A brave women...

[Brady Kelly]

Maybe one of the judges was a gay bigot, but I'm sure he or she wasn't alone in condemning Prejean's comments.

[Oakman]

Brady Kelly wrote:

Where does he work?

Doesn't matter. I could have said as easily "the next time you get on a bus." Although i have noticed that the physical specimens displayed in any fairly large IT shop are especially indicative of interspecies reproduction. I swear I worked in a cube next to a guy whose whinneying laugh made it clear his mother was Catherine the Great.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[John Carson]

Rob Graham wrote:

If that were the real issue here, then why does the gay rights movement find legal civil unions (which provide the same rights) unacceptable? Why the insistence of the word marriage?

Maybe because using the word marriage is one of the rights and maybe because your claim that civil unions provide the same rights is baseless. The rights of gay people in relationships are governed by a host of state and federal laws. Neither a state grant of civil unions nor even a state grant of marriage will be sufficient to provide equal rights. Indeed the Federal Defence of Marriage Act explicitly bars certain rights to gay couples, even if they are married (e.g., the right of a foreign marriage partner of a US citizen to emigrate to the US and get a Green Card). Gay people won't get equal rights until anti-gay attitudes have lost their political power. Making gay marriage acceptable is part of the process of combatting the cultural and hence political power of anti-gay attitudes.

John Carson

[Rob Graham]

No, most of the gay community and fellow travelers have excoriated the young lady. The judge in question was this[^] fine example of gay manhood. Reading the bio suggests he is a serial asshole, as well as gay bigot.

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

Making gay marriage acceptable is part of the process of combatting the cultural and hence political power of anti-gay attitudes.

I am foursquare behind gay marriage. I see no reason why only heterosexuals should suffer.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[kmg365]

No, what are you talking about? Link?

[Rob Graham]

I don't disagree at all with most of what you say. I think equal protection under the law should cover this. The simple problem though, is that by insisting on using the term marriage, gays exacerbate religiously based opposition. They should instead fight for comprehensive civil unions that do grant all of the appropriate legal rights. Why let a name stand in the way? Focus on the legal, avoid the cultural, religious and overly emotional. Frankly, I think the term marriage should be stricken from all laws, and replaced by civil union. Let the churches have exclusive territory over marriage, and the state exclusive territory over civil union, that being the only status that confers legal rights such as survivorship, tax status, joint property ownership, etc.

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

Frankly, I think the term marriage should be stricken from all laws, and replaced by civil union. Let the churches have exclusive territory over marriage, and the state exclusive territory over civil union, that being the only status that confers legal rights such as survivorship, tax status, joint property ownership, etc.

The problem with this point of view, which I espouse (pun intended) is that it leaves no room for folks to impose their morality on other people. Folks like Stan and Ilion can't be happy if there's a chance that anyone else is happy doing something they are afraid they might like, but that mommy said would grow hair on their palms.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Synaptrik]

Technically its due to the use of the word: "marriage" in thousands of federal legal documents. Civil Union does not appear in these legal documents. So its essentially a matter of making marriage a religious institution and changing all legal documents referencing the word to "civil union" or allowing gays to get married. Its a separation of church and state matter. If marriage is a religious institution then there should be no tax breaks for it. But if two people share their entire lives together and wish to have legal protection with regard to their property and health then they should have that under the law. I don't really care what they call it. But legal rights should be afforded to all.

This statement is false

[Stan Shannon]

Le Centriste wrote:

You live in a country of paradoxes

No, I live in a country in the midst of a fascist take over.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Lost User]

Those who have been around for more than a few years will remember a guy by the name of Jeremy who would constantly equate homosexuality with beastiality

[Synaptrik]

In the midst for 30 years now.

This statement is false

[Stan Shannon]

More like the last 100. But it is just about complete now.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[John Carson]

Rob Graham wrote:

I don't disagree at all with most of what you say. I think equal protection under the law should cover this. The simple problem though, is that by insisting on using the term marriage, gays exacerbate religiously based opposition. They should instead fight for comprehensive civil unions that do grant all of the appropriate legal rights. Why let a name stand in the way? Focus on the legal, avoid the cultural, religious and overly emotional.

Except that the cultural and religious opposition is behind the legal opposition and you can't combat the latter without combatting the former.

Rob Graham wrote:

Frankly, I think the term marriage should be stricken from all laws, and replaced by civil union. Let the churches have exclusive territory over marriage, and the state exclusive territory over civil union, that being the only status that confers legal rights such as survivorship, tax status, joint property ownership, etc.

I agree with that, but I don't think the conservatives will go for it. They want state backing for their religious institution.

John Carson