Baraka_Guru

In a rare agreement in the recent VP debate, both Biden and Palin stated that neither support same-sex marriage. Where they differed is where Biden stated the support for similar benefits and rights as married couples, while Palin skirted the issue and reiterated her non-support for same-sex unions.

The problem here, is that in America's (essentially) two-party system, there has been an undeniable and non-negotiable "non-support" for same-sex marriage. What this means is that those in power refuse to define "marriage" as anything other than the union between a man and a woman—that is, for the purpose of building a family. This assumes that the only legitimate family structure is that headed by a man and a woman. This rules out the idea that a family can consist of two partners of the same sex vis-à-vis a homosexual relationship.

This is a distressing situation. It assumes that gays and lesbians are not entitled to the same mode of family-building as the rest of society. It indirectly denies that homosexual relationships are valid.

Without turning this into a debate on the constitutional legitimacy of either claim—or a debate on whether homosexual relationships can be compared to relationships with animals, multiple partners, or children—I think it's essential to discuss why in America, an ostensibly democratic and liberal nation, there is unequivocal "non-support" by both parties for homosexual relationships within the context of families.

In Canada, same-sex marriage is a possibility. You need to find a clergyman or -woman who will do the service, but it is completely legal and recognized. Canada isn't the only nation who does this, but it is a good case where a society has finally recognized gays and lesbians as people who are entitled to the same social structure of marriage and family. It is the legitimizing homosexual relationships as valid social bonds that are perfectly capable of building families. After all, gays and lesbians are people too, right?

Will America ever permit same-sex marriage? What are the real barriers? Is America generally liberal or conservative? What are American gays and lesbians to do in light of this?

Marriage isn't essential for building families, but there are several reasons why heterosexuals do it, so why not homosexuals? I hope that same-sex couples go ahead with their families anyway. More power to them. But they should continue to fight for equal rights to marriage.

However, I think things look pretty grim in light of everything.

What do you guys think?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

snowy

I think it's an issue for the states to decide, at the moment. I hope in the future that will change and same-sex marriage will be recognized across the United States. Quite frankly, marriage isn't a federal issue, though--it is a states' issue, as different states have different requirements (beyond gender of the participants) for getting a marriage license (minimum age, possible blood test, etc). It may even be up to specific localities to decide in this circumstance.

Oregon passed a horrible law not so many years ago that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman; this was in 2004 when gay marriage was the red herring that the Bush camp was waving. However, our state government turned around and passed a law that allowed for domestic partnerships three years later.

So we are making steps, they're just tiny ones, and they're happening in various parts of the country. The United States is a big place, with a lot of diverse opinions. There are a couple states--California and Massachusetts--that allow same-sex marriage. And here in Oregon we're still fighting. It's my hope that eventually we'll be able to get the result of Measure 36 removed from our Constitution, and we'll see the passage of Measure 36 as a horrible mistake.

I'd also like to see the federal Defense of Marriage law overturned, but I'm not holding my breath.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

dc_dux

Yep...its pretty much a state issue now.

WIth several states sanctioning same-sex marriages, others recognizing civil unions, and others with state constitutional amendments defining "traditional" marriage with some limitations on benefits to civil unions

The federal role is limited to DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which allows states to deny recognition to (gay) marriages performed in other states.

THe Democratic platform calls for a repeal of DOMA. The Republican platform calls for a Constitutional amendemt that "fully protects" marriage from any redefintion by any state.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Rekna

It isn't a federal or a state issue it is a religious issue. If a religion wants to wed a gay couple then they should have all the rights of a married couple.

In a perfect world we would have marriages and civil unions. A marriage implies a civil union but a civil union does not imply a marriage. Marriage would have no legal status only a religious status.

Baraka_Guru

I agree with the civil union vs. marriage. There should be a choice. It's pretty amazing that some religious groups are more progressive on this issue than politicians.

The legal issues have been discussed here before. As important as they are, what do you think are the barriers to getting this issue sorted out in the public mind? As the OP states, there is a heterosexual hegemony on the family. Why is there so much "non-support" for homosexual relationships from those in power (at any level)? Is it because too many Americans are against the idea of homosexuality?

What needs to be done to overcome this? More education?

I feel that homosexuals are being unjustly marginalized, and this goes beyond the retooling of state and federal law.

