NYT op-ed on same-sex marriage presents a compromise

Pure unadulterated horseshit

The nature of a compromise is that each party has to give up something. Under this plan, gays give up the right to be treated equally.What does the other side give up?
Nothing.  They actually get to keep discriminating against us and have it codified into law.

So basically it's this:  We don't get to marry and they still get to consider us less than equal.

Some compromise.

---

by: DavidinPS @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 09:46:41 AM CST

It's shameful

Who the FUCK authorized these two to negotiate away our rights in the New York Times?  All they've done is make politicians who might have been on our side feel more comfortable with the status quo--and justified in indulging their homophobia against activists who are "too strident".

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:55:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

They are the "real gays"

the right kind of gays, the conserva-queer stockbrokers in suits that we Lesbians are sick to death of, the men like Dale Carpenter reassuring us that over a hundred civil rights lawyers are wrong and he is right on ENDA, the kind that said end Stonewall 2.0 because the right will say nasty things about us; we did and they just went on lying.

Feckin' enough, already.

The only way to end the accomodationist nonsense is a resumption of radicalism, public radicalism upon our parts.

But are we willing to expend the effort, or have we become docile victims deluding ourselved that our Conserva-queer kapos will keep us safe instead of their cutting deals that sell us all out while leaving the social and financial elite getting crumbs of gratitude from our oppressors?

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 15:36:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm reminded of a passage from C. S. Lewis...

specifically "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader", where Eustace, having just been turned back into a boy by Aslan, apologises to Edmund and Lucy, and Edmund replies with something like "you were just a prig; I was a traitor." That pretty much sums up my attitude to people like Elton John - I can be a prig at times, but for claiming that gay people will be fine with civil unions I can only consider him a traitor.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 15:57:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes!

I've said this exact same thing. It's easy to ask for a sacrifice when you don't have to make it yourself.

---

by: Bachalon @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:06:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly

This is bullshit.

---

by: Eshto @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 15:28:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, yeah. Soooo wrong on soooo many levels...

Not only is there the whole (already beat-to-death) issue of "separate but equal" (that is really NEVER truly equal) that this would cause, but to actually go further and allow these "religous-conscience exemptions" makes it no honest solution at all.

Why can't, for example, someone who honestly believes in their heart that the Jews killed Christ use this "religious-conscience exemption" to refuse to treat a Jewish person equally? How is that ultimately any different than allowing someone to treat ANYONE in public life differently based upon their privately-held religious beliefs? It's not. And it should be called-out as such.

---

by: JWSwift @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 13:27:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A Real Compromise

DavidinPS wrote, "The nature of a compromise is that each party has to give up something."

Exactly. The only true compromise I can think of would be the elimination of civil marriage altogether, replaced by civil unions for all. That way, both we and the Religulous Reich give up the word "marriage." If people want to call their union a "marriage," they're free to do so, but it is an informal term, not a legal one.

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 13:13:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think there's a much simpler solution

Separate out civil and religious marriage entirely.  Allow anyone who can currently perform a marriage today the right to continue to perform civil marriages, and make it clear that no private entity has any obligation to perform any marriage between any two individuals, but require all public officials to perform their duties of civil marriage without prejudice.  

Anyone who wants to perform any religious marriage can do so for any reason, and any non-blood kin consenting adults who wish to enter a civil marriage can do so as well, and most people will choose to do both, but the religious element of the marriage shall be irrelevant to the process.  Require a very simple form that allows marriage performed by any individual who is legally qualified (i.e., another adult) to be recognized by the state, and simply require a notary public to document the form.  

This means that no private citizen will be violating civil liberties by refusing to marry two eligible individuals, because anyone can do the ceremony, and separating out religious from civil marriage prevents any religious institution from feeling like it's obligated to get involved in a civil ceremony.

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 09:52:11 AM CST

Blankenhorn and Rauch's exception

isn't about who performs the marriage.  It's about religious organizations getting to choose when they'll recognize a legal marriage and when they won't.  So if I understand their argument, if my wife should end up being treated at a Catholic hospital in some emergency, the hospital could decide not to recognize our marriage and refuse my legal authority to direct her care or even my legal right to see her.

As DavidinPS said, there's no compromise here at all.

---

by: Diane95 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:07:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That shows one advantage...

of a nationalised/socialised health-care system.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:33:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

nationalized health care

will never preclude the existence of private providers.  the scenario given above could, unfortunately, still easily happen even if we had nationalized health care.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:34:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

An agency of a government...

cannot refuse to recognise a government-sanctioned & recognised marriage.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 13:44:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is not England, this is the US we're talking about

and Lurleen is right about this.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 17:54:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nah...

...The Religulous Reich doesn't want ANY same-sex unions ANYWHERE, at ANY TIME.

Sure, we can exempt then from performing same-sex unions, but they're still driven b@^$%!^ by the idea that the MCC or UU churches could go ahead and perform a MARRIAGE ceremony, and that they will have to recognise and treat fairly and equally legal civil-unioned same-sex couples.

---

by: Hazumu @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:08:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Which is the beauty of my plan

It forces the anti-civil rights crowd into making their homophobia clear and unambiguous, rather than couched in terms of their civil rights.

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:27:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There is only ONE form of marriage, Julie

Marriage is a contract between individuals recognized by the state PERIOD.

Those legally empowered to do so may be priests or rabbis or Elvis impersonators. It's all the smae thing.

The Church LIES AND LIES AND LIES about marraige. And far too many of us have been pistol-whipped inot believing them.

The notion that thechurch owns marraige is made a mockery of by divorce.

Who divorces you?

Not the church, that's for sure.

Here's the Truth about marriage.

Joanthan Rauch is a piece of shit.  

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:38:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And you know who Blankenhorn is

http://www.salon.com/opinion/f...

---

by: avocado @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 09:16:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

could be a jacksonian approach

and let there be both religious and civil marriage with this in mind: both religious and civil marriages must give the same benefits that are found in today's marriage laws. Let the churches fend for themselves and try to enforce their own marriages and benefits... crazy idea but if it were put to a real test I think that the religious example would fall extremely short of trying to enforce benefits.

just a thought :P

"It's hard to free fools from the chains they revere." ~ François Marie Arouet.

---

by: TSinGarnNC16 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:50:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

They seem to be coming from the side

That as long as "religious freedom" is protected it will all be honky dory.....
That isn't what the anti-gay industry wants, they want our love re-criminalized.  Send us back in the closet, or forced into "ex-gay" camps.  
That is their real agenda, their only agenda.

"They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself." - Andy Warhol



"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

---

by: TruthandLove @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 09:53:17 AM CST

Same-sex marriage is only part of the Reich's Culture War agenda.

Same-sex marriage is important to the LGBT community (I'm T. Do I marry a man?  A woman?  Or do I get disqualified from marrying anyone?  Does my legal marriage remain valid if we move to a different jurisdiction?  Is it safe from legal attack by my spouse's relatives?)

But, same-sex marriage is but a component in Religulous Reich's Culture War of Terror.  It is a component, though, that currently still provides a huge return on investment -- a little effort expended reaps a tidal wave of support; moreso than abortion or re-enabling a patriarchal society or establishing the Christian version of Sharia Law.

I have a friend who says she is FOR same-sex couples receiving every right and recognition that traditional couples currently enjoy -- EXCEPT for the word "Marriage".  She won't budge on this (...yet.)

The RR taunts us with the claim that we're 'shoving our disgusting lifestyle in their face/down their throats', etc.  It's hard to make any progress at all when peaceful-but-noisy protests, boycotts of businesses, and sternly-worded e-mails and voicemail is misconstrued as morally equivalent to the death-by-blunt-instrument of Matthew Sheppard, Satender Singh, Jose Sucuzhanay, and thousands of others.

---

by: Hazumu @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:03:15 AM CST

Isn't the language they use curious?

It's always, "shoving it down our throats."

Bit of a slip there, if you ask me.

---

by: Bachalon @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:08:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It shouldn't make any difference

"Same-sex marriage" is really shorthand for marriage for all in which gender is not a consideration.

It never occurred to me that being transgender would make any difference. If we simply have marriage for all instead of same-gender and opposite-gender marriage with different rules for each, you should be able to marry whomever you want as long as you and your chosen-one are human beings, have reached the age of majority, are capable of giving consent, and have given that consent.

Now, if you are talking about civil unions for some and marriage for others, I can easily see fights over whether what you want to do constitutes a marriage or a civil union. Of course, that's simply one more reason to have marriage for all.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 17:13:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I had a similar take

I wrote it here last night, and while I recognize that civil unions might be a stepping stone to full marriage, I don't have to like it. But this isn't enough of a compromise (assuming that you could get enough of the right-wing to go along with it in the first place).

Incertus

---

by: Incertus(Brian) @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:07:15 AM CST

good essay, Brian

I particularly liked this observation:

It's no surprise to me that the less-insane right is looking for compromises on this issue, because they can see the demographic changes--they know this is a loser. It's only the real psychos who think they're going to be able to put gays in jail again soon. So what the less-insane right is trying to do is build a firewall somewhere that will allow them to hold onto the magical word "marriage" for the heteros and keep their license to discriminate in the law, figuring that if the gays get something not quite as good as marriage, lots of their straight allies will back off the issue. And the sad thing is that they're probably right, which is why I'm still pushing for full and complete marriage rights. Because any compromise that leaves LGBT couples without the same rights I have is a loss.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:14:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Good conpromise

Unless your willing to wait another 50 years this seems to best we can get. We do get all the federal protections and states are forced to recognize civil unions.

I don't think this will ever pass but it seems better than waiting for the supreme court to make a ruling because they can always rule the opposite way.

---

by: salome17 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:11:34 AM CST

What makes you think 50 years?

My prediction is that within 5 years we will have a national patchwork that looks a lot like marriage recognitions between 1948 and 1968.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:52:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Where did you get the idea that states would be forced to recognize Civil Unions?

I think both you and Pam have misunderstood what national Civil Unions are.  They are not civil unions granted at the national level that trumps states' rights.  Those civil union benefits would ONLY be granted to people who LIVED and were joined in a marriage or civil union in a state where they are legal.

When Obama talks about national civil unions that's ALL he is talking about.  There is no provision for the federal government to grant relationship recognition.  Such rights are ONLY granted at the state level, then the federal government grants rights and privileges to those who those who are married at the state level.

Even if you read Rauch's compromise plan, he makes this QUITE clear in the very first sentence where he says, "It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions ON same-sex marriages and civil unions GRANTED AT THE STATE LEVEL, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage.

