Bud said: No one can argue that a new classification, under the law, based on sexual orientation segregation, would be anything less than a vile act of bigotry of the most pernicious kind.

Plenty of people do argue that, actually. They’re wrong, of course, but they do argue it and it would be unrealistic to simply ignore them. Don’t underestimate the opponent.

Bud said: By the way, from a legal point-of-view, Churches have absolutely no authority what-so-ever over marriage — they only conduct a symbolic ceremony. They have nothing to do with the legal aspects of marriage. Please don’t conflate the two.

Again I think you’re being a little unrealistic. Religious organizations have had their hand in marriage long before the government got involved and this has left a legacy in the laws surrounding marriage. Plenty of clergy, for example, have been invested by the state to oversee marriages and have full authority from the government.

And to say that there are no such things as religious marriages is to ignore the opinion of a huge majority as well as centuries of tradition. Civil marriage may be the only thing we can talk about in regards to the law and the Constitution, but most people are not Constitutional lawyers. Ignoring the effect that religion has on this issue is ignoring a huge part of it that has a real effect on the decisions that the public makes.

I think you are a little less right on this issue. The difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage is real, though they can come at the same time. Government is not supposed to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, but it technically already has, and that will take a lot of work to change.

So what do I think should be done? I think the government’s involvement in “marriage” should be abolished. Everyone should get a gender-blind civil union and if they then want their union blessed by their religious organization they can do that separately.

I’m glad you’re willing to give Obama a chance, because as I’ve illustrated below, he is in support of full legal equality for gay and straight couples. Will that happen right away? I don’t know.

Do you expect for Obama to make it happen, or would you commend him for a full faith effort to make it happen?

No one can argue that a new classification, under the law, based on sexual orientation segregation, would be anything less than a vile act of bigotry of the most pernicious kind. That will never be acceptable to the majority of the GLBT community. The law must be a unified legal code created with a universal language which includes the rights of all; enumerated under the label of “we the people“ — not “we the different types of people“. That is why a multi-nomenclature, group-specific approach to marriage, or any similar law based on such a insult to human dignity would, in fact, not only be unworkable, but it would be dehumanizing.

There is a universal understanding of the social status Marriage conveys in the Western World — as well as all of the rights attached to that legal classification. The rights are already in place for those of us who are married. My partner and I will never allow someone to rename what we have or put it in a Separate, and (allegedly) “Equal” classification. That is utterly demeaning and totally unacceptable.

It is not other people’s business to redefine us. We fit in just perfectly enough with the existing laws. We don’t have “Black” specific laws and neither should we have “Gay” specific laws and classifications. That is counter-productive to the application of a what is supposed to be blind justice.

By the way, from a legal point-of-view, Churches have absolutely no authority what-so-ever over marriage — they only conduct a symbolic ceremony. They have nothing to do with the legal aspects of marriage. Please don’t conflate the two. There are no separate tracks that marriage runs on. The “church” (actually there are many churches, temples, and what-have-you) represent nothing but a private celebration of a public contract that can only be issued and enforced by the state — not by any religious institution. So, please don’t say there are “religious” marriages and civil marriages — because it is not true. All marriages are civil marriages — whether they are “blessed” by some superstitious cult or whether you just go home after a city hall registration, it just doesn’t matter because you are primarily married secularly on either account.

Now, to answer your question implied in your last post. As I said, I’m willing to give Obama a chance. I expect nothing from him beyond what any other American citizen would expect. I demand my full birthright of absolute, non-compromising, full equality — nothing more and certainly nothing less. I expect my legal marriage to be honored. I expect to be treated like Barrack would like to be treated. If Obama can accept that, then I can accept him.

…We’ll see; time will tell. But I am patient — up to a point.

~ Bud Evans

http://rainfish2000.blogspot.com

What did you think of my analysis of Obama’s campaign stance? I think it pretty much cinches that the Obama campaign is for the full legal and constitutional equality of gay couples, and leaves the religious definition of marriage to people and their faiths.

This is not an opinion of his track record on following through, nor is it a prediction on how well he’ll follow through if elected President, just a clarification on his stated stance that yes, he is for full legal equality for gay couples.

…Well, my calendar is kind of full right now, but I could make an exception. How about Secretary of GLBT Rights? No, seriously kid, I understand how passionate the issue can be and how easy it is for all of us in the GLBT community to form a circular firing squad and start shooting each other when the real enemy is creeping up behind us.

Uh…by the way, your own olive branch had thorns.

Ophidimancer later derisively said: “…but I also think you need to aim your derisive tone at someone else. I’m not attacking you or your ideas.”

Hmmmm…Work on that bitchiness a little more, sweetheart.

We may disagree about which is the best path to take to a common destination. I do agree with you though that the most important thing we should all be focusing on for our community is our full equality. But we should never accept any “sort of equal” scheme as a viable option. That would only label us, for generations to come, as cowardly sycophants who capitulated to subservience for the political expedience of others. I feel that I could not, in good conscience, ever accept any invidious caste system that demeans me; my spouse, and our kind. I owe more to our present community and to future generations of GLBT youth than to sell them out so cheaply.

Like, I mentioned earlier, I hope Obama wins. I think Grampa Munster and Ms. Mooseburger are detrimental to our community. But I will never stop exposing the hypocrisy of our alleged “friends” at the top of the heterosexist political pantheon of power as long as they harvest us for votes and then toss us aside — until the next election.

