https://youtube.com/watch?v=SnTwrnKb61Q
There is nothing we could add to this except the hope that members of both parties would have such courage.
R
https://youtube.com/watch?v=SnTwrnKb61Q
There is nothing we could add to this except the hope that members of both parties would have such courage.
What Mayor Jerry Sanders did was honourable. Contrast this Republican to Alan Keyes, a vile creature who claims to ‘defend family values’ when he rejects his daughter.
I appreciate the mayor’s sincerity here, but I just don’t see the vital importance others do of calling registered domestic partnerships -which currently carry all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage in California-marriage. I don’t oppose it, but it seems to me to be much ado over next to nothing.
I think it’s mainly about preventing politicians from weaseling around, saying they’re opposed to gay marriage but in favor of domestic partnerships. California aside, I think in most states where they’re already in existence or will eventually be passed domestic partnerships don’t confer all the same rights and privileges as marriage. And it’s also a matter of semantics. If a domestic partnership is exactly the same legally as a marriage, why waste time and space using two separate terms?
Another writer essentially asked ‘what is the difference’ between civil union rights and marriage rights.
I am concerned that ‘separate but equal’ creates a legal open-battle zone that can later be used to reduce the rights of those in ‘civil unions’, while not reducing the rights of those in ‘marriage’. Imagine (in the USA) 50 states with different rulings on last medical rights for a ‘partner of a civil union’, but all leaving the strong medical rights for a ‘spouse of a legal marriage’.
Sounds absurd, but I live in Virginia, USA, and that state plans to declare null and void even a contract between two persons of the same sex that confers any form of ‘marriage-like rights’. If USA Federal Law were to create ‘civil unions’ and leave any part of the definition or court interpretation to the States, then Virginia would most likely move to render as void any ‘civil union’.
My spouse is born-female. She just had a non-malignant breast lump surgically removed in a Virginia hospital. I’m born-male, but live as female and look extremely female. If anything had gone wrong during surgery, I would have had to prove my legal marriage as still valid to the satisfaction of the hospital administration. My spouse forgot about that aspect, and simply assumed all would be ok in the legal realm. But the surgery did go smoothly, and so, there was no need to fetch the marriage certificate, my birth certificate, and my court-ordered name change documents.
A week later, I had a planned surgery in Arizona, and made certain all the documents needed by the hospital to give my spouse legal rights were signed and proven. I had severe complications, and recovered. By the way, I have one sister that wishes our marriage to be dissolved… and another that believes it is ungodly. I don’t wish a legal battle-zone to be given by a State-interpreted ‘separate but equal’ concept – I want my wife to determine when the plug is pulled, where I am buried, and under what name. And, I don’t wish her inheritance cut in half and given to my sisters (we own our home jointly in Virginia). And I don’t wish my life insurance to my wife to be challenged in court ‘according to the laws of Virginia that interpret civil unions’.
If we allow ‘separate but equal’ concepts, then we create 50 legal battle zones in the USA — one for each state… and the casualties may become very high.
Caryn,
While I support marriage over civil unions, I do want to clear up a misconception that you, ironically enough, share with Dr. Dobson.
The nation actually does have 50 different definitions of marriage. There are variations in what age you can enter one, what is required to enter into one, what divorce means, what property is owned within a marriage, and a whole plethora of other differences.
And one state allows same-sex marriages (which soon will be joined by others).
My objections to separate but equal standing is not a matter of legal complexities, but more of the recognition that “separate but equal” is never equal. If it were, I say, “fine, all you straight folks get “civil unions” and let us gay folk have “marriage”.”
As Caryn demonstrates, there is still a long struggle ahead, but what the incident with this Republican Mayor shows is that we are winning.
I expect the hate to get much worse because they know they’ve lost the battle.
If anybody thinks that California’s current domestic partnerships have all the rights and priviledges of marriage, think again. In some ways, it is the all the obligaitons with few of the real benefits.
You can’t get your partners social secuity benefits, pension benefits, etc, but you can be held liable for their debts. What’s the point? If domestic partners were truely entitled to all the benefits (federal and state) that people who are married have, then I might consider doing it. The latest “increase in benefits” that was passed within the last couple of years came with some mighty heavy costs that far outweighed any real benefit for many couples. There were newspaper articles about couples dissolving their partnerships, not because they were breaking up, but because the new law would be too onerous to them, and they would be losing benefits they already recieve.
I am a California resident, and as it stands now, I can’t see any reason to take the domestic partner option. I will stick with my trust, powers of attorney, and all the rest that I have already paid for and put in place. Until there is federal recognition and truely equal benefits, this just isn’t a fair deal.
Gordo,
Please know that I carry the utmost respect for your views and I appreciate the thought and insight that goes into your comments here at XGW. However, I’m compelled to quickly address the “we are winning” portion of your comment.
That’s a great sentiment, in my opinion, as long as the “we” refers to humanity in general. The problem I see in the whole fiasco of the situation is that both sides often fail to address one another according to the commonalities we all possess as members of the human race. Granted, in this case, “their” side carries the bigger burden. But, this factor was what was so touching about the mayor’s statement and his turn of position. He understands that in this situation, there is no “we” and “them”….it’s just “us” and we all desire the same things as human beings.