I hear a lot of people repeating the misinformed notion that federal recognition of civil unions will apply to gay people in EVERY state, including states that have state constitutional amendments banning marriage, civil unions or any other instance similar to marriage.  That is absolutely wrong and we do ourselves a MAJOR disservice when we repeat it.  If you live in a state that doesn't recognize or allow civil unions then you WILL NOT be getting federal benefits.  You will have to move to a state that DOES allow marriage or civil unions to be eligible.  What a nightmare such a senario would cause.  This is another of the reasons why this separate but (not)equal option is more problematic than just giving full marriage equality with a single system.

---

by: Zeke @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 18:43:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Excellent Point Zeke!

This has to settled in the Supreme Court, there is no other way.

---

by: Donna @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 09:05:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What a mess this would create

If a gay couple gets married in, say, Massachusetts, would their relationship be downgraded to a civil union for federal purposes?  And, exactly what would a federal civil union entail?  Does it have any substance or is it just to permit gays to obtain tax and other federal benefits? Would it supersede the full marriage rights in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut?  And, a gay couple who are married or civil-unioned cannot move to another state that doesn't recognize their relationship because, if they do, they would not only lose their rights at the state level, but at the federal level, too?  This model doesn't even begin to approach separate but equal (which is not acceptable in my opinion, anyway.)  The idea is beyond stupid.

---

by: Jan01 @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 15:51:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jonathan is not experienced in the right activities

to develop an effective compromise.

He thinks that because he is gay and a conservative philosopher, he can understand both sides, but he understands neither.

While I understand that it's tempting to propose compromise with people who are impervious to legal, logical and humanitarian claims, because I want Pam and Kate to have basic rights--it's naive to expect the other side, which is imposing the 'nothing' y'all have now, to hold up their end.

Once you've conceded that Scalia's opinion in both Bowers and Lawrence was correct--that indeed there is a gay exception to Constitutional protections because some people find gay sex icky--where do our employment protections go? Housing protections? Where does this slippery slope end?

Partly because the available political history indicates that we're close to a win--we can reverse the federal DOMA and within a decade will get our Loving--this compromise would have made sense to me 15 years ago. Today it's not necessary to cede ground long-term in order to win.

He also fails to understand the religious extremists who falsely claim that marriage is their sticking point. He cites a couple of so-called 'problems' that civil marriage equality creates for religious organizations, but they're sculpted to make this compromise a solution.

Yes, Jonathan, some religions want the right to waive equal-employment laws for gay couples, just as they already do with gay individuals. But churches HAVE that right, today. And yet they fight tooth and nail against any protections for our families whatever. That tells me your contacts who say they are for this trade have identified a way to sucker you.

We are fighting for a right that has been recognized as so basic, convicted murderers are entitled to exercise it, against a tax-exempt movement that will not accept their dogma as one set of beliefs that deserves respect from a pluralistic society.

Listen to them, and they will happily tell you that they want to live in a Christian nation. I don't. Do you?

I have been fighting these retrograde bigots for 15 years and I know them. They are political extremists who want this country to waive equality anywhere the 14th Amendment conflicts with one of their beliefs. They will speak any lie, in violation of their own Commandment, to accomplish this goal.

That is who we're dealing with, and that's why I don't have to reject this compromise--they will.

Perhaps not honestly and openly, but the middle ground will end up in court because they won't stop pushing. Once they get a federal law that indicates their right to enforce the dissent in Lawrence, there are no limits to what they will try next.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:37:50 AM CST

Thank you for this excellent comment

You are right on all counts.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:01:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I just some of your points

In my testimony for the Senate hearing on Tuesday. VERY good. Thank you for these points.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:28:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sounds Familiar

They are political extremists who want this country to waive equality anywhere the 14th Amendment conflicts with one of their beliefs.

My knowledge of the US constitution is better than that of most Brits, but it's not exhaustive.

From memory, the 14th Amendment was a consequence of the Civil War insofar as is ensures constitutional rights protections for minorities. Had there been an exemption for religious groups virtually the entire amendment would have been gutted since most of the major arguments used to continue slavery in the Old South were religious in nature.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:14:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sounds like you understand our laws

better than Jonathan does.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:30:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not complicated...

the US constitution is all in English, and only has a few dozen amendments - after all, it's only had 221 years to collect them.

By contrast the British constitution dates back at least 1000 years and has so many amendments that I greatly doubt there's a single person alive who's aware of them all, let alone able to read them given that they're in several different languages - English, Latin, Scots and Norman-French, and probably Welsh and the Irish & Scottish Gaelics.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 13:43:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, pretty much.

Technically, the whole 14th Amendment is in the crosshairs of the religious extremists these days.  I have a sneaking suspicion that this is part of what the pro-Prop 8 argument in front of the California Supreme Court actually involves.  The claim is that "the people" (= 50% +1 of the people who are able to get their votes counted in any given election) have an absolute right to overrule any decision made by the state Supreme Court.  The phrasing of it (in terms of an inalienable "right" of "the people") makes me think that they're not aiming at the California Supreme Court at all (where the law is pretty clearly against them) but at the much more reactionary U.S. Supreme Court.  

Ordinarily there's no appeal beyond the state Supreme Court on issues of state law (such as marriage in this case), but the phrasing of the argument makes me suspect that the claim will be that a federally-guaranteed "right" (majoritarian mob rule) is being infringed upon by the California Constitution.  

While the pro-h8 people are doing their best to make this look like a one-issue case, the effects would, of course, be much more broad: Ken Starr's pure-majoritarian model of rights would make just about every right for everyone subject to repeal at any time.  While this will have its limits in places like California, the acceptance of the mob-rule argument at the federal level would mean that anyone who doesn't go along with the reactionary Dominionist game plan in the more conservative states could have their rights stripped at any time.

Fortunately, I don't think even the current U.S. Supreme Court would buy this argument -- I doubt they'd even be willing to hear the case.  Still, it's significant that they think they might even have a chance of getting the argument to work.

---

by: M @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 16:17:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have an idea

Mormonism is the greatest danger facing America today, greater than that posed by Islamic extremism. Men like Glen Beck, trying to sneak into the Christian tent, may destroy this country.

Let's pass an amendment not recognising marriages performed by Mormon ministers..

Better yet:
Let's deny the Mormons faith based funding snce they are a dangerous cult.

And then we'll move on to the Catholics...

The SBC would likely support this...

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 20:24:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If the B.S. mob-rule argument convinces the CA SC...

...I say we start a whole swarm of initiatives: one each to overrule every California Supreme Court decision ever, on any topic.  It might remind people why we had a state constitution in the first place.

---

by: M @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 21:14:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually...

Sounds great. You need only 3% of Cali population to sign the petition for an amendment (if I'm not mistaken)... Throughout California, there should be enough LGBTs to make that happen.

---

by: avocado @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 23:58:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not just LGBT people.

The NAACP, MALDEF, etc. are distinctly unhappy with the implications of Ken Starr's mob-rule argument -- as are the unions, the ACLU...hell, just about anyone to the left of Mussolini.  The LGBT/labor alliance that has gotten a bit of a start with the Manchester Grand Hyatt boycotts would also be a relevant connection.

---

by: M @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 00:46:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree.

I think this campaign could be a success allowing people to understand the importance of this. As long as the campaign will also make it clear that this is its purpose, and that the issues and particular protections are guaranteed to these other groups (but not LGBTs) by federal Constitution, legislation and courts.

---

by: avocado @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 09:27:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yep, and actually that would work both ways...

Not only can we NOT count on the right-wing to give-in and grant the "concessions" (which are hardly concessions at all) without pushing and fighting them, but if for no other reason than "separate but equal is never truly equal" we gays will not stop pushing for anything less than full marriage equality, either.

Unfortunately, that means that both sides could wind up pointing the finger at the other and saying, "See, we KNEW you wouldn't be happy until you completely destroyed the country!!!"

---

by: JWSwift @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 13:39:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why compromise at all?

Polls show consistently that the young generation overwhelmingly supports marriage equality (not just "civil unions"). Support for marriage equality has been continuously increasing, even as it hasn't hit the 50% mark --- yet. So WHY would we compromise at all, faced with statistically INEVITABLE VICTORY in the long run?

Especially since the "civil unions" thing is a particular putrid compromise. The whole fake marriage vs. civil union debate only came up because the other side insidiously FRAMED "marriage" as something else than it actually is: as a supposedly "religious institution". The truth is that "marriage", coming from Latin "maritus", is and always has been, a CIVIL contract. The religious connotation as a sacrament didn't come in until the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 --- for the Catholic Church! Already during Reformation, that view was challenged, with Martin Luther famously declaring: "Die Ehe ist ein weltlich Ding" (Marriage is a secular thing).

Therefore, what is sold to us as a "civil union" --- a "marriage" without the supposed religious component --- is what MARRIAGE actually is! George Lakoff warns us not to buy into the other side's FRAMING. The civil union "compromise" does JUST THAT --- it accepts the other side's deceitful framing about what marriage is, and settles on their terms.

Besides, there has not been a SINGLE instance where the anti-gay side has ever NOT fought ENACTING civil unions just as hard as marriage. Oh sure, in states where civil unions exist, they present those as a supposedly acceptable fallback position against true marriage equality. Anywhere else however, where they don't even have civil unions, they're fought with the exact same fervor.

Lastly, the article reveals the authors' TRUE reason for said compromise: "moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road."  And just WHY would we WANT to avoid a "major conflict"?  The authors are from the David Broder "let's all just get along" school of politics that values harmony more than progress --- ANY conflict, ANY vocal argument, any impassioned debate is haughtily frowned upon. That can and must not be the strategy of a civil rights movement!

---

by: Bumba from Wakumba @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:42:00 AM CST

Good point that needs more emphasis

This reasonable, good-faith religious movement that fights against civil equality for our families only because they are worried about their free exercise being assaulted?

I haven't met them yet.

I have encountered dozens of hard-core political extremists whose religious beliefs require them to attempt an imposition of their cant on my rights. They will say anything and do anything to meet that goal.

I have also encountered religious believers who prefer that marriage, as understood by their church, be the only form recognized by the state. They may vote for and even fundraise for this position.

However, they are hardly going to lay down in front of county clerks' offices to prevent us from exercising our rights. The reasonable believers just don't care that much about the papers issued by the state.

