|
Post by Sue on Nov 7, 2008 17:13:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 7, 2008 17:48:56 GMT -5
Another quarter heard from: Julia,
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 7, 2008 18:27:34 GMT -5
Yeah, that was me. I think that even were it to become truly equal in terms of rights, across the board, it would still not be okay with me that one class of people gets a marriage license and another gets a civil union. For one thing, we've got legal precedent that "separate but equal" isn't Constitutional, and lots of practical data showing that separate is rarely equal. It's still discrimination, even if only in words. And words matter. They're how we define our reality. If words didn't matter, then no one, on either side, would care whether gay people get to legally call themselves "married". The very fact that it bothers some people so much proves that the semantic argument is an important one. Because, as our culture is today, a "civil union" will never be viewed (by most people) as being as committed or stable as a "marriage". That said, I also believe in baby steps. I'll take civil unions first, then federal recognition of civil unions, then gay marriage, over the course of a decade or two, if that's what it takes. I'd really, REALLY love to see the Defense of Marriage Act repealed.... Agreed. But the baby steps part is what I was talking about. Notice attitudes about divorce, birth control, planned parenthood teaching birth control to teens, the bans on smoking, seat belt use, the laws beginning to govern use of cell phones while driving, society's attitudes toward unmarried mothers, pre-marital sex, etc. Still, I am uncertain whether things change more quickly if this kind of careful, slow assault is planned or if the agents of change simply scream and yell and protest and demonstrate and resist. I guess it can come either way, and maybe both are needed. I agree about the baby steps, but I would be loathe to tell anyone in the gay community to scale back their activism and be a good sport and wait until the country is more accepting. That would be all too Atlanta Compromise.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 7, 2008 18:42:14 GMT -5
So the semantics thing doesn't work so well in the RW. Still, I stand by my observation that if there was some way to get all of the same legal protections at the federal level without using the term marriage that it would pick up a few votes. Oh, plenty of people wouldn't change their minds anyway, because they'd feel like the govt shouldn't recognize any type of homosexual union -- civil or otherwise. Who was it, Rachel or Liz, who said---just call all of the secular agreements/ceremonies "civil unions" and let the churches sort out which of these they will bless under their faith umbrellas. But I do see that since the word marriage has been used in laws written for the past 200 years it's kind of hard to change that now. Yeah, that was me. I think that even were it to become truly equal in terms of rights, across the board, it would still not be okay with me that one class of people gets a marriage license and another gets a civil union. For one thing, we've got legal precedent that "separate but equal" isn't Constitutional, and lots of practical data showing that separate is rarely equal. It's still discrimination, even if only in words. And words matter. They're how we define our reality. If words didn't matter, then no one, on either side, would care whether gay people get to legally call themselves "married". The very fact that it bothers some people so much proves that the semantic argument is an important one. Because, as our culture is today, a "civil union" will never be viewed (by most people) as being as committed or stable as a "marriage". That said, I also believe in baby steps. I'll take civil unions first, then federal recognition of civil unions, then gay marriage, over the course of a decade or two, if that's what it takes. I'd really, REALLY love to see the Defense of Marriage Act repealed.... So would I.Also, I just don't see how someone can say, as I've read and heard all this week, "I'm not bigoted, the Bible says gay marriage is wrong and these people are horrible sinners and how dare you tread on my religious freedom by giving them the right to marry?" Love isn't finite, nobody's going to run out of marriage, there's enough love to go around, and any two adults who want to make that commitment should be celebrated, not vilified or treated as second-class citizens, dammit. Okay, now I want to cry. Stupid eyes, got something in them.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 7, 2008 19:13:35 GMT -5
And another tick on the electoral counter Omaha gives its votes to Obama. Julia, having cleaned the kitchen floor and used up all my useful for the day.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 7, 2008 19:58:42 GMT -5
Yeah, that was me. I think that even were it to become truly equal in terms of rights, across the board, it would still not be okay with me that one class of people gets a marriage license and another gets a civil union. For one thing, we've got legal precedent that "separate but equal" isn't Constitutional, and lots of practical data showing that separate is rarely equal. It's still discrimination, even if only in words. And words matter. They're how we define our reality. If words didn't matter, then no one, on either side, would care whether gay people get to legally call themselves "married". The very fact that it bothers some people so much proves that the semantic argument is an important one. Because, as our culture is today, a "civil union" will never be viewed (by most people) as being as committed or stable as a "marriage". That said, I also believe in baby steps. I'll take civil unions first, then federal recognition of civil unions, then gay marriage, over the course of a decade or two, if that's what it takes. I'd really, REALLY love to see the Defense of Marriage Act repealed.... So would I.Also, I just don't see how someone can say, as I've read and heard all this week, "I'm not bigoted, the Bible says gay marriage is wrong and these people are horrible sinners and how dare you tread on my religious freedom by giving them the right to marry?" Love isn't finite, nobody's going to run out of marriage, there's enough love to go around, and any two adults who want to make that commitment should be celebrated, not vilified or treated as second-class citizens, dammit. Okay, now I want to cry. Stupid eyes, got something in them. Yeah. This is how I respond to that "tread on my religious freedom" bit: This is truly something I don't understand. Your religious beliefs are your own, and no one is going to come stop you from worshiping as you choose. However, the government, of late, has been going to a LOT of trouble to try to force me and others like me to behave as though we were Christians when we're not. I don't believe an unborn fetus has a soul (I don't believe *I* have a soul), but George W. Bush and Sarah Palin would like to force me to act like I do. I don't believe that marriage is a sacred institution and that God decrees it's between a man and a woman only, but damned if the "Defense of Marriage Act" doesn't try to force us all to act like we do. I think liberals have far more to fear from religious conservatives than the reverse. Oh, and also: in a situation like this, where someone has to lose, the outcome must always favor the side that takes actual harm. Forbidding two people to marry based on their sexual orientation does harm to them (in terms of rights relative to everyone lucky enough to be born straight). I have to err on their side, rather than the side of those being forced to tolerate something they'd prefer not to have to tolerate.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 7, 2008 20:21:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 7, 2008 23:18:35 GMT -5
From LJ user takhisis:
Oh ye gods. I have just seen a vision of the near future. It all makes sense now.
January 15, 2009 - AP/REUTERS - George W. Bush Delivers Presidential Farewell Address (TRANSCRIPT)
President Bush enters conference room and approaches podium
BUSH: My fellow Americans...
President Bush spreads his arms in an encompassing gesture
BUSH: THE ARISTOCRATS!
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 8, 2008 8:55:42 GMT -5
From LJ user takhisis: Oh ye gods. I have just seen a vision of the near future. It all makes sense now. January 15, 2009 - AP/REUTERS - George W. Bush Delivers Presidential Farewell Address (TRANSCRIPT) President Bush enters conference room and approaches podium BUSH: My fellow Americans... President Bush spreads his arms in an encompassing gesture BUSH: THE ARISTOCRATS! Huh?
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 8, 2008 10:05:04 GMT -5
From LJ user takhisis: Oh ye gods. I have just seen a vision of the near future. It all makes sense now. January 15, 2009 - AP/REUTERS - George W. Bush Delivers Presidential Farewell Address (TRANSCRIPT) President Bush enters conference room and approaches podium BUSH: My fellow Americans... President Bush spreads his arms in an encompassing gesture BUSH: THE ARISTOCRATS! Huh? I think it's referring to some joke - a not particularly funny joke, really (IMO), but one that was used in this movie where comedians each told the same joke in a bunch of different ways . . . it was something about a family with a circus act in which all the members had sex with each other, and the punchline was that they called themselves the Aristocrats? I may be way off base here, and don't feel like googling/research, so . . . I can only give you hints off the top of my head, based on vague memories. Big grain of salt both about my explanation of the joke and whether this refers to that joke. I remember I found the joke itself so lame that I wondered if I was missing something (and definitely I might have been), so - not being sure I even "got" the joke, I know that I'm not a good judge on when it's being referenced.
|
|
Monnieworkismadness
Guest
|
Post by Monnieworkismadness on Nov 8, 2008 10:54:30 GMT -5
From LJ user takhisis: Oh ye gods. I have just seen a vision of the near future. It all makes sense now. January 15, 2009 - AP/REUTERS - George W. Bush Delivers Presidential Farewell Address (TRANSCRIPT) President Bush enters conference room and approaches podium BUSH: My fellow Americans... President Bush spreads his arms in an encompassing gesture BUSH: THE ARISTOCRATS! Huh? The AristocratsAlso, . Explains so much. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 8, 2008 11:49:41 GMT -5
And another tick on the electoral counter Omaha gives its votes to Obama. Julia, having cleaned the kitchen floor and used up all my useful for the day. It occurs to me to revise my previous statement: the Republicans are not the party of the South. They're they Rural Party. Seems they didn't win a single metropolitan area, at least that I can remember right now. Folks should correct me if I'm wrong. I mean...not even in Nebraska. Not a surprise, what with their whole, "Real Americans live in the country" bit. Dude...MOST Americans live in the cities. Maybe this is why you lost.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 8, 2008 11:56:56 GMT -5
And another tick on the electoral counter Omaha gives its votes to Obama. Julia, having cleaned the kitchen floor and used up all my useful for the day. It occurs to me to revise my previous statement: the Republicans are not the party of the South. They're they Rural Party. Seems they didn't win a single metropolitan area, at least that I can remember right now. Folks should correct me if I'm wrong. I mean...not even in Nebraska. Not a surprise, what with their whole, "Real Americans live in the country" bit. Dude...MOST Americans live in the cities. Maybe this is why you lost. Oklahoma City is pretty much it- the whole of Oklahoma is red, the only state in the union where that is true; all of New England is solid blue, except for the one county in Maine where you can find wolverines, so "Rural" has different values in different states. And Boise, Butte and Billings are red. JUlia, contemplate for a moment how odd that is.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 8, 2008 14:25:28 GMT -5
And another tick on the electoral counter Omaha gives its votes to Obama. Julia, having cleaned the kitchen floor and used up all my useful for the day. It occurs to me to revise my previous statement: the Republicans are not the party of the South. They're they Rural Party. Seems they didn't win a single metropolitan area, at least that I can remember right now. Folks should correct me if I'm wrong. I mean...not even in Nebraska. Not a surprise, what with their whole, "Real Americans live in the country" bit. Dude...MOST Americans live in the cities. Maybe this is why you lost. I guess it depends what you mean by metropolitan, but Huntsville, where Monnie lives, for example, went for McCain. According to wikipedia, Huntsville "is the largest city in northern Alabama in a region of a half-million people, with the city proper having 171,327 residents (2007 estimate)." There are probably others . . . dunno. But living in Ohio, where the state changes from blue to red like it's changing its underwear, I don't get the impression either party should take metro or rural areas for granted. To the credit of all American voters, ultimately, who wins depends on more than party allegiance.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 8, 2008 14:37:51 GMT -5
It occurs to me to revise my previous statement: the Republicans are not the party of the South. They're they Rural Party. Seems they didn't win a single metropolitan area, at least that I can remember right now. Folks should correct me if I'm wrong. I mean...not even in Nebraska. Not a surprise, what with their whole, "Real Americans live in the country" bit. Dude...MOST Americans live in the cities. Maybe this is why you lost. I guess it depends what you mean by metropolitan, but Huntsville, where Monnie lives, for example, went for McCain. According to wikipedia, Huntsville "is the largest city in northern Alabama in a region of a half-million people, with the city proper having 171,327 residents (2007 estimate)." There are probably others . . . dunno. But living in Ohio, where the state changes from blue to red like it's changing its underwear, I don't get the impression either party should take metro or rural areas for granted. To the credit of all American voters, ultimately, who wins depends on more than party allegiance. Which brings me to a question given the state of the budget and the need to trim: what do you all think of farm subsidies?
|
|