January 12, 2005

• Gay marriage is for homos.
• I think now that Hillary Rosen (of the RIAA) has taken the reins at the HRC, they'll grow some teeth and maybe even a couple balls.
• Now, don't peg me as some touchy-feely hippie (I am anything but), but it nauseates me -- literally, no joke -- that the State would refuse to recognize any consenting adults entering into such a contract. I just don't understand how this is even a debatable topic. That said, I really don't believe that America can be convinced right now that "gay marriage" is inseparable from "marriage" (which is the real issue). Focusing, as this campaign does, on the proposed amendment as harming freedom, is probably the best we'll do.
• Shouldn't the value of a marriage be decided by the partners involved rather than society at large? Why does it have to be called "marriage"? Would another term be acceptable to the factions involved, as long as it included the necessary legal protections? Since this seems to be more of a "we're creeped out by homos and dykes getting married" issue, I'm all in favor of letting them marry or form partnerships, whatever. Just invite me to the really entertaining weddings.
• Some of the arguments here are excellent, much better presented and phrased than many pro gay marriage arguments I've read elsewhere. Not all of it, to be sure (some of their explanation of why civil unions aren't enough is a bit weak), but the approach of taking a positive, mainstream, non-confrontational approach to advocating gay marriage is a good one. A sort of "we're here, we're queer, and beyond that there's really not much you need to get used to" attitude.
• Nice resource. Thanks for the link.
• One of the PDFs gives a very good summary with several reasons (not exhaustive) why civil unions are unequal to marriage, under American law. I would like to see that sort of thing redone for Canadian, British, etc law.
• "Why does it have to be called "marriage"? Would another term be acceptable to the factions involved, as long as it included the necessary legal protections?" What bugs me about civil unions is that it's letting religious folks define marriage. I am civilly married--a judge did the duty for me and my husband. I take gay marriage personally because a lot of the arguments against it boil down to "only religious marriages count". My marriage counts! And gay couples should be able to have what I have. (I'm not endorsing the idea of forcing any religious group to have their clergy marry gay people. They shouldn't have to have their marry divorced people like me, either. But we don't say divorced people can't get hitched in traffic court just because some people think it's icky, so why can't gay people get married by a judge?) The link is cool, starrybaby.
• The Full Page Project is a web-based initiative to educate America about the facts in the marriage debate, with eyes towards fighting the proposed amendment. Don't you mean to say, "The Full Page Project is a web-based initiative to fight the proposed amendment?" Education is not the goal here; advocacy is. Not being interested in the slightest in the issue that this site is pimping, I declined to spend a whole lot of time there. But I feel fairly comfortable saying that it's pretty unreasonable to refer to what they're doing as education. They're trying to persuade, which is a very different thing. Persuading qua persuading is neither good nor bad. Calling persuasion education is bad.
• But you -can- get a religious gay marriage, immlass. While I can't cite any off the top of my head, I'm sure you can find many churches willing to endorse one. I personally think it would be a neat solution to have the state recognize -only- civil unions, gay or straight, and let people get 'married' in whichever way they prefer.
• Jeff Harrell, from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Educate: 3a. To provide with information; inform: a campaign that educated the public about the dangers of smoking. b. To bring to an understanding or acceptance: hoped to educate the voters to the need for increased spending on public schools. [italics original] I think the site qualifies as educating Americans on these two definitions.
• exppii -- I totally agree. Why is the government involved in a (for many sects) religious sacrament? Isn't that unconstitutional? Is this only happening because we have no constitutional amendment (like the ERA) that prohibits discrimination by gender? (Isn't defining marriage as man+woman only a gender discrimination thing as well as a gay discrimination thing?) I would like to be legally (contractually?) joined by the government, and religiously joined by a church. I say this as someone who identifies as Christian, but also left-wing (where have we all gone?).
• Religious groups are split - some do not wish to recognise gay marriages, but others are actively advocating for allowing gay marriage. The first gay marriages in Ontario were religious marriages, performed by the minister of the Metropolitan Church in Toronto (a gay friendly church). I believe the United Church of Canada has also made statements in favour of gay marriage. They even used an ancient religious practice - the reading of the banns - to perform the marriage, as the licence office had been denying licenses to gay couples. But marriage by the banns is still legal under Canadian law. I wonder if it would be under American? (Maybe an idea...)
• exppii - I think your idea (of the state being involved only in recognising some kind of a civil status for uniting people) is a good one, but I think it would have to be civil marriage. Civil unions are a different legal entity, with many fewer rights than a civil marriage (including no way to get American states to recognise unions solemnised elsewhere). In just about every country, common-law marriage or civil unions carry fewer rights than full marriage. The other solution would be for the state to declare that all heterosexual marriages are only civil unions, and to change the rights of civil unions. Whatever it is called, it must be legally called the same thing, or the way is opened up to have two very unequal institutions.
• I think on those debates (remember those?) Kerry said he "believed" that marriage was between a man and a woman. It was hard for me to vote for someone who apparently didn't know the difference between a belief and a definition, but I did anyway.