On this matter, my motto is borrowed from the Roman poet Juvenal — it goes like this:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

~ “Who watches the Watchers?” ~

…I’ll be watching.

And so should you.

~ Bud Evans

http://rainfish2000.blogspot.com

I do try to keep an optimistic, yet practical view on things, because I don’t think that negativity gets anything done.

I apologize if you think I was dismissing you when I asked if your tone was really because of how bitter you are or whether it was an affectation to get a rise out of people. I wasn’t dismissing your ideas one bit. I was simply asking as to the necessity of the tone that you use. I’m sorry if that makes you feel disrespected in some way, but let me assure that no disrespect was intended.

And far be it for me to try and cover up your ideas, I was actually trying to clarify them and see them for what they are without anger and negativity clouding the issues. I can understand how it would seem immature to call someone’s ideas into question with irrelevant jabs at their emotional state, but again I assure you that that was not what I was trying to do.

I’d like to also ask that you stop portraying me as an Obama fanatic. I’m not, I’m just taking his words literally for what they are. You calling Obama my “hero” is just the kind of partisanship that I was talking about. I really do want to have a discussion with you, Bud, but it gets difficult when you keep trying to paint me with some sort of brush and then brush me off. I agree with James that I want you there in an Obama administration to light a fire under the collective asses of the establishment, but I also think you need to aim your derisive tone at someone else. I’m not attacking you or your ideas.

So now can we continue on with the discussion?

As for the “full religious equality” statement, I see I’ll have to re-explain to you what I meant from another comment thread. I thought you had read it, but I guess it got buried and you missed it.

As tacky as it is, I’m going to quote myself here:

“Oh, I definitely agree with you that we should never stop fighting for our equality. I also agree that a policy of separation is not a policy of equality.

On the other hand, I think an Obama/Biden administration is realistically the best chance we have at the moment to make a gain in rights. McCain and Palin represent a step backwards, what with Palin advocating a federal Amendment to ban gay marriage. This despite her state’s rights stance.

I personally don’t think Biden slipped up or contradicted himself at the debates. I think his words were very consciously and purposefully chosen. Here, let’s review:

Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

This sounds good, right? Notice the specific use of the words “constitutional” and “legal.” It seems to me that he uses these words precisely to specify what he’s talking about so that he can come back later and talk about a kind of marriage that is non-constitutional and non-legal.

The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted — same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair.

It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.

Again he reiterates that that, from a legal standpoint, same sex couples are to be treated the same as opposite sex couples. This is a far cry from McCain’s stance, which basically “allows” us to spend thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to enter into contracts that garner us only some of the rights that opposite sex couples get with one document.

This is not a gift, McCain, we can do it already, and it doesn’t work out so well.

No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

Here’s the line that gets hisses and boos. Again, though, I think the wording here is again very deliberate. Notice how in the first sentence he says they don’t support redefining marriage “from a civil side” and how it’s up to people of faith how they define marriage. This is where that non-legal marriage idea comes in. This is where he’s reassuring the religious that the government isn’t going to come into their places of worship and telling them what to do, rewriting their holy books, etc.

This is good, because the government has nor right doing that. From the legal and constitutional standpoint, however, Biden rightly says that marriage is equal for hetero and homosexual couples.

The bottom line though is, and I’m glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference.

Here again, he repeats the stance of the Obama campaign; that homosexual couples are equal in the eyes of the law to heterosexual couples.

If you’ll remember, the Connecticut Supreme Court said the exact same thing a couple of years ago and left the legislature to decide how to make gay couples equal in the eyes of the law. They chose civil unions. The reports came in, civil unions were not garnering gay couples the rights they were promised by the courts and thus the courts revisited the case and determined that gay couples could not be denied access to marriage.

Honestly, you’re right, the rest of the country should take this as a lesson, but in a way this does show that civil unions are a stepping stone to marriage equality

If, as you say, Obama is elected and pays us no mind, then we will of course fight. We’ll fight anyway, either way, as long as we are denied equality in the eyes of the law. Like you say, sometimes you lose a battle and win the war, but I say we should choose our battles wisely. Electing Obama is a stepping stone to equality and a potentially uneasy alliance, electing McCain is fighting for the other side.

Of course we’re not accepting second class citizenship, but we have to not only fight hard, we have to fight smart.

Electing Obama is not capitulating to segregation, after all, there’s nothing that stops us from continuing the fight after the election. And we will be doing it from a better position than if we elected McCain to abuse us like we’ve been abused for the past eight years because we’ll have these promised with which to squeeze Obama. No such luck with a McCain administration, in which we will be lucky to be treated as fully adult human beings.”

So there, do you see what I mean now? Obama’s stance is one of full constitutional and legal equality for gay couples and straight couples. The platform differentiates that with the definition that religious organizations have of marriage, which is good because the government has no place telling a church their beliefs.

I applaud your response and its magnitude. However, I am in a committed relationship with a woman, as I am a woman. I dream of marriage as well. All politicians are gonna have some dirt on their hands…as every human does through this life. But Barack Obama, in this day and age, is a great thing for America. If you honestly will let the policies of gay marriage, in this era of our generation keep you from supporting an otherwise very positive candidate who could catalyze real impact that is genuinely helpful change in America, then that’s sad. No one is perfect.

But I sincerely appreciate your enthusiasm and vigor, as well as your in depth knowledge of past and present legalities of politics. I tip my hat to you. But…for the sake of America’s future over my own material bliss…obama08.