>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?

Because they are not the same thing. The legal definition of marriage carries with it certain tangible rights and responsibilities that a civil union does not.
Are are you seriously implying that the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is in a name or that same-sex couples are merely quibbling over superficial differences for the sake of tooting their own horn?
You are very wrong.
Note the part where it says, "These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman." It would be disingenuous to say they want a complete overhaul of the definition of marriage; an addendum to an existing definition for further inclusiveness is not a redefinition but a modification. It's simply adding to the definition, nothing is being taken away. I'm talking legal definition, just to be clear.
Definitions morph and evolve all the time, I really can't think of one good reason why the legal definition of marriage shouldn't be modified to reflect the social progress that has been made since its inception.


I never suggested that civil unions have the same rights as marriages now do. I suggested that is what should be fought for by those wanting the same rights given to same-sex unions as are given currently to marriages. I argued for that over fighting to have marriage redefined, once again for the reason that redefining marriage implies that sexual orientation is a trait like race and not a choice.

Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?


Because they are not the same thing. The legal definition of marriage carries with it certain tangible rights and responsibilities that a civil union does not.

Are are you seriously implying that the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is in a name or that same-sex couples are merely quibbling over superficial differences for the sake of tooting their own horn?

You are very wrong.

Note the part where it says, "These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman." It would be disingenuous to say they want a complete overhaul of the definition of marriage; an addendum to an existing definition for further inclusiveness is not a redefinition but a modification. It's simply adding to the definition, nothing is being taken away. I'm talking legal definition, just to be clear.

Definitions morph and evolve all the time, I really can't think of one good reason why the legal definition of marriage shouldn't be modified to reflect the social progress that has been made since its inception.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

If he is, most likely he will be marginalized, driven out or called a racist like Kucinich or Ron Paul.

Or he'll just quietly go down to defeat in a district that's heavily Democratic.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
You won't find change in politicians until you have widespread change in the population. I don't know if it is possible to stop the momentum of factionalism that is greatly represented in this thread. ... And mostly gone are the protections from the damage that human nature brings.

I totally agree. Everything is falling apart, all our old norms are failing. From where I sit, that's happened due to a combination of Republicans ruthlessly working to erode those standards and norms, and Democrats failing to put up much of a fight at all for the ideals they claim to believe in.

You and blankie think that's exactly backwards, thus the factionalism.

The problem isn't the parties -- blankfist wants a new party that more consistently follows the ideology of the Republican party, but he wants to scrap the New Deal first. He doesn't want to focus on things where he can find support from people like me.

For my part, I want Democrats to follow their principles and ideals more closely, and while that includes a lot of things blankfist would like (end the wars, end the drug war, repeal DOMA, repeal Patriot), he's ready to call me a Nazi for supporting our very market-based health care reform (or even just scary people like *scary voice* Nancy Pelosi!).

We need to find a way to coexist under the same federal government. Unfortunately, I just don't see how that's going to happen anytime soon. All trendlines point to escalating hostility, which is really, really bad.

I can't believe that Obama hasn't saved the world yet!

I mean, it's been over three months now, and we still have global warming, soldiers are still in Iraq, DOMA hasn't been repealed, he hasn't fixed the financial crisis, Guantanamo is still open, teachers still underpaid, we're not back to 0% unemployment, he hasn't fixed health care, AND WHERES MY GODDAMN MAGICAL PONY???!!!

I mean, what the fuck has he been doing this whole time? Playing basketball with his socialist buddies?


WORST. PREZNIT. EVER.

It is unconscionable how long this has been going on. My husband had advanced officer training in the early nineties and one of his classmates was an incredibly talented officer who got a kicked out a few years later. I still think of her when I hear these stories. I am very disappointed in Obama for not acting on this. I am willing to forgive him putting off action on DOMA, but getting rid of DADT helps end injustice and makes our country safer.

To HollywoodBob, I think it's more complicated as to why people choose to serve in the military. As The LtCol here pointed out, for many it is a long-standing family tradition. The military is a completely different way of life and some people are made for it and cannot find true fulfillment elsewhere. It's a shame we are not allowing those people to do what is best for them and best for all of us.

>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^volumptuous:
I just don't think of it as a strictly religious institution. I can't think of a single married friend of mine who had a wedding with a priest or in a church. City Hall seems to be the way to go.
I agree with you that it should be abolished, but its just not going to happen in our lifetimes. So, the only avenue left is marriage equality for everyone. And not just on a state level, but repeal DOMA and tell the bigots to fuck off.

Funny, I don't know a single married couple who wasn't married in a church.


I wasn't married in a church.

>> ^volumptuous:
I just don't think of it as a strictly religious institution. I can't think of a single married friend of mine who had a wedding with a priest or in a church. City Hall seems to be the way to go.
I agree with you that it should be abolished, but its just not going to happen in our lifetimes. So, the only avenue left is marriage equality for everyone. And not just on a state level, but repeal DOMA and tell the bigots to fuck off.


Funny, I don't know a single married couple who wasn't married in a church.