So unless you're hoping that the extremists will prevail, what's the crisis this compromise resolves? There isn't one. There are people of good faith struggling to reach one another and there is no need to compromise fundamental rights to get there.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:50:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Also, quick tutorial on marriage equality:

I would never accept a permanent second-class status for my marriage to appease people who can't mind their own business.

The only reason to be against civil marriage equality is that you're prejudiced against gay people, period.

If your objection is couched in fancier language, you don't understand what civil marriage is.

For every objection to legal equality, there is a solution that is more fitted to the problem than fencing same-sex couples out of civil marriage.

Think of an objection and test me:

Marriage is ancient and unchanging--no, women aren't property any more.
Marriage is for kids--which is why infertile couples can't marry? and, What about OUR kids?
Marriage is holy--okay, now we're in church, that's the building with the steeple not the one with the scales
Marriage is endangered and must be protected--yet you're not outlawing divorce?

Whatever the specifics of the objection, there is a solution more tailored to meeting your goal than keeping marriage exclusive to opposite-sex couples.

Unless your goal is to send the message that same-sex couples, and our kids, are lesser families. If that's your goal, only continued exclusion will get you there.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:45:33 AM CST

Lets suppose the black civil rights movement had accepted "interrracial unions".

...so now in the USA white people and white people, black people and black people were "married", but black people and white people were "inter-racially unified".

Would that not be a national disgrace?

Would that not be an obviously racist law, conceding the racists' most defining position, irreconcilable difference of races, and merely quibbling about how kindly to treat them?

Might it not have ultimately have caused the civil rights movement to fail? At least for a generation, as the older leaders were invested in defending their hard won "almost".

Might it not have failed to spark the international civil rights movement? Resulting in a much more dystopian 2009.

Because we have facts on our side, and because factual purity is the substance of our argument, this is a battle in which compromise with non-facts would be a disaster.

---

by: JulianMorrison @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:53:12 AM CST

Don't forget...

...special exceptions that allow racist organizations to opt out of any laws that make them feel uncomfortable!

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:03:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

As Al Sharpton put it...

I support gay marriage. Whatever the lifestyle, people should have the right to choose their own life.

I think it's a human rights issue. When I'm asked, 'Do I support a gay marriage?' Do I support Greek marriages? Do I support Latino marriages? Do I support black marriages? Are we prepared to say that gays and lesbians are less than human? If we're not prepared to say that, then how do we say that they should not have the same human rights and human choices of anyone else?

Even if you have a disagreement with it in terms of your own personal life, you cannot limit the humanity of others unless you're prepared to say they are less than human. And not only were people of different races - at one point in this country were people of different races may be illegal if they married, people of the same race, when we were slaves, couldn't marry.

I would not support any limitations on human and civil rights for anyone in the country. Whatever my view is, I think my view I have the right to personally. I do not have the right to impose that on others.

It's like asking 'Do I support black marriage or white marriage?' The inference of the question is that gays are not like other human beings. It's like saying you give blacks, or whites, or Latinos the right to shack up - but not get married.

Reverend Al Sharpton

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 17:58:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pam, well done

Thanks to clear headed activists like you we have encouragement.  Checked out at the supermarket line yesterday and guess who is on the cover of Reader's Digest ?  Rick Warren giving his advice on how to change the world.  We must fight as no one will do it for us.  He is not the only ballgame in town, as many religions do approve of same-sex marriage.  It's unconstitutional to allow this Saddleback clown to brainwash middle America and take over the world, but it is headed that way unless we make strong statements.  

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:57:43 AM CST

Can of worms

Something puzzles me about this language:

religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will

What exactly would comprise "recognizing" same-sex unions? "Recognizing" as opposed to "performing" (which no one is asking for).  It seems to me that this language, if enacted into law, clearly implies a number of things.  

First, churches and religious organizations would not be permitted to solicit contributions from LGBT people, since you can't very well ask for money from people you don't recognize.  Would the churches be forbidden to ask us for money or accept it from us unless they acknowledge the validity of our relationships?  Second, by that same token, they would not be permitted to expel same-sex couples from their congregations or "shun" them in any way.  And third, those same churches and institutions would be prohibited by law from preaching against gay relationships and/or unions, since to do so would be a de facto "recognition" of them.

I can't imagine the churches ever agreeing to such conditions. (The monetary factor alone would certainly be a deal-breaker for them.)  And what would happen if they did ever engage in such "recognition" of gay unions?  How much messy litigation would that lead to?  All of which is to say that this idea, assuming anyone ever takes it seriously, will almost certainly be a nonstarter.  Like most political compromises, it would create a lot more problems (and thorny ones, at that) than it solves.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:58:49 AM CST

It's really quite simple

If I, baptized a Catholic, were to suddenly become hetero (remember this is theoretical - not a chance of it happening - :), and decide to marry a non-Catholic woman, and a judge or protestant minister performed the ceremony, the Catholic church would not recognize the marriage as valid, since we were not married in the Catholic church.  It doesn't really matter to me, because I haven't set foot in a Catholic church since the last family funeral several years ago.  I would still have all the legal rights and responsibilities towards this (theoretical) wife.  In reality, the church has no legal authority over any of these.  The last time someone gave the church any legal authority, the Spanish Inquisition was the result - REAL bad idea.

The issue becomes complicated if this theoretical wife and I decided to have children.  Would the Catholic church baptize these theoretical children?  Maybe and maybe not.  It depends on the priest at the local parish.  The church considers all life sacred (until the individual is actually born anyway), but oftentimes they will refuse to baptize this child as it was born out-of-wedlock (at least in their eyes).

I say, let the government issue civil union certificates to any couple, gay and straight (this will replace "marriage licenses.")  These civil union certificates are what would convey the legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities, as a marriage license does now.  Local government issues the marriage license, not the church.  The church only signs off on it (which is optional, as a judge or even a notary public in this state can do it as well).

Churches can marry whoever they choose to (or choose not to), just as they do now with their quaint little marriage ceremony, but the legal document gets signed at city hall or the county seat.  This would remove the responsibility of clergy from executing secular legal contracts, which always bothered me at some level as a separation of church/state issue.

---

by: Phil @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 14:31:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My position exactly

although I think they would also have to go in edit the laws, and substitute "civil union" for marriage.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 14:38:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Probably wouldn't be too hard

I assume they use Word or WordPerfect (lawyers love WP).  Just do a search and replace and voila!  The legislature or courts rewrite it and it's a done deal.

As has been noted elsewhere on this thread, churches are becoming less and less relavant for the majority of people, and with good reason.  I can't see where they do alot for the majority of their members, except take their money and meddle in other peoples' business.  As QScribe points out below, if you don't give them money, they'd sooner throw your corpse under the bus rather than do what they claim they do.

---

by: Phil @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 16:11:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly, Phil

But that wouldn't stop Holy Mother Church from extorting requesting money from you if you want to be buried in one of their cemeteries or in any other way be treated as a human being by them.

My mother died of cancer.  She was bedridden for more than two years before her death, and the local pastor knew it (he had made "pastoral visits" to our home, etc.)  Yet when she finally died, he refused to give her a Catholic funeral in church, as she wished, because she hadn't been to Mass or dropped any $$$ in the collection basket for two years. She had been attending Mass and feeding them cash for decades, but none of that counted.  Then just after she died and I arranged a secular funeral, he sent a letter demanding money if she wanted to be kept on the church rolls.  

I had personally given up on the church years earlier, so none of this came as a surprise to me.  But that strikes me as fairly analogous to the way they treat gay people.  They won't recognize us as full human beings (we are intrinsically evil, remember), they vilify our lives and our families, yet they want our money and our votes.  

All I'm suggesting is that if the law says they don't have to recognize us for marriage purposes, it should also ban them from "recognizing" us for any other purpose, such as fundraising.

Think they'll go along with that?  ;)

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 14:59:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Separate is inherently unequal

If understand the position that Blankenhorn and Rauch are taking correctly, it still involves the family relationships of LG and in some cases B and T folks being governed by separate laws.  Separate is inherently unequal.  To accept this position as a “compromise” is to say that rights are something that are subject to compromise.  They are not, and pretending that they are weakens all of us, whether queer or not.  For that reason if for no other, this “compromise” should be rejected with all due scorn.

---

by: pgraydon @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:07:58 AM CST

Said it before

and I'll say it again, I don't accept civil unions because straight couples don't accept them. And really, what are the bigots compromising on? Gay marriage is still illegal and their churches don't have to recognize gay partnerships.

Really, who's compromised on what?

I'm not going to have bigots slap me in the face and thank them for not slapping me twice.

---

by: Bachalon @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:16:05 AM CST

That's true

in this country (with the exception of California where you can find elderly unmarried couples opting for a domestic partnership as opposed to a marriage) but not, for example, in France where even straight couple are opting for civil unions.

It all depends on how you structure it. But this is increasingly looking like that civil unions=for the gays and marriage=for the straights. That's unacceptable.

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:50:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

let me add

that France does NOT have same-sex marriage.

But does the EU say that France must recognize the same-sex marriages in the countries that do have them?

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:57:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Last I heard

France does recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries, though it might have changed.  

---

by: M @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 16:22:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Federal rights for state marriages and civil unions

If I read the original proposal correctly, only those couples who are in marriages or civil unions recognized by states will be eligible for the federal benefits. So what happens to those of us who live in one of the states (most of them) that do not provide for such legal relationships? Or what about my situation: my husband and I married in California last year (assuming that holds up) and now live in Texas. Would we be eligible for federal rights or not? My guess is that the answer is--we get nothing. This whole argument about creating a massive bureaucratic and legal structure parallel but unequal to marriage is fraught with danger, complications, and even more divisions between states and within states. Now, if the grand compromise is to have parallel federal civil unions available to everyone in the U.S., that's still separate but equal--and a lot of unnecessary duplication--but at least it's more nearly a fair "compromise."

I also wonder about the term "recognize" in terms of the responsibilities of religious organizations. Sounds to me like they can refuse us medical care, food, basic human compassion, whatever they want.

---

by: buster @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:16:40 AM CST

The religious exemption clause bothers me, too

I also wonder about the term "recognize" in terms of the responsibilities of religious organizations. Sounds to me like they can refuse us medical care, food, basic human compassion, whatever they want.

Me too.  Particularly this bit:

A successful template already exists: laws that protect religious conscience in matters pertaining to abortion. These statutes allow Catholic hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, for example.

