LGBT kids in the OKC metro area without any consequences. Fully half of all homeless teenagers in my state are gay, bisexual, or transgendered, and suicide is the leading cause of death among LGBT teenagers. These are the things gay activism is overwhelmingly concerned with in most areas of the US. I hardly think that working to alleviate these problems is radical.

The American public is overwhelmingly in favor of allowing gay and bisexual folk to serve openly in the military. So that's not too radical, either.

About the only "radical" agenda item that's really pushed is gay marriage--which is given a disproportionate amount of press when compared to other LGBT issues. But the reasons for pushing for marriage instead of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" are quite practical rather than merely ideological. What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.>> ^choggie:

Oh and gay marriage?? Many more homosexuals who have been in monogamous relationships with their partners for years prior to all the activism associated with changing the marriage laws of states, would rather things stay they way they are-You don't need sanctions to live/love together, and the tax breaks are insignificant.


Many more? Really? To the contrary, in my experience. Do you have studies that say otherwise? Or are you perhaps better linked in with the gay community than I--a gay man--am? I must confess my doubts.

>> ^gwiz665:
Marriage is an outdated institution, which only exists as a remnant of the dark ages, where women where slaves. It should just be dismantled altogether.


There are good things tied to marriage -- Visitation rights and certain tax credits, for instance. One can make a decent case for placing those things in the realm of civil unions, but the word and concept of "marriage" is pretty powerful. There was an interesting piece done for On The Media about marriage specifically covering some of the concept's history and the battles fought over it. Interested parties can find the transcript here:

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/11/14/02

WP, you seem to be stuck on the concept that by giving segment A of the populace the same legal privileges of segment B, you are some how damaging damaging segment B. This is not the case.

There is already bumping going on. There was a photographer sued by a gay couple to force them to photograph their ceremony. A church sued so they could refuse to rent property to a lesbian couple. This is not going to go away, and will become more frequent and strident if a national law passes. Church groups are going to oppose any law that fails to spell everything out. They don't want to deal with the legal ramifications of a vauge, generic law. This does not come across as unreasonable to me.

I'm not saying this is a 'zero sum justice' game where giving gay couples the right to marriage in and of itself damages the rights of traditional marriage proponents. I'm saying that current gay legislation is fuzzy about critical issues. These are sloppy laws that leave the barn door wide open. Churches aren't opposing 'gay civil unions' or 'giving gay couples rights' per se. They are opposing the passage of legislation that leaves them extremely vulnerable to massive sue-age.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker-

You completely missed the point... If you had said "I don't think the state should grant marriages, because it is a religious term. The state should only grant civil unions." I would agree with you.

Doing away with subtlety: The point is you have your beliefs at least in part (and my suspicion would be a large part) because of your religious up bringing or your integration into a religious/social group. What astonished me was that you berate a 10 year old for pointing out a logical fallacy, for reasons that you yourself are guilty of. You should applaud him learning how to think critical at his age, rather than rebuke him for blindly adopting his parents beliefs. More to the point, he took those beliefs and logically applied them.

If that is not worth an upvote, then I better watch only cat videos.

>> ^gwiz665:
I think people are getting too worked up over a damn word. Marriage, civil union, whatever.. it should not matter.


You're right, of course, but there -are- reasons to care what word is used. There are some 1200(?) legal rights and privileges accorded to people who are married. If we choose to use a different word, each and every law that defines those rights would need to updated to include the new name, or else the "civil union" won't be equal. If gays get the right to "marriage", then they automatically get all those rights.

Remember, we decided decades ago that "separate but equal", isn't.

I think people are getting too worked up over a damn word. Marriage, civil union, whatever.. it should not matter.

Here are the assertions Beck ascribed to "liberals":

1. If you're against health care you hate the poor.
   
2. If you oppose their "climate change bill", you hate the planet, or are flat-earth moon landing denier.
   
3. If you oppose illegal immigration you're anti-hispanic.
   
4. If you oppose the stimulus, it's just because Obama is black.
   
5. If you oppose Obama's budget deficits, you must have been okay with Bush's (and are a hypocrite).
   
6. If you "support the troops", you're a warmonger.
   
7. If you attend a tea party, you're crazy.
   
8. If you "support traditional marriage", you're a homophobe.
   
9. If you oppose abortion, you're against women.
   
10. If you oppose the fairness doctrine, you hate diversity.
    
11. If you oppose "strong-arm" unions, you're against the workers.
    

He then characterizes the sum total of all those arguments to be a form of discriminatory hate speech.

As someone who spends a lot of time wallowing in liberal swill, let me correct Beck's assertions:

1. If you're against universal health care, you don't care if the poor live or die.
   
2. If you refuse to believe that human activity has been changing the climate in ways that will cause humankind harm, you are a flat-earth moon landing denier.
   
3. If your only solution to illegal immigration is to engage in massive police action against those who've immigrated illegally, you're anti-hispanic, anti-muslim, and generally a bigoted xenophobic moron who doesn't believe in individual human rights.
   
4. If you oppose the stimulus, it's because you are either a) a moron who thinks government spending can't help a sagging economy, or b) a partisan who's more interested in scoring political points than helping the country.
   
5. If you're going to go out into the streets and protest deficits in 2009, you should have been doing it ever since Bush's tax cuts turned a budget surplus into a deficit. Also, there should have been a large contingent of the so-called conservative base against continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the cost. But there wasn't, so there are lots of people who only believe in keeping spending in check when it's a Democratic administration doing the spending, and that destroys your credibility on the subject. (Shorter alternative: The left protests spending tax money to kill people, while the right protests spending tax money to save people.)
   
6. If you think the only way to "support the troops" is to keep them in harm's way indefinitely without clear goals, then you're a warmonger, and definitely not supporting the troops!
   
7. Most of the people attending the tea parties were crazy, or crazy-tolerant. A lot of people were protesting against conspiracy theories (e.g. death panels). A lot of people were threatening violence. A lot of people were using racial imagery or language. No one seemed to mind their presence at the rally, or asked them to leave. If there were reasonable people there, they let the crazies usurp their message, and that reflects poorly on them.
   
8. If you oppose civil unions with equal legal benefits for gay couples, you're a homophobe. (As an aside, if Beck's objecting to being called a homophobe, it's more proof we've already won this fight, since even the right believes that word has a negative connotation that they're uncomfortable with)
   
9. If you support criminalizing abortion, you fundamentally don't trust women to be able to make important decisions about their health and life, and that's sexist.
   
10. We're pretty divided about the fairness doctrine, actually. Our smear against opposition to it would be about conservative elites wanting to preserve their for-profit propaganda enterprises though, not about "diversity".
    
11. If you oppose making it easier for workers unionize (which is what the Employee Free Choice Act would do), you're against the workers.
    

If "liberals" are to be demonized for what they say, let's at least start with what they're actually saying.

I would also point out that the language I used is often more harsh than what any real Democratic representative would use in public. The Republican party leadership has no problem talking about death panels, birth certificates, baby-murder, yelling "You lie!" at the president in a formal address, or any other extremist language.

Alan Grayson came dangerously close to saying #1, and everyone was completely shocked that a Democratic freshman congressman would say such a thing.

I've been saying that for a while. It seems like a simple solution. I really want to figure out why I've NEVER heard this debated in any debate ever.

In reality, the christians still won't be satisfied. But they won't be able to use their line about how they want to protect the definition of marriage. They won't have anything else to say other than "we hate gay people and don't want them to have equal rights".

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I've been saying the same thing lately. Let "marriage" be something that happens in a church and let the government only recognize civil unions.

The arguments of traditional definition disappear. "God" is out of the equation. The laws surrounding marriage/union are greatly simplified and the blame for all the bigotry and backwardness is put squarely where it should be... back on the religious fundamentalists.