Governer Walker Twirls Moustache, Kicks Puppies

[robkelk]

[b]robkelk wrote:[/b]

Logan Darklighter wrote:

---

When what they should be doing is going after specific rights.

Which is exactly what's happening. The right in question is the right to get married.

I apologize for not being more clear. I meant specific rights that we normally think of as encompassed by marriage, such as - in the case of the above news story, the right of hospital visitation. 

In other words, what I'm suggesting is fight for and achieve each specific right until achieving the goal of gay marriage does not seem so much a radical redefinition so much as a fait accompli. Does that make more sense?

Ah - now I see where you're coming from. That's the wrong approach - nobody should have to fight every inch for a right that somebody else in the same community takes for granted.

We had this debate in Canada a decade ago. Here are a few quotes from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/ ... 31376.html]the February 2005 Canadian Department of Justice press release about the matter, issued just as the relevant legislation went to Parliament:

"The Government cannot, and should not, pick and choose whose rights they will defend and whose rights they will ignore. If the fundamental rights of one minority can be denied, so potentially can those of others."

"Many Canadians support legal recognition for same-sex unions, but want to call them something other than marriage, such as civil union. Civil union is a separate institution from civil marriage, does not respect the right of same-sex couples to equality without discrimination and is in breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

"The bill also recognizes that freedom of religion is already fully protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in its recent decision. That is why its title speaks of civil marriage. Religions will continue to make their own decisions about this question."

Assuming one replaces "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" with "Bill of Rights", does any of that not apply to the beliefs held by the citizens of the United States?

This is a solved problem. The only people who insist it's still an issue that needs further study are the homophobes and the people with a vested interest in keeping the current inequities in place. Phobias can be corrected with education and patience. As for the vested interests ... didn't you folks fight a civil war because some people wanted to keep being rich by refusing other people their rights?

(Yes, that's an inflammatory statement – made on purpose.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Logan Darklighter]

I think I should add the following to what I said above:

I don't suggest we stop trying to get actual gay marriage after we get all individual rights. I don't suggest that at all. What I'm suggesting is that - once people see that giving LGBT the same individual rights that typically fall under the banner of traditional marriage and that doing so is no threat, then give them a few years to get used to the idea. Get comfortable with it. Then get them to start wondering why, if they have all the same things that a straight married couple does, what would it hurt to give them that last measure? Let the mainstream culture accept it. Let those who STILL rail against it become enough of a minority that they cannot stop it. Let it become - not just a ruling based on a court decision that could be overturned. But part of the culture itself. To be considered normal. And then the law of the land. That's what I meant by making it a fait accompli.

[Logan Darklighter]

Most of the problem is that the religious nuts have made it out to be that LGBT is trying to redefine marriage. Marriage, however, doesn't mean the same as when the Books were written, they just don't acknowledge that.

I'd like to see a court finally tell the nuts, "You can have marriage the way you want it, but no government recognition of it, or you can have the government recognition, but you have to give up the fight to keep it defined as one man and one woman."

Ultimately, equal treatment under the law, and the idea of separation of church and state, means it has to be one or the other.

Right. Thus my argument for ALL marriage licenses to go away and issue civil unions to everyone, straight and gay. That would be one possible solution I think.

[robkelk]

I think I should add the following to what I said above:

I don't suggest we stop trying to get actual gay marriage after we get all individual rights. I don't suggest that at all. What I'm suggesting is that - once people see that giving LGBT the same individual rights that typically fall under the banner of traditional marriage and that doing so is no threat, then give them a few years to get used to the idea. Get comfortable with it. Then get them to start wondering why, if they have all the same things that a straight married couple does, what would it hurt to give them that last measure?

So some people should be denied their rights until other people "get comfortable" with the idea? It isn't up to society to "get comfortable" with equal rights - it's up to society to give people equal rights even if it makes a small part of that society uncomfortable. The bigots will always find an excuse to deny equality to the people they dislike - why should we cater to the bigots?

Also, consider:

"Oh, Johnny, we aren't ready to let you drive a car yet. We'll get you a bicycle for now, and if that doesn't cause any problems then we'll let you ride a scooter, and after a couple of years - and if there haven't been any problems - then we'll think about maybe letting you get a driver's licence."

What kind of person do you tell that to? A child, that's who.

"Oh, Johnny, we aren't ready to let you marry another man yet. We'll get you hospital visiting rights for now, and if that doesn't cause any problems then we'll let you file joint tax returns, and after a couple of years - and if there haven't been any problems - then we'll think about maybe letting you get a marriage licence."

It's the exact same thinking. People who have a sexual orientation that doesn't happen to match the one I have are not children - they're just different from me. Why should they have to wait until somebody else is ready to treat them like the adults they are in order to enjoy the same rights that I enjoy?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[CattyNebulart]

Then get them to start wondering why, if they have all the same things that a straight married couple does, what would it hurt to give them that last measure?

I have an answer for that, tax revenue. That actually happened in Germany where they gave them civil unions, but a lot of the rules referred to marriage, and as such couples with a civil union instead of a marriage had to pay extra taxes compared to an otherwise identical married couple.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Morganite]

So some people should be denied their rights until other people "get comfortable" with the idea? It isn't up to society to "get comfortable" with equal rights - it's up to society to give people equal rights even if it makes a small part of that society uncomfortable. The bigots will always find an excuse to deny equality to the people they dislike - why should we cater to the bigots?

I think the idea is more to sneak things around the bigots, so to speak. At least where I am, it seems like the people I'd have expected to want to go for the simple solution and pass a law legalizing same-sex marriage in fact didn't think they could pull it off, or were unwilling to try. So, if the big prize is out of reach, why not go for the smaller ones?

Well, it could probably be argued that doing things piecemeal would hinder the process of full legalization. I'm not arguing that, since I'm not sure one way or the other. But I'm pretty sure Logan's arguing that it's a way to reach that goal faster.

-Morgan.

[robkelk]

So some people should be denied their rights until other people "get comfortable" with the idea? It isn't up to society to "get comfortable" with equal rights - it's up to society to give people equal rights even if it makes a small part of that society uncomfortable. The bigots will always find an excuse to deny equality to the people they dislike - why should we cater to the bigots?

I think the idea is more to sneak things around the bigots, so to speak. At least where I am, it seems like the people I'd have expected to want to go for the simple solution and pass a law legalizing same-sex marriage in fact didn't think they could pull it off, or were unwilling to try. So, if the big prize is out of reach, why not go for the smaller ones?

I'll grant that, if the big prize is out of reach, one should go for the smaller ones – but that's only [size=larger]if[/size] the big prize is out of reach. Too many people are reading that "if the big prize is out of reach" as "the big prize is out of reach". I think it isn't out of reach.

How does that line go, again? "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal..." That line right there brings the big prize within reach. Go for it!
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012