per the D&C editorial board - “Separate but Equal” is good enough for Gay people wanting to get married
I read the D&C Editorial about gay marriage in New York State recently and came away feeling that the D&C Editorial board is just fine with a “separate but equal” stance on same-sex marriage. Why? because of this line
Homosexual couples demanding all that heterosexual couples have under the law can have that in civil unions without tossing out faith, history and culture. That can, and must, happen.
Remember when I asked if we really wanted to give gay people equal rights with regards to marriage? The point of that post was that civil unions do not extend beyond state lines - unlike marriages - civil unions in one state are not recognized in another. Your legal relationship ends at the border. Marriage is the only way to truly extend benefits. Yeah, there is currently no federal regulation or statue other than the current DOMA (Defense of Marriage act) but come on - same-sex marriage IS recognized in several states and the number of states IS growing and states have a reciprocity agreements. DOMA affects federal benefits - the question is how do we remove discrimination for New York State residents now as described in the editorial’s lede -
Discrimination against gay Americans persists in ways both overt and underhanded. Barriers to equality under the law, in the workplace and within the social framework must be removed.
But remember that pesky “without tossing out faith, history and culture” condition set forth in by the D&C? My question is simply whose faith, history and culture?
As our collective knowledge and understanding grow over time - we evolve as a society.
So, a long time ago we got our start when someone realized that the world isn’t flat and big sea monsters weren’t going to gobble them up at the end of the world. Fast forward many years and a bunch of guys came up with an idea that a king doesn’t have to be the leader of a new country and thanks to ideas based in the Magna Carta these leaders are not above the law. So with successive elected officials and representative governments, somehow we moved past slavery, gave women the right to vote (blacks too). Heck, we even allow white people and black people to legally marry. Women can actually own land. Did I mention we allow women to work and we almost pay them the same as a man (yeah, still working on that one)? Somewhere we learned that blacks and whites can serve in the same military unit, ride the same buses, attend the same schools and, play on the same baseball team.
Point being, what our society once accepted as “normal” behavior is now essentially a foreign concept.
Because the concept of marriage exists, a “Civil Union” is the equivalent of separate water fountains, bathrooms and bus seats.
The D&C editorial board is just wrong
Related posts:
I couldn’t agree with you more!
Civil Unions are indeed a form of “separate but equal” in a society where the concept of “marriage” exists. Separate is NEVER equal.
Shame on the D&C editorial board, once again!!
I would guess that the D&C editorial board is probably trying to come up with some sort of middle-of-the-road proposition that would alienate as few of their readers and advertisers as possible. Maybe they recognize that nobody will be paying much attention or really care much about what they say anyway.
There was a time in which the separate-but-equal idea would have been alright. That time has long gone. As far as I am concerned, if churches want to celebrate same-sex weddings or refuse them or condemn them, it is all the same to me. What is important to me is the civil marriage, which takes place in a register’s office, which recognizes two human beings who wish to unite in partnership to form a family unit. Regardless of what conservatives say, this idea does not include adults and children because children are not regarded as consenting. Likewise animals are not consenting humans although the idea might be amusing (bang your hoof twice for yes if you agree to be wed to this shepherd etc.). As to plural marriage the last people in favour of this were the same Mormons who championed Proposition 8, but I can’t rule it out forever, any more than I can rule out anything forever.
In the meantime, can anyone demonstrate that allowing same-sex marriage would in any way threaten the rights of opposite-sex couples to get married, or the rights of anybody to do anything, other than the rights of religious fanatics to decide that everyone must conform to their idea of what God said. Now, what do the Libertarians think of that?
[...] one misses the point entirely. Many of the pro-gay marriage LTE points echo what stlo7 said in his rebuttal to the D&C Ed Board last week. First, on the pro- side: Don’t deny gays human [...]
[...] Marriage - In light of the D&Cs recent editorial stance of Separate but Equal for Gay folks wanting to get married together. Mayor Duffy - came out strongly in support of Gay [...]