“WE” in the general sense then, are winning.
I stumbled on this site today. The things you Americans have to go through, so many unnecessary struggles and suffering. Good people like this mayor needing to make decisions like this. I mean, the whole debate over civil union vs. marriage rights has become essentially obsolete in Canada since the recognition of same-sex marriage.
As a young gay Canadian who has been incredibly fortunate to grow up in tolerant times, I was shocked to learn today about the very existence of an ex-gay movement. And to think there needs to be sites like these devoting to combating them totally blew my mind. Ex-gay councillors are NOT issues we have to deal with in any visible way in Canada (Though I’d be intrigued if anyone can prove me wrong).
You know, sometimes I think you Americans are pretty much the same folks as us, but it’s things like this which make me wonder how we can share the same continent.
John, I took the domestic partner route when I discovered my health care was better than my partner’s. So we did the DP option. Later, that changed, and we still have DP status, but there are almost no benefits for us currently.
Pam,
Why does it bother you that my “we” might not include you?
Yes, “we” in the general sense are winning, but only because “we,” specifically gay/lesbian/bi/transgendered people have taken up the fight. If we left things to progressives like Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton we’d be nowhere.
Have you read Jim’s post up today at Box Turtle Bulletin? “Ordered Liberty Under God” – that sends chills down my spine – and not in a good way. We need to be realistic about the evil and the hate we’re up against. How many of them wish they could say with the President of Iran, there are no homosexuals here?
Gordo,
It doesn’t really bother me that I’m not included in the “we” because I’m not gay. I was just looking at it differently than an “us” against “them” situation, which is what seemed to be the spirit in which the mayor was acting. I agree with you that it does take a “we” that’s willing to stand up for themselves.
John,
If anybody thinks that California’s current domestic partnerships have all the rights and priviledges of marriage, think again. In some ways, it is the all the obligaitons with few of the real benefits.
Please let me clarify what may be a misunderstanding. Even if the California Supreme Court overturns the ban on marriage between same-sex couples, this will not address your concerns. The federal government will still not provide social security benefits or any of the 1000 benefits it provides to heterosexual married couples.
Your beef is not with CA’s domestic partnerships. They do provide EVERY benefit and obligation that the state provides to heterosexual married couples. Your fight is with the federal DOMA which says that the federal government will recognize whatever some state say is marriage – but not other states.
However, your complaint does illustrate one problem with domestic partnerships.
When it comes time to marry, few people would put off the rite because of fiscal considerations. Marriage has a far greater emotional, spiritual, and even community satisfaction which outweighs concerns about your partner’s debt.
DPs do not provide that component. And because they encourage analysis of benefit v. obligation, they actually serve in many ways to deter committments rather than encourage them.
Yes, they are better than nothing but they do not serve the community in the same way that a marriage does. While they do serve as a contract between two people, they are not a contract between those people, the community, and God in the same way that a marriage can serve.
Bi-nation couples and their trouble with DP’s and CU’s is that they still cannot sponsor their partner for citizenship. As we speak, I may lose several friends to foreign shores (not necessarily their homelands) because they cannot marry legally.
I can’t tell you how frustrated and upset I get at how many concessions and considerations illegal aliens (many of whom are felons), are accorded EVERY thing to be kept in the US, but a gay couple, following all the rules of immigration are given NO options whatsoever.
Many FEDERAL laws are being broken, rearranged and changed to accommodate illegal aliens, but federal laws are being IMPLEMENTED against gay citizens!
Even where there is proof a gay person could be arbitrarily KILLED, will no asylum be allowed. A good many of the immgrants here are here as economic refugees, not as people with a death sentence on their heads for what they are.
This is just another glaring double standard. Not only because we know that these concessions also give cover to terrorists, but the motives for gay people is very different.
After all, the 19 9/11 hijackers weren’t all gay men.
So the treatment of gay immigrants and their partners doesn’t require the same weighty security concerns as one might think it does for other immigrants who have abused the anchor baby and marriage/sponsor laws.
Timothy: I’m not sure what view you think Dr. J. Dobson and I share.
In the USA, “marriage” is a combination of Federal and State laws. We have one overridding Federal gov’t, and 50 variations on the theme.
Marriage rights, therefore, are a matter of Federal and State legislation. So, please clarify your remark so that I can follow the line of reasoning. At first glance, the line of reasoning appears to be ‘name dropping’, and really, I’m not into that aspect of debate. Again, please clarify. Many thanks; Caryn
Caryn,
Sorry. Let me clarify. I found the following two comments similar:
Caryn: “Imagine (in the USA) 50 states with different rulings on last medical rights for a ‘partner of a civil union’, but all leaving the strong medical rights for a ‘spouse of a legal marriage’.”
Dobson: “”Isn’t Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S. …”
I was assuming that you both share the idea that for other than the gay issue that marriages are the same state to state.
Timothy! Oh my gosh… I had no idea how similar in format and structure my comments and Dr. Dobson’s were… ouch. No wonder you made the remark. Thank you for the clarification. Blessings! Caryn