Presumably Blankenhorn and Rauch would support allowing a doctor in, say, San Diego, to refuse to provide a fertility treatment offered to women married to men to a lesbian.

Um, no.  This is not a compromise.  This is, to put it mildly, crap.

---

by: pgraydon @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:25:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're preaching to the converted here, Pam...

What you really should do with this piece is edit and send it as a letter to the editor of The New York Times as a direct response to the op-ed piece to which you refer.

---

by: Flame @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:19:25 AM CST

agreed

I thought the exact same thing when I read Pam's post: please do submit it to the Times!

---

by: DubNotDubya @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:44:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Submit as an op-ed piece in its own right?

A letter to the editor would be good, but an op-ed piece would be even better ...

jon

---

by: jonpincus @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:26:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

exactomundo

letter to the NYTimes allows only 200 words or less, so an op-ed would be better.

---

by: avocado @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 10:10:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dear Mssrs. Blankenhorn and Rausch,

We already have a robust religious exception at the federal and state levels for religions that don't want to perform same-sex marriages. It's called the First Amendment.

Please stop these attempts and journalism and go back to your 7th grade civics class.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:23:25 AM CST

The British Tack

What if a church auxiliary or charity is told it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status?

The route the UK took was to place very specific limitations to employment discrimination law. Certain special-interest organisations - mostly charities such as LGB, religious or disability groups - are permitted to discriminate against certain classes of people, but only for specific roles. This means that certain job roles (caterers, cleaners, etc.) are protected from discrimination while others (managerial, priests, counsellors etc.) are not.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:31:13 AM CST

The Canadian approach

Our Charter of Rights has an overarching clause that says that the rights are subject to reasonable limitations for a democratic society.

The anti-LGBT crowd tried to claim that SSM would take away a church's freedom of religion, but was totally shot down by all the lawyers pointing out that the limitation section coverd that. And indeed, that's exactly what happened. The Catholic Church does not recognize same-sex marriages, some other religious groups do.  The few remaining grey areas (we have marriage commissioners who are paid by their province to perform marriages for those who want that; a very few of these people refused to perform SSMs) have been dealt with via human rights legislation, and the resulting boundaries seem to be acceptable to everyone.

By the way, the RCs tried one of their usual arguments here during the debate: why not have a general `non-marriage partnership' for not only LGBTs, but also anyone else who wants it, say a brother and sister, or mother and daughter. Fortunately for them, that one never caught on, I was dying to write a letter to our papers pointing out that same-sex marriages are most often sexual ones, and therefore it appeared that the Church was condoning incest. That would have been fun!

---

by: vincent-m @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 21:40:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am still

downing my first cup of coffee at which point I will be able to digest this better but...

It seems that they are so worried about religious institutions that don't recognize same-sex marriage, what about religious institutions and churches that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages? If Washington were to license and to protect those unions at a federal level as well then I would see room for further negotiations on this issue, even if it ultimately means I will have a civil union and not a marriage. At least a door would be cracked.

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:35:53 AM CST

What's at stake here is the power of the church

It's been chipped away at for years. First came the end of slavery, then the vote for women, then contraception, then the American Psychiatric Association declared we were'n't neuritic perverts.

Once we get marriage it's ALL OVER for the lying motherfuckers.

And they know it.  

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:41:43 AM CST

They'll find someone else to discriminate against, don't worry!

Hey, why not discriminate against straight WASPS?

;-)

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:59:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The whole time they try to appease the bat sh*t crazies, they should be installing judges who will provide EQUALITY

The more layers they add to NOT be equal the more difficult they will be to UNDO.
I am fed up with giving into these religious fanatics, and it is going to get more strident and more radical within our community the more we are told you can't have EQUALITY.
We need LGBT leaders who DEMAND our couples are recognized not SORTA EQUAL, but fully EQUAL, and be willing to say F*CK NO to anything less.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:51:21 AM CST

What really p*sses me off is we won hard fought fights in MA and CT

This feels like tossing that away for crap we don't need to settle for.
I worried that Josh Dubois and Saddleback link would toss us under the bus, well if we let them do it, sad to say we deserve to be treated unequal.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:57:11 AM CST

and are about to probably

win them in New Jersey and Iowa.

I mean, at some point we will probably have to work some sort of temporary incremental compromise as we wait for old folks to die. But this is a piece of s**t.

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:02:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Add Rhode Island

From Boston.com:

PROVIDENCE, R.I.-Rhode Island lawmakers are taking up gay marriage legislation next week.

One bill being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday would allow same-sex couples to marry in Rhode Island. Another would outright ban gay marriage and prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex couples as married.

Rhode Island law is currently silent on the issue.

Will follow up when I find more.

So let's see: MA and CT have equal marriage and all 4 of the other New England states are working towards. Seems that we're right on track for all 6 by 2012!

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 15:58:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

At the rate it's going

I might have to move to New England.

Seriously, you could see a Great Migration. And oh, let's not talk about secession from the Union...

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 17:14:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Seriously,

I may have to be part of the same migration.  Even if I likely won't be getting married any time soon, I'd much rather live in a place that considers me a full person.

And you're right about not seceding -- it'll be easier for people in the hetero-supremacist states to notice that the sky has not fallen on the states with marriage equality if those states remain part of the Union.  They've been able to tune out Canada and the relevant parts of Europe, but a whole region of the U.S. will be harder to ignore.

---

by: M @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 19:54:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If you don't like bigots don't vote for them...

From beginning to end Obamas campaign pandered to bigots. Joshua Dubois organized the religious support groups for Obama's presidential bid that began with vermin like MaryMary and Donnie McClurkin and ended with Obama's sanctimonious statement that "gowd's in the mix" at Warren's Saddleback bigotfest. Along the way Dubois, who is Obama's Rove, his Minister of Pandering, had kind words to say about the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, George Bush's 'spirit' advisor.  

Obama's worst offense was to claim that "gawd's in the picture." That, not the Black and Latin vote, as some inclined to cluelessly toss blame at minorities, was what defeated prop 8.

It's self defeating to vote for bigots. Of course they're going to run over their GLBT suipporters with that bus. But those who voted for them asked for it and it's too late to whine about it.

You're a minority of one when you say we deserve to be unequal.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 06:07:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

NO NO NO NO NO NO... Never.

I am just spluttering (where are those smiley faces when you need them.) ......and why wont this stupid auto format let me make a new paragraph! Anyway back to the issue at hand.

NO NO NO way, non, nada, nyet, nein. Sorry Equal Rights for all is really the promise of America. Enough said. Lets get on with it.

I certainly hope we get a good result from our SC this spring..that will really help as it could be the first trial of Article One Section One applying to us all.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:20:06 PM CST

Separation of CHURCH and STATE, always and forever...

The STATE authorizes, validates, legalizes MARRIAGE. 

Churches only affirm them. 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:22:57 PM CST

Well said as always ...

Great post, Pam, and excellent comments.  

Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict.

If this is really the primary issue, then why not just link federal recognition of same-sex marriage to guarantees of religious freedom?  That would similarly reassure those who are concerned on this front, get same-sex couples all the rights (not just "most"), and avoid institutionalizing inequality.  That seems a heck of a lot better than the "compromise" Blankenhorn and Rauch are proposing.


jon

---

by: jonpincus @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:34:37 PM CST

what a load of crap

the 1st amendment already gives the religious bigots all the protection they need (and more than they deserve, imo).  the entire editorial is founded on a (deliberate?) ignorance of the Constitution.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:43:57 PM CST

One Thing.

Sorry to say, our opponents are acting in bad faith. They attempt to sway positions with outright lies, such as conflating homosexuality with bestiality, thus leading to, say,  man-goat nuptials, something that has nothing to do with any sane religious conviction, btw. That's extremism and intellectually bankrupt fear-mongering.

Time and time again, in court cases. . . Hearings in front of Congress, and State Legistlators (most recently for me in Washington State) These fundies get up and spout absolute lies and distortion without opposition. Why are we not bringing these people up on purgery charges every time they do it? We CAN prove that they are lying. They cannot back up their fabrications with FACTS.

---

by: ggw59 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:46:37 PM CST

Well, most legislative hearings aren't sworn

and they usually take cover behind their flawed aggregated data, which the average legislator isn't capable of distinguishing from science.

But the seed is a good one:

Why are the professional religious nuts pushing against equality, who know they are lying, not sanctioned by their fellow Christians?

If there were a good-faith religious opposition to civil marriage equality, the people in it would surely prioritize policing Christians who break the commandment against lying, specifically lying about someone to cause them problems with the civil authorities.

There's a segment in Jesus' best known teaching on this exact topic. Yet no Archbishop disciplines a priest for violating Holy Writ in this way.

The fact that it's not happening tells me that our good-faith opponents are late to the party because they're riding a fleet of unicorns form Atlantis.

If they were not a fantasy, they would be so busy getting the telephone pole out of their own eyes they wouldn't have time to get the speck out of mine.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:58:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes. I understand that.

A legistlative hearing is not a sworn testimony, however, nobody seems to be able to call these people on their lies and dispute them to their faces. We do it behind closed doors and preach to the choir on blogs.

When it does happen under oath in a court of law and is presented as "evidence" we should be bankrupting them with the proven facts and purgery charges.

In Public.

---

by: ggw59 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 13:37:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you would have enjoyed

the testimony a few weeks during the washington state house committee hearing on the domestic partnership expansion bill.  the bill author, who sits on the committee, questioned at least one hater on the misinformation she was spewing.  it was a stellar moment, because all he did was ask her very politely to clarify one of her fake talking points, and she was struck absolutely silent with befuddlement.  it became abundantly clear that she had just been parroting spew, lol!

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 14:24:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I did

watch the hearings in it's entirety. Jamie Pedersen did a good job on that. . .The woman in question sat directly behind the public speakers praying and "praising the lord" when her fundie cohorts were spewing lies then mumbling in tongues and glaring with disgust at all the pro-gay speakers, families, firefighters, the state patrol, etc.

I think she was from the eagle forum, but can't remember now. Highly entertaining if it weren't so sickening.

But this is exactly why I bring it up. We need more Pedersens to call these people out in public. And, unfortunately Jamie only did that to this one. There were at least a dozen others in this one hearing alone, the rebuttal was almost entirely crickets.

---

by: ggw59 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 15:14:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Perjury Charges?

 They place ther hand on their comic book,,errr,,bible and swear to tell the truth.  I tis a sin to bare false witness, has that stopped them yet?

They really don't want to testify to the real reason they are against SSM, they beat around Teh Bush.  

