kz_blogorambling | (no subject)

(no subject)

I'm starting to feel like a heel for my vote...

In that American Family Association (Ha, Families only the way THEY define them) I was one of the people who voted for civil unions rather than marriage.

it's not that *I* have anything against the concept of same-sex marriage. It's just that some people seem rather hung up on the term (and the Webster dictionary definition of) "marriage". So I figgered, let them have their term if it's that precious to them. What I care about are rights, and if those can be attained with another term like "civil union" than I'm happy. I was being accommodating (or so I thought) but as few people are crowing over those votes, I feel like people think that's the more penurious choice.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Hang on a sec...

Okay, I'm back from looking up "penurious."

You shouldn't feel like a heel if that's your honest feeling. I think the difference is mainly semantic.

It's not that I think you are a heel or should change your vote; I understand where you are coming from...

Maybe it is just a semantic distinction. "Separate but equal" was also, in its way, a semantic distinction. True, racial relations and the struggle for gay rights are very different situations in some respects--government has never required homosexuals to go to separate schools for example... But can you imagine compromising on the word "marriage" for interracial couples?

To my way of thinking, the logic is similar. Distinguishing between a "civil union" and a "marriage" is creating this "separate but equal" construct... and there's no rational reason for it other than to make a certain bigoted section of the population less unhappy. Perhaps as an intermediate step in the spirit of compromise it might not seem a bad thing, but neither did segregation, one supposes.

It's a tough call between practicality and idealism.

Don't sweat it. Really, don't.

What matters is the rights, and if civil unions were declared and made exactly the same as civil marriages, I'd be one happy, happy camper. You were voting in consideration of the issue, voting for the minimum that you would find acceptable. That's fine.

My view is that the word marriage should be a word without any civil meaning. It should be defined by individual and non-governmental groups. And they can define it however they want without recognizing the definition of the other.

If two men consider themselves married, great. But the Catholic church doesn't have to agree.

I would prefer that there not even be civil unions. I'd rather such protections as are implied just be a contractual matter between two people. Go to a laywer, sign some papers, etc. But I'll never win on that, so if the government wants to create civil unions that automatically grant some of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that should be handled at a lawyers office, then I won't argue, but it should be open to any combination of people (groups, gays, adult incestuous relationships, heterosexual).

Personally, I feel I was married to Lani years before we bothered to let the government know.

Cool, a new word. Penurius. Heheheh, "peen", heheheheh.

I see your point.

I can also see the point of the "separate but equal" people.

After some reflection I think there ought to be both religious and civil marriage, and they ought to be separate but equal. So the people who think that marriage is a religious ceremony and/or ought to be strictly between people of different genders can have what they want, and the people who think marriage ought to be a strictly secular contract and/or between people of any gender can have what they want.

The religious people won't be happy with allowing the choice of strictly secular marriage, I suspect, but tough beans.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only