I just don't think of it as a strictly religious institution. I can't think of a single married friend of mine who had a wedding with a priest or in a church. City Hall seems to be the way to go.

I agree with you that it should be abolished, but its just not going to happen in our lifetimes. So, the only avenue left is marriage equality for everyone. And not just on a state level, but repeal DOMA and tell the bigots to fuck off.

There are differences between "marriage" and "domestic partnerships/civil unions" in California. And, even if you live in a state that allows same-sex marriage, with DOMA still in place, there are a lot of federal differences.


Here's the factcheck on the differences:
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html


And this is from Wiki:
---
Differences from Marriage

While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:

* Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.
* Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.
* California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.
* Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.
* There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships. [3]

^imstellar

Democracy doesn't have to be good or bad, it is simple the idea that the majority of the voices are allowed to be heard over a small cadre, so if that majority decides that bombing Iraq and Afghanistan against terrorism is the right course of action then it's going to happen, regardless if the rest of the world or alot of the population don't agree with it. However democracy does not exist in the US, as its a federal constitutional republic.

In other discussions here you said that the solution would be governing by stringent law, you fail to realize that laws are not created in a vacuum with regards to the society. They are written to appease the society or demographic, DOMA was written by republicans under a fast track through house and congress to protect marriage. Thus it becomes law. It is not lawlessness it is law decreed by elected officials, who represent voters views and opinions.

In general society today same sex marriage is not acceptable to certain majority population demographics, thus this is expressed through elected officials who claim to push forward laws that limit gay marriage and so on, this was shown in the 2004 elections and this was shown in the passing of Prop 8.

However in the same way newly elected officials can revoke those laws as societies acceptance to these issues changes, Obama for example wants to revoke the Defense of Marriage Act.

^Imstellar

You say:
"the reason i did this (gay marriage = polygamy) was to illustrate that democracy is a flawed system and does not protect against oppression, intolerance, and hate--the only system which does this is a rule of law derived by basic human rights!"

Your proposition was:
"Republic government" + "That single line "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is enough to ensure gay rights, polygamist rights, womens suffrage, forbid slavery, racism, protect freedom of speech and religion, maintain economic liberty, and guard against any other form of oppression."

Do we live in the same world?

The United States is a federal constitutional republic not a democracy. Bill of rights (1791) and the US Constitution (1787).

Even then slavery ended (legally speaking only) in 1865, racism continued for a long time culminating with the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Woman's suffrage only came into nationalized form in 1920.

I find it silly to lay the blame at the feet of democracy which doesn't currently exist in the US, and claim that solutions exist in a republic that issues laws and decrees that you expect to be perfectly respected by every organ of the government and applied fairly across the nation.

The obstacles to same-sex marriage stem from basic social incompatibility out of years of fear mongering that gays would ruin America and its moral standing originating in the fundamentalist christian right. It's basic social taboo, which we might find wrong but wouldn't be thought of so in the Midwest and most of the Christian enclaves in the US.

These fears are then expressed in election that bring social conservatives to power, resulting laws passed by congress, house and signed in by the President, the largest one being the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), authored by Bob Barr (republican at the time) in 1996 going fast tracked through a republican controlled house and congress.

Its Congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."

What I outlined there was not a democracy, it is exactly what you outlined, a republic which at its core has the bill of rights that possess "the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

In the same way as social views are altered so do those who get elected into power become representative of changing of the times, for example Prez Obama's political platform included full repeal of the DOMA.

I believe that in the next 5 to 10 years there will be a repel or reform on Prop 8, at the same time I believe it will be confined to more socially progressive areas of the US with more conservative states taking much longer.

Then if polygamy is such a big issue and concern well they can mount a organized movement to have state recognition for that (even though I think its a really minority and fringe issue not on the same scale as gay rights).

But you are mistaken to think that the solution will magically spring forth if we simply have a republic with human rights as guiding tenants because we had that and even then social issues took decades to resolve. The line "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is an ideal the forefathers gave this country it wasn't a dictum and in many ways I believe at the time it was meant to apply only to white male Americans oppressed by British rule.

But its wording has come to mean so much more as an idea. It is America's pursuit of that idea that makes that nation so great.

>> ^furrycloud:
I wish I was old enough to remember a time when the President of the United States was a respected position...


Clinton wasn't so bad. But if you're older than 8, that means you're not into Bush or Clinton. If you don't like Bush you probably don't like his dad or Reagan. Then maybe Jimmy Carter was the last respectable president? If he's not good enough for you, then you probably don't like Ford, Nixon, or LBJ. Kennedy was a big war hawk like Bush, with the bay of pigs fiasco and other attempts to set up puppet governments in foreign countries. And kennedy escalated the vietnam war. Eisenhower raped Iran and replaced its growing democracy with the Shah because of the red scare. Truman bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So.... Maybe you think FDR was the last respectable president?

I personally think Clinton was OK. At least his hawkish foreign policy worked and didn't get us into any long-term quagmires. He made some mistakes:
1. Failure to veto COPA
2. Failure to veto DoMA
3. Falure to veto DMCA
4. The welfare-to-work bill.