 Honestly, I would love to see them in action.  Ellaine Donnely was a hoot.  So is the Peter's reacton.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 14:41:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

did anyone catch the line about DOMA?

But federal recognition of same-sex marriage - leave aside what you think about the merits - is not likely in the near future.

They are saying they want us to believe that DOMA will not be repealed any time soon.  I sure would like to know what their basis for this assumption is, since Obama campaigned on repealing it.

SO THE BIG QUESTION for me is, did these guys dream up this mess all on their own, or are they floating atrial balloon for Obama or some other concern?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:51:56 PM CST

Yeah, they are digging in in anticipation of the DOMA repeal.

No compromise.  

---

by: chiefscribe @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 18:19:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Putting up a REAL FIGHT

I wonder if our community has the courage, leadership, and the stomach to really fight for our equality. It will be a real fight, not sitting in committees politely asking for our Rights. If you use the models of Sufferage and Civil Rights people were forced fed in prisons for YEARS, people were lynched and buried in dams, people walked to work froa year rather than taking buses,people (even children) faced down police dogs and firehoses,  people went to Washington when in many towns they wouldn't be allowed to use restrooms.
I saw courage in ACT UP, but today it seems rare. The vacuum of our leadership is a big cause, people will follow a strong leader(s).
Without that, people tend to just accept beggardly scraps they are offered.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 12:52:12 PM CST

More of us die in a year

than the entire number lynched in the battle for civil rights between 1948 and 1970.

Our leadership is conservative and accomodationist, neo-mattachines if you will. I expect nothing from them except protections for their own few at the cost of our many.

The stripped down ENDA gave the Right wing reactionaries far too many concessions and from a Lesbian standpoint covered far too few of us.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 17:30:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

hold on..

before you go to that comparison, you may want to look up a history of those numbers prior to 1948. You may want to go look at a map that I have seen of the concentrations of where those lynchings took place. You may want to go and look at the postcards that were sent through the US-M*****f*****g mail that showed not only the body of the lynching but all the happy people around that body smiling.

Please, please, please do not go here without some proper understanding of the subject!

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 17:50:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't disagree

with you, per se, and I personally don't mind you bring lynching up in this context (Matthew S., honestly, is about the closest that I've gotten to that issue in my lifetime) but do not arbitrairly select a period when the number of lynchings were drastically decreased from previous decades.

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 17:54:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I picked the time period

of the most radical steps in racial civil rights, Kevin. I know what the old numbers look like. I've prosecuted people for the sorts of things that were systematically done in the Old Confederacy during and after Reconstruction.

Notwithstanding, the LGBT death rate ought to be a national disgrace. And I've met with friends and relatives of some of our casualties. The numbers stand, Kevin. During our battle for civil rights each year we suffer more deaths than the lynchings during the modern racial civil rights movement,

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 18:20:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

no, I thought that's why

you picked the numbers. Heck, who knows what the numbers for LGBT's were during that same period of time?

Here's the thing, we need more and more visuals of this stuff.

Part of my reaction has to do with the fact that I went to see a lynching exhibit a few years ago. Some of the visuals literally made me sick (along with a few other students in my class). Those visuals are etched (and I mean etched) in my mind.

Matthew Sheperd is etched in my mind, quite frankly. My bloodied and swollen face in the mirror after I was gay bashed in 1990 is etched in my mind.

Maybe we need to forget the pride parade visuals for a second. Numbers are abstract.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 18:54:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think when the Matthew Shepard act is up for debate again

we need people in Washington holding up those pictures of their mangles selves or their murdered loved ones.  Most straight people really don't know what's going on.  Let our images be seared on their brains like the lynching images got seared into yours.  They need to help put the nightmare to rest, or personally live with nightmares.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 10:17:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah I completely agree

I have to be honest. I, of course, knew about lynching, read about lynching, but that exhibit at the Chicago Historical Society was stunning. It presented so many different sides of that story.

I just thought about a possible reason why the images of the spectators before the lynched bodies in that exhibit outraged me soooooooo much... In 2 of the gay bashings that happened to me, there were spectators.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 10:37:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, but right now

we have nothing and I, for one, am getting sick and tired of waiting for something. All we have in NYC is a domestic partner registry. in fucking NEW YORK CITY. I don't care at this point what they call it, just fucking do SOMETHING.

---

by: Donica @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 13:36:50 PM CST

Um, have you considered driving to Hartford, CT?

Getting married and then using your marriage certificate?

Because that's no compromise, you can start tomorrow, and you'll have everything but that which DOMA boxes us out of.

Whether it's worth giving up our claim to equality in the future in exchange for reversing the federal DOMA now without having to fight for that outcome in Congress? That would be an interesting debate to have. But you're not in it saying you have nothing, which is demonstrably untrue.


But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 15:04:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In the USA, marriage has NOTHING to do with religion.

Our system works, if it's allowed to.  Everyone is equal.  Period.  Marriage is a license and a contract issued and enforced by the government.  Period.  If any two, non-immediately-related people get to be married, than all two non-immediately-related people get to be married.  Period.

Some churches approve of some marriages and some don't.  Who the hell cares?  Some crack addicts approve of some marriages and some don't.  Some serial killers approve of some marriages and some don't.  So what?  All of these people have a right to their opinions, but none of their opinions change our Constitution or the way marriage is set up in this country.

Period.

Compromise?  Compromise WHAT?  Just enforce the Constitution and apply it to our marriage laws.  Anybody who doesn't like the idea that everyone is equal is fundamentally anti-American as well as immoral, hateful, unethical and quite possibly insane.  Who cares what they want?

---

by: diablorobotico @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 13:44:58 PM CST

well, there is no way to practically

do that until this gets to SCOTUS. right now, it may well be 4-4 plus whichever way the wind blows Anthony Kennedy.

But as petey pointed out, there will be serious blowback. We would probably be spat on entering the courthouse, etc. And even worse.

Are we prepared to go through that?

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 14:02:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

well, there is no way to practically

do that until this gets to SCOTUS. right now, it may well be 4-4 plus whichever way the wind blows Anthony Kennedy.

But as petey pointed out, there will be serious blowback. We would probably be spat on entering the courthouse, etc. And even worse.

Are we prepared to go through that?

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 14:02:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I've had worse done.

Back in the early 80's I had 1/2 of my face reconstructed after a bashing with a baseball bat. Getting spat on on the court house steps is nothing I've been spat on my entire life for no other reason than being gay literally and figuratively.

---

by: ggw59 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 15:25:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yeah, gay bashing

is nothing new to me either. I mean, I would go through it (and 10 over) because I believe in these principles. But I don't want to be standing out there alone.

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 16:02:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You won't be.

I say bring it on, and I'll be standing right there with you.

---

by: ggw59 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 16:11:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If that's what it takes, the National Guard can provide escorts

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 18:11:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

SING OUT LOUISE!

Tge PACK OF LIES promulgated by the Church would suggest that it's impossible for Athiests to marry.

AS IF!

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 13:50:45 PM CST

Exactly.

This atheist is very legally married and not by any means the only one in this country.

I just happened to fall in love and marry a man, that's all.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 15:51:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

David! How dare you disagree with the President

After all, "God is in the mix"

sigh

The "Constitutional Scholar" has little respect for the Constitution....

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 19:01:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why on earth would this be written,

 or even thought about?  It is a bad idea from the start. You don't make deals that cross your principles.  I can't support a deal with people who will willingly break it and blame us for being the first to break it.

A compromise with the Religious Reich gives them a far stronger position.  They claim we broke the guidelines of the deal and they have new ammo to paint the LGBT and our supporters as the godless deal breakers.

They are using the same old weapons for years and they are failing. Why give them an updated weapon?  

I monitor my kids activity on the net, and I give them free rein.  I have gotten my daughter to spread this about the KKK and Christians through her myspace and other internet sites.

This History Channel documentary chronicles the history of the Klan, from its inception as a political organization trying to cope with the realities of emancipation and the defeat of the South in the Civil War to the modern-day Klan, which continues its legacy of hate and violence under the banner of Americanism and Christianity.

It has sparked some very interesting conversations and the kids get it, todays Peter LeBarbera and James Dobson are the leaders of the modern day KKK.

If you take documented statement made by the KKK in the early to mid 1980s and replace Black, Negro or Colored with Gay, Lesbian or Homosexual,  It fits the crap the Religious Reich are spewing today.

With success in MA and CT, the sky didn't fall, the world didn't end and humans aren't making it with animals.  No need to compromise.  Religion has its place and it is not in the US Constitution.


If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 14:26:09 PM CST

BULLCRAP

Equal rights for all. No exceptions.

Sorry, but standing up for equal rights for all people and against bigotry - whether cloaked in religion or not - is not extremist. It's a core value.

This (same-sex marriage) is an issue of human rights, and I think it is dangerous to give states the right to deal with human rights questions. That's how we ended up with slavery and segregation going forward a long time...Whatever my personal feelings may be about gay and lesbian marriages, unless you are prepared to say gays and lesbians are not human beings, they should have the same constitutional right of any other human being. -- Al Sharpton

Thank you, Reverend Sharpton

That's what I've been saying and it is why Obama is full of crap when he claims that same-sex marriage is a state issue. If he were correct about this, it would still be illegal in many states for his parents to be married and he'd have to use the servants entrance to the White House.

Why is it that we can get angry at the authors of this garbage and then turn around and defend Obama for his bigotry?

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 14:29:39 PM CST

No defense of

Obama on this particular issue, not from me.

[Full disclosure: after the Elders and DOMA debacles, I did not vote in the 1996 election].

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 14:34:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agree with you about General Elders, not so much about DOMA

General Elders was actually concerned with things that could actually be done to improve the health of Americans and she took a medical science approach rather than a political one. Clinton made a big mistake abandoning her.

In his inaugural parade, Clinton had a "Families of America" float which included a lesbian couple (from Dallas) and another gay male couple with children. That gesture, alone, bought Bill Clinton a tremendous amount of goodwill.

Clinton campaigned on allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces he delivered on his promise. Unfortunately, he was sandbagged by Republicans and sabotaged by Democrats. We ended up with DA/DT, which is pretty bad unless you are a gay person and want to serve in the armed forces. DA/DT, contrary to what some claim, did help. We didn't get what we wanted, but we got some of it and allowing gays to serve, even under DA/DT, has helped to change attitudes in the armed forces.

On DOMA, I must say that, while I have my issues with Bill Clinton, I admire what he did to advance equal rights and I am tired (not so much of you, Kevinchi) so many distorting the record to attack Clinton.

DOMA passed with a veto proof-majority. It only came to the floor of the Senate because a deal was struck. The Democrats would no longer fillibuster DOMA and the Republicans would no longer filibuster ENDA. Passage of DOMA stopped promotion of the federal marriage amendment until Clinton was out of office.

Clinton signed DOMA and even used it in ads on right-wing radio stations. It was thought to be necessary to secure his re-election.

And, that's where my problems start with Obama. I don't like it, but I can accept gays being slapped around by our friends for political necessity. In the 1996 election, just imagine where we would be if Dole had been elected and he had a majority in the House and the Senate.

Clinton pushed ending discrimination in the armed forces when only 30% of the public supported it. Obama only pays lip service even though 70% of the public support gays serving openly today.

Clinton pushed for passage of ENDA and signed an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in many areas of federal employment.

I claim that Obama could have secured the black vote without sending Donny McClurkin to denounce gays in S. C.

I further claim that Obama could have done outreach to fundies without insulting gays by having Rick Warren deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

That's the problem: When Bill Clinton has gone against equal rights for all people, it has been a critical political necessity. Obama slaps gays around for no good reason when other political options are available for achieving his goals.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 16:47:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I was more upset

with Elders too, simply because of the narrative that he was so-for black people yet he took the first opportunity to throw black folks under the when the heat was on (he didn't read Lani Guinier's writings?) After Elders, I never bought the line about Clinton even again.

I wish people would stop imputing racist motives to holding Obama to this standard. But...everything was a critical political necessity for Bill Clinton. That's why I believe we should hold Obama's feet to the fire more (Obama got a very significant redneck vote, that may have been even more important than the black vote in some places). Obama played the Bill Clinton playbook to the tee.

No, Obama could not have secured the black vote from Hillary Clinton without McClurkin and Co.(go back and look at all those Southern primaries he won). Obama was dogged for years about his fierce advocacy for GLBT issues. He had very little or no "street cred" in the black community in Chicago I'll be honest, there was a small part of me that was thinking, "It stinks but get yo' game on brother."

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 18:14:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama's credibility gap

I'll post the story here on his race against Bobby Rush. I remember this Dem primary (though I didn't live in that district) but this story hurt. When you read this, you'll get the Donnie McClurkin fiasco.

"Barack is viewed in part to be the white man in blackface in our community," says Donne Trotter, who detests Obama. "You just have to look at his supporters. Who pushed him to get where he is so fast? It's these individuals in Hyde Park, who don't always have the best interests of the community in mind."

"Rush seems to be winning the most pastoral endorsements, and that's key in this race, because as pastors vote, so vote their congregations. Rush has been hitting the churches hard, and he's found support on both sides of the pulpit. At Evening Star Missionary Baptist, pastor O.C. Morgan called Rush "our friend," then invited the congressman to pose for a group photo with the congregation. "

"His enemies also say he's too white and too bright. Part of it--although they won't say it publicly--is that he grew up with a white mother. Part of it is his demeanor. His lanky, Lincoln-esque body is usually stiff and upright, and he speaks in a stentorian baritone that sounds like a TV newscaster's (Lester Holt's, to be specific). But the main reason is that he's associated himself with Harvard and the University of Chicago, two strongholds of white power."

http://www.chicagoreader.com/o...

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 19:05:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's a big generational difference here

Rush was from the Black Panther era.  I was a kid at that time, 10 y.o. - I'm 49 now.  It's a different era (Obama is a year younger than me.)  I know Hyde Park is a world unto itself in many ways.  My neighbors moved from Hyde Park to Oak Park (where we lived) and thought we were Rush Lintball/right wing types - (ha ha!).  What ended up happening is that they realized their view of the world was somewhat parochial and there is more than one type of liberal.  They widened their horizons, as did we.

Friends and family (also liberals) who live in DuPage county (Lisle, Downers Grove, and yes, even Wheaton) have a different view of what is now liberalism (yes, it's Liberalism and it's not a dirty word) compared to what I think.  We all want the same thing, but have different views of how to achieve it, based on our own experiences.

Who is to say what's the right way and what's the wrong way?  Maybe there are several different approaches to the same issues, and maybe they are all right, depending on who you are and where you are coming from.

We need to stop viewing this (what we want) as a one-size-fits-all thing.  It's not.

---

by: Phil @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 19:36:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thing is

the Bobby Rush type of "hate whitey" politics (which is more or less what it is) still works in lower-income and working class black communities and not just in Chicago. Those quotes only hint at some of the...racism(?) Obama was up against at the time and even as late as the Michigan primary (most of my family was for Hillary at the time).

It was a game of "street cred" Obama played with the McClurkin stuff, nothing more, nothing less.

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 20:05:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're describing a bigot.

And an opportunist. Not an ally. And in that Clinton is the model for Obama, so it seems odd to say the least, to defend Clintons bigotry and rank opportunism saying "Clinton signed DOMA and even used it in ads on right-wing radio stations. It was thought to be necessary to secure his re-election." and attack Obama for the same tactics; "gawd's in the mix".

The problem with both is that they are leaders of the Democrat (sic) Party, a party that is owned lock, stock and barrel by the rich. If Clinton had no courage and exercised no leadership on DADT and DOMA he certainly found his spine when it came to championing NAFTA, deregulation and the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Children.

Clinton was, like Bush, McCain and Obama, no ones ally but the rich.
 

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 04:37:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

EMAIL Johnathan Rauch

I did. I told him he could shove his compromise up his poop chute.

Here's his address: jon2u@hotmail.com

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 14:34:43 PM CST

A rebuttal to NYT

Words far more eloquent than my own- those of Bishop Gene Robinson, as he testified recently before NH lawmakers:

(My name is Gene Robinson) ... and I serve as episcopal bishop of New Hampshire. Last June my partner of 28 years and I, Mark Andrew and I, were joined in a civil union, for which we are very grateful.

I'm here to ask your support in making the promise of equality under the law a reality in New Hampshire by allowing us to translate that second class status into the civil right of marriage.

Since January 1, 2008, some 600 civil unions have been enacted. Think about what you were told eighteen months ago by those who wanted you to be fearful of this action.

Has western civilization as we know it come to an end?

Has your marriage to your opposite sex partner been undermined, in any way, by my professed love for and commitment to my partner?

Has the family been eroded as a cornerstone of our society, or has it been strengthened by the solemn and genuine committments taken on by gay and lesbian couples in this state?

Does any reasonable person believe that these 600 committed couples threaten the state or the society or your marriages in any way?

The fears were unfounded.

It turns out that you were right to do what you did. And now it is time to finish what you started, by making our relationships equal in the eyes of the law, and in the minds of the public, by granting marriage equality under the law to all citizens of New Hampshire.

Let me briefly speak to two concerns you might have, especially as it relates to people of faith.

First, those who would continue to discriminate against some of our citizens, would tell you that we are changing the definition and meaning of marriage. They are absolutely right. But what they are WRONG about is in claiming that "marriage has always had ONE meaning", up until now.

Marriage for men in the Old Testament included multiple wives, not to mention concubines, if you were wealthy enough. Marriage until the Middle Ages was all about property, legitimacy of heirs, and inheritance rights. So decidely so that common people and serfs on an estate were not even encouraged to marry, since there was nothing to inherit, anyways.

While marriage has served many purposes historically, including procreation, we have never prohibited from marrying, those unable to  procreate, either because of infertility or advanced age.

And just 40 years ago, we changed the definition of marriage to include people of different races, a change in definition that allowed Barack Obama's parents to be married. The definition of marriage has always been evolving and the inclusion of same gender partners is simply the next logical revision of that evolution.

The second, the thing I most want you to remember most from my testimony is this: Religions and people of faith have nothing to fear from this bill.

Indeed, many congregations, including those here in the Diocese of New Hampshire, already celebrate and bless the uniting of two people of the same gender in love, responsibility and mutual committment.

Permitting two people of the same sex to declare their love for one other and to assume the responsibilities of civil marriage will affect religion in NO way.

House Bill #436 makes very explicit the continuing right that NO religious organization or clergyperson is obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at ANY particular civil marriage, in violation of their first amentment freedom of religion. No denomination or faith tradition will be required to approve of the marriage of two same gender citizens.

Let's be clear: Civil marriage is a civil action, which has gotten confused in our society, only because clergy have been permitted to act as agents of the state, in signing marriage licenses and thereby enacting civil marriages. The STATE affects a civil marriage.

Churches, synagogues and mosques may pronounce God's blessings on these marriages, if they choose, but civil marriages are still bona fide marriages, even if they are not presided over by a member of the clergy.

All the rights, priviledges, and responsibilities of civil marriage pertain, even if there was nothing religious involved or intended.

This is clearer in countries like France, where everyone is married at the mayor's office- then those couples who are religious and desire a blessing, go to their place of worship for such a service.

Civil marriage is a civil act, proven by the reality that when a marriage comes unravelled, the couple doesn't go back to the church or synagogue where the service was performed to dissolve that marriage, but to the state and its courts.

'Holy Matrimony', that is affirming the vows made in marriage in the presence of God and in God's church, will remain undisturbed or unchanged in any way. And no denomination or faith tradition will be required to approve of the marriage of two same gender citizens.

As a religious person and a Bishop of the Church, permit me to ask my religious collegues who might object to marriage equality: is it right to force our religious beliefs on the rest of the citizens of this state? Just because my particular faith does not bless such marriages, does that mean that the civil right to marriage should be denied to the citizens of New Hampshire?

Just as we cherish our rights as religious people, not to be infringed upon by the state, so the state should be be infringed upon by the particular beliefs of the church.

One purpose of the state is to protect equally all of its citizens, no matter their religious beliefs. Later today, you will consider making sure that our transgender citizens are protected from violence and discrimination, a bill I support wholeheartedly.

And in this bill, you are merely giving all of our citizens the same and equal right, to live productive lives in stable and recognized marriages. Equal protection under the law is the dream and the promise of America.

There is hardly a more-oft repeated phrase in the Old and New Testaments that this: "Be Not Afraid."

Ladies and gentleman of the Judiciary Committee, don't let the religious opponents to marriage equality you will hear from today and in the days to come, make you afraid to do what is right. As Americans we are promised equal protection under the law, and the inalieneable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

"Be Not Afraid" to make this equal protection a reality for ALL of the citizens of New Hampshire.

Thank you.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 14:47:27 PM CST

Accomodating the social prejudice of an age

has never worked. Nor has it been fair. Jim Crow, "Irish need not apply, "Juden Verbotten" all come to mind.

When do we get to stand up and say that this is a secular republic founded by Deists who in their private correspondence, Federalist and Republican alike, wanted the Churches out of lawmaking?

The Right will cite John Jay in their favour, but he is the exception that proves the rule...his vision of a "Christian" America excluded Roman Catholics from the vote and from office.

ABortion, Contraception, Equal Pay for Women, single parent rights are all actually on the table simultaneously with LGBT rights; a victory on the one strengthens their hand to take on the rest.

We need a strategic win, right now, to stop the perception of Right Wing undefeatability. Let's do it.

We also should be continuing the "Stonewall 2.0" protests and marches to make a show of strength, and to demonstrate that we will not simply be cowed, retreat and beg for crumbs...or will we do just that, as we always ultimately do?

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 15:13:05 PM CST

Who empowered them to compromise in our names?

Who empowered these two men to even offer a proposal publically on our behalf? It undercuts our position and settles the negotiating point at far less than equality before we even begin to talk.

No one asked any Lesbian mother whose partner has no rights to her children should she become ill, incapicated or die; no one asked the Lesbian who could be refused visitation to a partner by this, no one asked Lesbians who would benefit from partner's benefits when that partner is employed by the secular subsidiaries of churches, such as the publically funded faith based intitiative programmes?

And while we are on the subject of arrogating the power to deny rights to others, who asked the Lesbians about stripping gender expression from ENDA when HRC decided to give Congress the grewen light to do so, despite the numbers of Lesbians that would have been left unprotected.

Just more of the same from an accomodationist elitist group of "good gays" of the sort that have sold us out over and over again and preached incessantly on blogs of the "dangers" of the protests of Stonewall 2.0, preferring us to leave things to their judgement.

Well, if this is what leaving things to the conserva-queers will get us, just colour me a Lesbian Anarchist.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 15:27:41 PM CST

Timeout time.

This is strongly reminiscent to me of Obama's sending DADT to a committee for consideration.  The message again and again recently is, we have spent as much time as we have to resolve this and time has run out, so let's patch something together and get everyone back to work and business as usual.

I think it's very important for us to take a deep breath and recognize the first order of business is to retain a sense of gay identity.  We can co-exist in society as we did in the 80's without signing someone else's contract about who we are. This may not be a good time to seal the deal on marriage rights.  We have been getting along just fine without this. Let's not be so eager to do business with these people.

I wish there were a gay Kwaanza.  We really need to get back to who we are.  Really.

---

by: interglossa @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 15:47:21 PM CST

yeah but" that contract" will

also specify that the partner of my choosing has the ultimate say-so in my medical treatment, burial arrangements, and a host of other things-not my homophobic family (one of whom would have no compuction in kicking a partner out of my hospital room, he/she told me this).

That's why the entire issue of marriage equality arose and became imperitive in the first place, because homophobic families denied the reality in front of them.

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 16:08:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Equality is morally and Constitutionally right....

and anything less is not.
It is as simple as that.

Anything less that we agree to or that anyone agrees to in our name will remain to keep us in a second class position for decades. We will be tacitly signing our own version of Jim Crow,

I am unwilling, heatedly unwilling to do so and I am just as heatedly unwilling to allow anyone to do so on my behalf.

Easter Monday, the day of the Irish Rising that began our war of independence, is approcahing and just as the rebels seized the center of British communication, the GPO as well as City Hall in Dublin, so it would be a neat symbolic act to take over the HRC Hq in Washington til Joe et all agree to demand nothing less that Full Equality for All LGBT's, with no concessions ......

That is what we want. And if people say that they are willing to settle with or compromise upon anything short of that, they do NOT represent us.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 16:38:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, I don't think so...

I wish there were a gay Kwaanza.  We really need to get back to who we are.  Really.

You mean, scared, self-loathing, hiding in the closet, and praying to not be beaten up or murdered for simply existing?

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 18:05:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

well, why can't

we be those bunch of queens and lesbians that were fierce enough to hit the cops back at the Stonewall on a steamy night in 1969?

We are that, too.

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 18:19:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

because we surrendered to neo-mattachinist conservatives

as our leaders.  

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 18:24:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

On this

I completely and totally agree.

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 19:07:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think this deserves some context.

The gay community was so devastated by AIDS and is only now starting to get on its feet again.  I'm not too surprised that some of the survivors became more concessionist in the 80s and even 90s.  I am personally no concessionist, but I can understand why some took a more defensive approach.  But the time for that approach is definitely over.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 10:22:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, I watched the devastation from the front row

First, i gotta correct you on your time period. You must be quite young. In 1985 AIDS hit the mainstream press. It was called GRID or the "Gay Cancer" There were NO SURVIVORS IN THE 80's. NONE. This was in the wake of Harvey Milk being assasinated. The community at the time was LOUD AND RADICAL.  It wasn't until the LATE 90's that people thought of themselves as survivors. And things began to change politically.

And let me tell you this. And I mean this with no disrespect... We were no concessionists. Assimilation wasn't particularly popular in 1991.  In fact the popular voice of the community in urban centers across the country manifested in many "radical" queer groups. Two in particular. Queer Nation and ACTUP. Where ACTUP was concerned with queer issues where it related to AIDS drug trials, research and treatment funding (Ryan White AIDS Care Fund) and such, Queer Nation was a radical queer advocacy group that engaged in frequent public demos and community events across the country. These groups were HUGE and national back then. It really was the mainstream of young urban queer life.

The queer community got essentially sidetracked by AIDS and for the whole of the 90's the interests of the PWA's (People w/AIDS) and the Queer community were essentially one. Let it be known that without ACTUP and QueerNation, countless more people would have died from lack of funding and accessability to treatment. The radical queer community single-handedly took on the epidemic of AIDS for ALL people not just the Queer folks. We chained ourselves to drug company gates, we marched on Washington we were arrested by the thousands not once, but in my case, dozens of times trying to get the mainstream of America to care about "fags, hookers, and junkies" as the conservatives though of PWA's-- During that time radical queer culture was responsible for virtually every advance that the community made.

What I think happened is that AFTER all those people were GONE the community took a RADICAL shift rightward. IN THE LATE 90's.  For a few reasons, not the least of which was the fact that the community had essentially stopped the crazy sexual behavior that the seventies saw because now it could kill you. And the youth coming up into the community simply grew up in a more serious and introspective queer community. Then there's the urbanization factor. Anyone who lives in a "gay mecca" will tell you that the community is populated largely by social immigrants who left the intolerance of their small communities behind but post-AIDS IMPORTED a lot of small town conservatism with them. The results are gay communities that are mere husks of their former selves. Now populated mostly by the rich-conservative types who can afford $3000-$5000 rent or $1.5 million dollars for tiny condos in neighborhoods that were historically gay. Despite what local real estate agents will tell you, these neighborhoods are in decline. The rich socio-economic variability that was the lifeblood of a vibrant queer community has been replaced with something decidedly less queer and less diverse and not radical enough to defend its self.

There is no Stonewall 2.0. The post-AIDS members of the community don't have it in 'em. It's an embarrassment to the legacy that IS Stonewall and for that matter ACTUP and QueerNation.  

---

by: slobeck @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 14:08:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I was already an adult when AIDS hit,

but I lived in a rust belt state in which the queers decidedly did NOT participate in ACT-UP style actions.  In my midwestern state, people were cowed from day 1.  And I had a front-row seat, since my parents created the first AIDS testing and support network in our area.  It's good to read your perspective from another place, but please don't confuse what may have been happening in NYC or LA or wherever with what was happening in other places.  The gay community did not move as one on the national scale.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 14:22:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your area may not have participated...

...but you benefited directly from OUR hard work on YOUR behalf. And yes the movement was national and comprised millions of people. No it didn't make it into every city. But it was HUGE in the most of the 10 largest cities in the nation. Your rust-belt perspective is important for us to remember. But it is as important to know that when I was chained to gate of Burroghs-Wellcome demanding access to AZT I wasn't just demanding it for people in gay centers. Or even for gay people for that matter. We did that for YOU.

 

---

by: slobeck @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 12:01:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I still have my Queer Nation tee-shirt

Which was handmade on a manual silk screen press by a gay friend from whom I bought it.

I also have a G.U.T.S tee-shirt: That's Gay Urban Truth Squad.

And, for those who haven't seen my posts before, I'm a 58 year-old heterosexual woman.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 14:48:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So many subjects here to touch on...

we have had that discussion here in Chicago with Boystown being so gentrified that it's not as gay as it used to be. It's still a gay ghetto, but not like it was.

Thank you for your post. As someone who came out in 1984 (I was 17) to come out at that age was FRIGHTENING.

---

by: kevinchi @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 16:50:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You'd be hard-pressed to call Dupont a gay ghetto now.

Sure, there are still a few gay bars, and there's Lambda Rising bookstore. But as a friend said, "When Ann Taylor Loft moved in, Dupont wasn't Dupont any more." (Meaning that it already wasn't a gay ghetto, not that Ann Taylor was what changed it.) Places that used to be cheap eats are $25 a plate restaurants. One of the bars I used to go to is now the HRC store. You can buy all kinds of things with an equality symbol on them, but you'll see a whole lot more straight couples on the street than queers these days. I smile at the gay guys in their leather jackets, walking their dogs when I see them. That used to describe about 50% of the people walking through the neighborhood - or gayborhood - and now I might see two in an hour on Saturday afternoon. I realize it's progress when gay people feel comfortable enough to live all over the area (though why any live across the river in Virginia is beyond me), but there's also a loss of community. I remember how it felt to hold the hand of my first girlfriend as we walked on Connecticut Avenue. It must be nice to do it in the halls of your high school, but there's also a loss of that feeling of queer rite of passage that so many of us felt the first time we realized we were in a place where we could breathe.  

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 07:18:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah

I thought that was just a Chicago thing. Straight yuppie couples with their baby strollers just doesn't look right! Now at night it can get as seedy as the old days in boystown but even now there's a straight bar or 2.

Is the Kramerwords still there?

---

by: kevinchi @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 10:57:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Because conspiracy and association laws are different now.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 19:05:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What these guys forget is

that by the next presidential election, there will probably be six or seven more states with marriage equality and several more with civil unions/domestic partnerships.  The messier it gets, the stronger the case of equal protection and full faith and credit when it finally goes to the SCOTUS.  Let's hope that Scallia is gone by then.  Giving away anything now is appeasement to the neo-fascists who won't compromise on anything.  We'll get there. Time and public opinion are on our side.  If ENDA, repeal of DADT, repeal of DOMA or any other national legislation gets passed, it will prove to the "don't care middle" that the sky won't fall.  We have to stay active, keep up the fight but we'll get there.

---

by: annwsc1 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 16:23:40 PM CST

We denounce this article officially.

After consultation with the membership, I am posting notice that Heterodoxy, the New York Lesbian Professionals organisation, officially rejects the premises and concultions of this article as inconsistent with our stated pursuit of Full Citisenship and Constitutional Equality for Lesbians.

While supporting the fredom of speech possessed by the authors, we reject their proposals and state categorically that they do speak for, nor do they have the right to speak for the Lesbians of the greater NYC region, nor for the Lesbians of New York State.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 17:21:17 PM CST

This So-Called "Compromise" is Bullshit

...and wouldn't even be being offered if history was not on the side of those seeking legal same gender marriage.  

The whole idea of 'religious rights' is a strawman, something put out there by the religious right organizers to fool their grassroots people.  There's no threat to the right of homophobic relgious groups to continue to be homophobic.  There is no way any church would ever be forced to perform same gender marriages in the United States.  It's a lie.  Now, if a church or parachurch group is involved in non-church work-charity, primarily-they do not have a right to discriminate against LGBTs where their rights are protected.  Chances are if someone was interviewed for a position with say, Focus on the Family and expressed disagreement with their goals they would be passed over for the position and that would be legal.  But, say a religious based charity offers a food assistance program for the needy-they could not discriminate against LGBT clients or staffers.

Better to reject this;  we know the religious right will.  The "this will tear the country apart" argument is so much bullshit too.  If it hasn't caused a shooting civil war yet, it ain't gonna.  Support for gay marriage goes up every poll.  No reason to give up now.

---

by: The Kangaroo @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 18:23:57 PM CST

Wrong for other reasons, too

I read the paper this morning and thought to myself that a number of well-meaning straight folks might buy this BS. Maybe even some of us gay people. I should say to start with that I feel it's simply wrong to take accept a separate-but-equal status. But also, couldn't this kind of law or separate status create a dangerous legal precedent in other areas? Similar to those horrible laws that they refer to in the article (pharmacists citing their personal beliefs to avoid dispensing contraception, etc.?) Not only would this "compromise" create separate categories of same-sex relationships depending on location, but it might set nasty precedents that would affect everyone, not just gays.

---

by: guspup @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 19:13:39 PM CST

There can be no compromise with the Christian Right

because in the end they do not believe in compromise

Their own philosopher, the founder of modern fundamentalism Rousas Rushdoony, made it clear:

"One faith, one law and one standard of justice did not mean democracy. The heresy of democracy has since then worked havoc in church and state . . . Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies."

"Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life."

"The church today has fallen prey to the heresy of democracy."

"The only true order is founded on Biblical Law. All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion.Every law-order is in a state of war against the enemies of that order, and all law is a form of warfare."

They will never accept us and fight us with all of their being. Again from Rushdoony:

"In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions as though no differences existed."

This is the theologian that the entire Christian Right draws its' inspiration from. He is worth a read, it makes it easy to find key words with loaded meanings in their statements.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 19:21:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Howard Ahmanson of Prop 8 fame funds Rushdoony goals

just an fyi....

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 19:31:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I read this article this morning

My reaction to is was to wonder which of their civil rights they would be willing to cede to accomodate my religious views.

---

by: Rae @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 22:41:30 PM CST

Revolution is in the mix... and this proposal is counter revolution.

Marriage is probably the largest source of income and continuity for most cults. That's why they defend it tooth and nail from innovation. The truth is however that partnering predates these cults by ten so thousands of years. Marriage does not belong to the cults. It's part of our long and varied cultural traditions and changes as society advances.

The French Revolution made it a civil affair. The industrial revolution began to free up women and children from patriarchal dominion. The civil rights movement and immigrants from all over the world, having beaten back racist opposition to the right to marry people of another culture are now happily creating a boisterous and vigorous mix of genes and cultures unseen since the late Roman Empire.

The very concept of partnering and parenting is mutating to include the kinds of partners and families. The slow evolution of a few steps towards color equality, sexual equality and now GLBT equality have now acquired a revolutionary impetus by virtue of the solid opposition of the rulers of this country.  

The proposal by Blankenhorn and Rauch is just a reworking of the same bigotry championed by both the Democrat and Republican parties in DOMA and the civil unions' concept. Separate is never equal, no matter what Bush, der Pope, Warren, Obama or the Clintons say. It has nothing to offer but bigotry codified into law, like DADT.

It may well be that we'll win the fight for same sex marriage rights but the future evolution of partnering and parenting will likely have to wait until we fundamentally change the current government, which is for now an anti-democratic government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.    
   

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 03:56:28 AM CST

Geez Pam

You really spurred some emotion with this post.

The whole "federal civil unions" thing is a copout.

Further, why should anyone have to "compromise" their civil rights and say thank you for throwing me a bone.

This ultimately has to be decided by the Supreme Court.  The federal government knows it and state governments know it.  That's why there is such a push for state amendments.  They know it's unconstitutional.

---

by: Donna @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 09:07:50 AM CST

Because...

Christians don't own the word marriage and have no right to control its use. So by your logic it would be fine if Christians got to determine that only CHRISTIAN marriages are actually called marriage and the rest of us, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikh, Zoroastrians and all the rest that don't make up the "big 3" have something else? That argument is DOA.

---

by: slobeck @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 13:04:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

oops sorry...

that was meant as a response to the post BELOW

---

by: slobeck @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 13:05:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

a far more rational compromise

would be to give the churches EXACTLY what they have been asking for.  Control of the word "marriage" as it refers to holy matrimony.  And, the state can take control of the term "civil union" with no interference from any church.

ALL unions, straight and gay would legally be civil unions.  All rights, both state and federal, would be conferred on all unioned couples.  There would be no difference at all.

Any couple could, if they choose, go to their church for a religious marriage cerimony "blessing" their union.  This procedure would be unnecessary and would carry no legal weight at all.  This cerimony would be between the couple, their god and their church.  No more than that.  No church could be forced to perform a cerimony for any couple they don't want to.  No church could prevent another church from performing a cerimony.  These cerimonies would be considered in the same way as "baptism" is now.

THis should work very easily.  The Catholic church deals with this kind of situation right now.  Divorced Catholics are not allowed to have a marriage cerimony in their church and their re-marriages are not recognized by their church.  But divorced Catholics get legally married every day in this country.  And, no one is forcing their churches to participate in those marriages.

---

by: timNC @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 09:15:48 AM CST

Pam

Not that this is intrinsiccally about their idea of compromise, but you know who Blankenhorn is, don't you?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/f...

---

by: avocado @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 10:35:38 AM CST

If there's one thing we can all agree on (and I mean us Blenders),

it's the fact that civil marriage and religious marriage are two different things.  But most mainstream heteros don't understand this - they don't get the distinction, mainly because no one has ever presented the issue to them in that way.  Thus, we are faced with a PR/marketing challenge.  We can argue all day long about compromises and strategies, but until we get all rational thinkers to realize the distinction between the two, we'll be spinning our wheels.  We must do a better job at getting this point across.

---

by: Naperville Mom @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 12:22:31 PM CST

This is not passive ignorance, it is active conflation

It is not just that “no one has ever presented the issue to them in this way.”  The issue has been presented to them in a way that deliberately conflates the two.  Consider Obama’s statement that “god is in the mix,” for example.  There is no doubt that his conflation is deliberate, as he was a constitutional scholar and certainly knows the difference between religious and civil marriage.

---

by: pgraydon @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 08:36:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

True for a constitutional scholar,

but not so much for Joe SixPack and his buddies discussing gay marriage in a bar in rural anywhere, USA.

---

by: Naperville Mom @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 12:57:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jonathan Rauch

Whether you agree with Jonathan Rauch or not, you should be aware that he has actively and consistently supported equal rights and equal marriage for gays for many years. I refer especially to his book "Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America."
Before casting him into outer darkness you should read some links:
http://www.indegayforum.org/st...
http://pewforum.org/events/?Ev...
You can purchase it at bookstores or here:
http://search.barnesandnoble.c...

---

by: St. James @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 13:17:03 PM CST

His history makes him responsible for his misbehavior

He chose the outer darkness. Nothing personal, but he is far too intelligent to be permitted to get away with this.

His collusion with Blankenhorn was a calculated political act, designed to pull the consensus back toward the right where Jonathan has influence, away from the new center point we have established with hard work and sacrifice over a long period of time.

I'm stunned that the NY Times dignified this quisling with space in print as if he's entitled to bargain away my rights.

He has to be marginalized by a real representation of the community of same sex couples who want equality for ourselves and our kids.

Jonathan, like the prototype conservative white male, thinks that whatever works for him is good enough.

I'm a progressive, so I examined his modest proposal from the perspective of the majority of lesbian mothers in the US who live in red states in the South-- and oddly enough, this 'compromise' makes their situation worse.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 10:47:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's give Fundies Marriage...

...so-called "Covenant Marriage," after all they made up this new definition of marriage.

We can take regular ol'e "marriage."

If they want to believe theirs is extra-special because it is "covenant," they can keep that belief.  

---

by: SharonB @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 14:25:48 PM CST

Well,

David and Jonathan had a "covenant" too. Or so the Bible says.

Literally.:)

---

by: kevinchi @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 14:35:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A reply from marriage "traditionalists"

Found this response to this op/ed at a conservative (non religious reich) webblog.

But as we see it, this proposal grants too much to revisionists and too little to traditionalists. Revisionists get the substantive (if not linguistic) treatment of homosexual unions as marriages; traditionalists get conscience protection (of unspecified scope). But traditionalists' primary concern is not simply to secure an enclave of personal liberty to regard marriage as they see fit. Rather, it is to promote a healthy culture of marriage understood as a public good that also fulfills spouses and the larger communities of which they are members.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse....

So basically for the conservatives, including religious reich who commend homosexuality as well as wanting to support one man one woman traditional marriage....it's still about one man one woman no matter what, even when homobigotry is not the primary reason to deny equal civil rights.  

How do you respond to that, Blankenhorn and Rauch?

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 15:04:34 PM CST