The OP assumes that homosexual relationships are valid, but the idea is challenged everywhere, I'm sure.

There is no cure for gay. You can't fix what isn't broken. When will America's leaders get over this? Despite this being state law, the sentiment of senators and presidents play into this significantly in the broader picture.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

The US isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. The government has no right to deny marriage between members of the same gender any more than they have a right to deny marriage between members of different genders, but more importantly the majority doesn't have a right to tyrannize the minority.

Leaving it up to states may sound nice, but it really doesn't make sense to me. Why not leave slavery up to states? Or abortion? It's not an issue that's meant for a vote. This is about rights, and rights shouldn't be voted on.

roachboy

while i agree with that in principle, will, fact is that the transformation of this from an ethical to a political to a properly legal issue is contingent on sustained pressure from outside the system. so if it happens that provisionally this is a state-level issue, so be it: but the fact is that inconsistencies in state law concerning whether equality of treatment extends to people who happen to be gay and who want to benefit from the legal and financial benefits of marriage amounts to a type of pressure. what i'm not ok with is the relegation of this to the level of state in principle, as if the state level is the end itself---i think this should be and eventually will be a federal legal question. with any luck, that'll happen in the context of a non-far right wing presidential administration which is no beholden to the flintstone religious right for political support.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cynthetiq

As far as that point of the debate, I had to rewind it over and over just to her Mr. Biden answer a resounding no, and then Mrs. Palin answer with a reiteration of Mr. Biden's answer and then her own.

really will? Do you know anything about the Constitution? You can talk all about the tyranny of the majority and all that rot, but seriously, do you understand the basics of the United States Constitution?

Because you were just a wee little sparkle in Father of Willravel's eye when the Equal Rights Amendment was not ratified by all the states. The last time I checked the only way we can change the Constitution and civil rights is by an amendment which needs to be ratified by 3/4ths of all the states. This is another word for VOTED by the states.

I'm sure you know that the last amendment ratified was the 27th Amendment introduced in 1789 which took 74,003 days to be ratified.

Who is to say what is or what isn't a right? Because my version of rights is vastly different than what yours is or even BG or dc_dux.

I don't want the Federal government to dictate those. I want the States to decide it, and if you don't like something you get the wonderful choice of moving to another state. And guess what? Maybe there's a different right that may be important to you that the welcoming state you are going to you dissents from, but again, this is about being an adult and picking and choosing your available rights by state.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

i always find it gratifying when i make a post that addresses an issue only to see the next one, and probably all the subsequent posts, act like it's not there.


the question of how a basic right gets defined that go beyond the blinkered world of a group of 18th century aristo types fucked over by the fact of being born second or later who gathered in a room to make up a constitution---that question is POLITICAL.

you don't get to decide it, cyn--i don't get to---not as individuals--but it can be defined through sustained organized pressure.
there are contexts in which limitation to the level of the states is an attempt to contain change.

the consequence of your argument, cyn, is also that you would oppose the rights of gay folk to get married at the federal level because it violates some quaint understanding of local control.
will's right about one thing--if this quaint notion of local control had held in the mid 19th century, there's still be a slavery economy. if it had held in the middle 20th, there'd still be jim crow.
it's not exactly a glorious tradition you're arguing for.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

As much as I enjoy a lively debate and discussion about what are and are not rights, this thread is not about them. I'd also like to say that rights should not EVER be determined by a government body, because history shows that governments only infringe on rights.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Poppinjay

I'll remember that the next time I ride Amtrak.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Cynthetiq

No, you read too much into what I'm writing. Even if that is the consequence, that is still not the intent. My rationale is simple. The US Constitution enumerates the rights of the Federal government and it doesn't say anything about marriage in any shape or form, from regulation to affirmation. Plain and simple. I did not have to register with the federal government to get married, but I did have to for the state that I did get married in.


I don't disagree, just outlining what Mr. Willravel seems to state about his notion that rights aren't voted upon. They have been, as recently as the 1970s.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

personally, i think it's an equal protection issue.
there's no basis for denying the equal treatment of people who happen to be gay who want to avail themselves of the legal and financial benefits of the legal institution of marriage.
so i think the law that exists which bars access to this legal institution are unconstitutional.
it's just a question of time before it comes up as a problem for the federal courts.

where's loquitor when we need him?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

I agree, but I'm also interested in the social aspect. Think of same-sex couples' families. There is a difference between "being together" to raise a family and "being married" to raise a family. It goes beyond the legal and the financial. It is the wider acceptance of your family as legitimate within society. Without being at least entitled to all of these, your family is an abject entity because society at large views it as less than acceptable. It is viewed as invalid and therefore illegitimate (i.e. not a "real" family). These things are not necessary for a family to exist, but they are a reflection of society's view of same-sex couples and their families as acceptable (or unacceptable) social units.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

The second it gets bounced to state the equal protection clause suddenly becomes the question. We all know Lawrence v. Texas established that homosexual sodomy should be equal to heterosexual sodomy, why can't that extend to legal marital rights?

It's not an issue to vote on, it's an issue for the courts and there's already precedence.

Cynthetiq

I make sure that I remind myself that distinction, being married is family, raising children is a different path. Just because I'm married with no children does not diminish the familial aspect of our bond this coming from a societla and geneological viewpoint. We are a family even if we have no children.

I extend the same logic to same sex partners.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Baraka_Guru

Cyn, I agree with that. The situation is the same with or without children. I emphasize children in families simply to point out the fact that many same-sex couples (despite their inability to have children directly) do indeed have children in theirs as well.

Marriage merely for a lifelong romantic friendship should be a possibility regardless of your sexual orientation.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

are there social pressures in canada around this despite it's being legal?
i assume there are some, given that you have to find a clergy person who'll do the ceremony---i assume that civil ceremonies are not problematic in a similar way?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Of course there are social pressures. It still feels there is a long way to go in Canada in regard to LGBT rights and acceptance.

It depends on where you go. Toronto has a thriving gaybourhood. If you go to many parts of rural Canada, I'm sure you'd get some interesting comments on gayness, let alone gay marriage.

You'll find resistance and outright intolerance probably just about anywhere, unfortunately. I think legitimizing gay marriage and accepting their families is a big step in the right direction of the social acceptance of this minority group.

Having religious groups (and individuals) support gay marriage (and gayness in general) is a big deal. There are even outed gay pastors here.

Imagine that.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

so then the question of legality has nothing really to do with whether any given group does or does not sanction gay marriage.
the two are not connected.
so it is entirely possible to have marriage for folk who happen to be gay made legal under something like an equal protection clause and for flintstones who decide for whatever reason that fun and excitement can be had through homophobia can continue doing that.


imagine that.

sometimes i really wonder why i don't just move to canada.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ASU2003

Who cares. There are major problems to deal with than if two people of the same gender can sign a document. Talk about issues that actually can negatively affect people. It's not like gay people are getting arrested for living together, losing their homes, or being killed by hetero-extremists everyday.

Maybe the gay people should start their own church and have their own marriage ceremonies.

Next issue.

Baraka_Guru

ASU, there was a time when women and blacks weren't allowed to vote. Is that just "signing a paper" too, or is there more to that?

We'll say "next issue" when gays are no longer told, essentially, "I'm sorry, sir, you can't do what we do because you love a man instead of a woman. Stop being gay and you too can have a spouse."

You may not value marriage, but I'm sure many do, and some of them happen to be gay.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

m0rpheus

Not really hard, all you have to do is walk into the courthouse and get the Justice of the Peace to do it.

I HATE the civil union/marriage debate. So because I don't believe in the man in the sky, I shouldn't be allowed to be married?

__________________
"it never got weird enough for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

pig

my predictions:

1. Gay marriage will become legal in the United States.

2. I doubt that it happens too soon. Maybe 10-20 years.

Personally, I think all state-sanctioned partner contracts should be "civil unions." After that, have a religious institution or civil organization conduct your wedding ceremony, as the couple chooses. I just don't see the big deal. Why do people care so much about what other people do?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Charlatan

Here is something to add...

In the country were I currently live, homosexuality is illegal. People have actually been charged and prosecuted.

Interestingly (or perhaps not so), there is a lot of casual homophobia here. Gays are the butt of jokes. They are are derided as Other, Sinful, etc.

It reminds me very much of the kinds of attitudes I saw towards homosexuals in the 70s in Canada.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke