Anti-Prop 8 Wasn'T About "Civil Rights"

[wenglund]

While I support gay marriage, and I find it courious that you choose to focus solely on the states rights issue versus federal rights issue (which certainly bolsters your particular argument and allows you to ignore the hundreds of protectections and benefits provided by the feds to married couples)...

In posts 20 and 28 you will find where I draw this important distinction and provide a logical explanation for focusing on state rights separate from federal rights. Perhaps since you are new to the thread, you have yet to read them. Feel free to do so.

As we both know, the role of language and terminolgy in our society does have a great affect on the perceptions of the citizenry. Thus, the argument does not come down to the "legal definition of marriage", but rather, the public perception of the term "marriage."

Yes and no. To me, the public perception of the term "marriage" is based on the definition of marriage (legal and otherwise). It is the definition that gives meaning to the public perception. So, I think it comes down to both the definition and the public perception.

In discussing the merits of the use of terminology of the word "marriage" versus "civil union", I agree with Brad Sears, executive director of the Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law at UCLA, who argues:

"civil unions do not go far enough. First, they do not provide gay couples with access to the over 1,000 federal rights and obligations provided for by federal law. Second, they do not provide gay couples with the social recognition and support that the institution of marriage provides.

As indicated in post #28, state laws do not control access to federal marital rights, privileges, and benefits. The federal DOMA does. It doesn't matter whether a state legally defines same-sex couples as civil unions or domestic partnerships or as married, they will have no different access to the federal marital benefits because of the federal DOMA. So the issue of lack of access to federal marital rights is irrelevant to state laws and constitutions. I am sorry that Brad Sears didn't understand this.

Finally, adopting civil unions places a stamp of inferiority on the relationships of gay men and lesbians just like the Jim Crow laws and segregation policies that kept African-Americans separate and (arguably) equal. If society can give gay couples most of the rights of marriage through civil unions, why can't it allow them to marry? Only because it believes that gay people are not worthy of the same dignity and respect as heterosexuals. Those who are advocates for civil unions but not marriage are stating a position of prejudice, pure and simple.

As explained in posts 8 and 13 and in some respects 18, I pointed out the absurdity of comparing the SSM issue to Jim Crow laws. Please consider those posts to be my response here as well. I also mentioned in those posts that once the main point of the thread was adequately addressed, I would be pleased to thoughtfully consider the tangential issue of "separate but equal."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Maybe a better solution would be for federal and state governments to stop handing out marriage licenses and no longer recognize religious union ceremonies and granting special rights based on such.

Perhaps, but off-topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

Perhaps, but off-topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry, Wade. I didn't mean to derail. I was just considering a possible solution.

[wenglund]

They are exactly on topic, as your reasoning is exactly the same as the separate but equal crowd from the darker days of the union.

http://en.wikipedia....arate_but_equal

I realize that some people are prone to insipidly thinking they know better than the author of the thread what his thread is about, but if you look more carefully at the subject heading, you will see that it says nothing about a comparative analysis, absurd or otherwise, of Jim Crow arguments and Traditional Marriage arguments. Sorry.

Again, your absurd comparison is off-topic. Please try better to stay on point. I don't plan to argue this point further.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It is no more off topic than cdowis' comment, to which I was responding. You seem to have confused "off-topic" with "statements I disagree with."

I hope this clears up your obvious confusion.

This false assumption is off-topic as well. Once again, please try and get on point and stay on point. I will ignore any further distractions from you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

Maybe a better solution would be for federal and state governments to stop handing out marriage licenses and no longer recognize religious union ceremonies and granting special rights based on such.

Unlikely. It would make inheritance and child-rearing rights a nightmare. It would mean one person would be unable to make financial or medical decisions on behalf of the couple. Not to mention dividing shared property of a couple separating without a marriage or insurance coverage and a thousand other things.

[wenglund]

Sorry, Wade. I didn't mean to derail. I was just considering a possible solution.

No problem. It is an idea worthy of consideration, though for another thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Unlikely. It would make inheritance and child-rearing rights a nightmare. It would mean one person would be unable to make financial or medical decisions on behalf of the couple. Not to mention dividing shared property of a couple separating without a marriage or insurance coverage and a thousand other things.

Good points for consideration, but off-topic for this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

Good points for consideration, but off-topic for this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You do realize this is a discussion board and not a lecture board right?

[Damien the Leper]

Unlikely. It would make inheritance and child-rearing rights a nightmare. It would mean one person would be unable to make financial or medical decisions on behalf of the couple. Not to mention dividing shared property of a couple separating without a marriage or insurance coverage and a thousand other things.

I agree with Wade. Good points, Nehor.

[Walden]

In posts 20 and 28 you will find where I draw this important distinction and provide a logical explanation for focusing on state rights separate from federal rights. Perhaps since you are new to the thread, you have yet to read them. Feel free to do so.

Yes and no. To me, the public perception of the term "marriage" is based on the definition of marriage (legal and otherwise). It is the definition that gives meaning to the public perception. So, I think it comes down to both the definition and the public perception.

As indicated in post #28, state laws do not control access to federal marital rights, privileges, and benefits. The federal DOMA does. It doesn't matter whether a state legally defines same-sex couples as civil unions or domestic partnerships or as married, they will have no different access to the federal marital benefits because of the federal DOMA. So the issue of lack of access to federal marital rights is irrelevant to state laws and constitutions. I am sorry that Brad Sears didn't understand this.

As explained in posts 8 and 13 and in some respects 18, I pointed out the absurdity of comparing the SSM issue to Jim Crow laws. Please consider those posts to be my response here as well. I also mentioned in those posts that once the main point of the thread was adequately addressed, I would be pleased to thoughtfully consider the tangential issue of "separate but equal."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

We seem to be missing the crux of one another's arguments. My point is not to compare SSM to Jim Crow laws (though I consider much of the comparison valid), but rather, my point (in relation to your original argument regarding the "terminology" angle) is contained in the following sentiments expressed by Mr. Sears....

"If society can give gay couples most of the rights of marriage through civil unions, why can't it allow them to marry? Only because it believes that gay people are not worthy of the same dignity and respect as heterosexuals."

[wenglund]

They are exactly on topic, as your reasoning is exactly the same as the separate but equal crowd from the darker days of the union.

http://en.wikipedia....arate_but_equal

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not the least bit adverse to considering your assertion and disproving it. I welcome it. My concern is that this topic is complex enough as it is trying to come to shared understand that I don't want to clutter up the thread with extraneous material.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You do realize this is a discussion board and not a lecture board right?

I will indulge your off-topic question and answer, yes, and rhetorically ask if you realize that in cases such as this thread, where there is already lively on-topic discussion, the discussion is better served to make reasonable attempts to keep on point and uncluttered, particularly since participants are free to start their own tangential discussions?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

I will indulge your off-topic question and answer, yes, and rhetorically ask if you realize that in cases such as this thread, where there is already lively on-topic discussion, the discussion is better served to make reasonable attempts to keep on point and uncluttered, particularly since participants are free to start their own tangential discussions?

As a rhetorical question must be answered I will reply: a bit.

You do realize that denouncing an off-topic rebuttal of an off-topic comment delivered in an off-topic way is, itself, off-topic. Hypocrite.

[rockpond]

I will indulge your off-topic question and answer, yes, and rhetorically ask if you realize that in cases such as this thread, where there is already lively on-topic discussion, the discussion is better served to make reasonable attempts to keep on point and uncluttered, particularly since participants are free to start their own tangential discussions?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I'm not sure where else to go with your original topic...

You say that Prop 8 is not about equal civil rights (at a state level, in CA) because gay couples could achieve the same set of rights as marriage through civil unions.

Myself and others are countering that marriage itself is the civil right that is not equal. Access to marriage is not equal and marriage has been declared a fundamental civil right by the highest court in the land.

That leads to a separate but equal discussion: does granting the same rights but calling it something different amount to equal civil rights. But it seems that you are declaring that as "off topic".

Correct me if I have misstated something here.

[wenglund]

We seem to be missing the crux of one another's arguments. My point is not to compare SSM to Jim Crow laws (though I consider much of the comparison valid), but rather, my point (in relation to your original argument regarding the "terminology" angle) is contained in the following sentiments expressed by Mr. Sears....

"If society can give gay couples most of the rights of marriage through civil unions, why can't it allow them to marry? Only because it believes that gay people are not worthy of the same dignity and respect as heterosexuals."

I indirectly address the crux of this somewhat tangential argument in post #17, in response to a similar question raised by DH.

To continue, Mr. Spears has here constructed a straw man. The reason for my objections (along with those who have presented related legal arguments), has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of or abundance of worthiness or dignity or respect, but rather preventing the illogical and unnecessary mangling of a perfectly reasonable legal term as well as helping assure that the state continues doing what is demonstrably in the states interest.

However, I think Mr. Spears does inadvertently provide us with a window into his own thinking. Seemingly implicit in his quoted assertion is the suggestion that objections to Prop 8, and perhaps similar traditional marriage legislation, isn't so much about equal rights as it is about equal acceptance of homosexuality to that of heterosexuality. It is about normalizing homosexuality, and perhaps even more--i.e. considering homosexual relation as providing equal value to the state as heterosexual relationships.This is similar to what I pointed out in the other thread where I am banned, in relation to a quoted statement made by the plaintiffs lawyers in relation to the Prop 8 case now before the SCOTUS.

And, while this implicit intent is tangential to the topic of this thread (though it may indirectly underscore the point of the thread), I would be interested in exploring it further once the topic of the thread has been adequately addressed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

As a rhetorical question must be answered I will reply: a bit.

You do realize that denouncing an off-topic rebuttal of an off-topic comment delivered in an off-topic way is, itself, off-topic. Hypocrite.

Again, yes. I am the worse sort of hypocrite--I am knowingly hypocritical. And, here I am being hypocritical again. But, who is to stop the madness since I lack self control? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade,

I'm not sure where else to go with your original topic...

You say that Prop 8 is not about equal civil rights (at a state level, in CA) because gay couples could achieve the same set of rights as marriage through civil unions.

Myself and others are countering that marriage itself is the civil right that is not equal. Access to marriage is not equal and marriage has been declared a fundamental civil right by the highest court in the land.

That leads to a separate but equal discussion: does granting the same rights but calling it something different amount to equal civil rights. But it seems that you are declaring that as "off topic".

Correct me if I have misstated something here.

You are correct. It is somewhat off-topic, but a direction in which I am okay with going in this thread once I am satisfied that the topic of the thread has been sufficiently addressed. And, as I indicated to you in post #40, I believe we have reached the point where the topic has been sufficiently addressed and we "can then proceed in examining how and why 'marriage' is, itself, a civil right, and whether same-sex couples are being denied that civil right. I will do so in the next several posts when I get the time."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nathair/|\]

I was staying on topic. I'll rephrase...

Your OP states that Prop 8 was not about civil rights but about defining a term or word. Correct?

My response is this: our constitution rests on laws used to support it. Those laws are made up of terms, legal terms. Those terms are words that must be defined.

So yes, Prop 8 was an attempt to define the legal term of marriage. But that doesn't mean it also wasn't about the civil right of marriage.

Civil unions in gave gay couples a similar set of rights as marriage but "separate but equal" has been rejected by our judicial branch. And marriage remains a fundamental civil right.

So even if you couch Prop 8 as being about definitions it is still a civil rights matter.

If marriage was a civil right, you wouldn't need to ask permission (a license) let alone pay for the permission in order to get married.

[wenglund]

I will do so in the next several posts when I get the time."

It will probably be tomorrow at the earliest since I currently have other plans and distractions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Walden]

I indirectly address the crux of this somewhat tangential argument in post #17, in response to a similar question raised by DH.

To continue, Mr. Spears has here constructed a straw man. The reason for my objections (along with those who have presented related legal arguments), has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of or abundance of worthiness or dignity or respect, but rather preventing the illogical and unnecessary mangling of a perfectly reasonable legal term as well as helping assure that the state continues doing what is demonstrably in the states interest.

However, I think Mr. Spears does inadvertently provide us with a window into his own thinking. Seemingly implicit in his quoted assertion is the suggestion that objections to Prop 8, and perhaps similar traditional marriage legislation, isn't so much about equal rights as it is about equal acceptance of homosexuality to that of heterosexuality. It is about normalizing homosexuality, and perhaps even more--i.e. considering homosexual relation as providing equal value to the state as heterosexual relationships.This is similar to what I pointed out in the other thread where I am banned, in relation to a quoted statement made by the plaintiffs lawyers in relation to the Prop 8 case now before the SCOTUS.

And, while this implicit intent is tangential to the topic of this thread (though it may indirectly underscore the point of the thread), I would be interested in exploring it further once the topic of the thread has been adequately addressed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your argument only works if you adhere to a strictly static definition of marriage, but we both know that the definition of marriage has changed throughout the ages. In the past, the term "marriage" has allowed for polygamy, "ownership" and property rights (of which wives were considered property), "arranged marriages" that disallow consent, the union of under-age women to older men, etc. Many of these same practices are still followed across much of the globe, and the ideals of what constitues a marriage has evolved as society has evolved and needs have arisen.

Likewise, there have been many "legal" terms in our own American history whose definition has evolved as society has evolved. The legal "age of consent" has evolved throughout our history. The legal term "voter" has evolved throughout our history from a definition of a right that was once only given to a priviledged few (i.e. white land owners) to expand and be more inclusive to all those 18 years of age and older.

The definition of marriage has certainly evolved, until we have reached this present moment where it is about to be extended to include both heterosexual and homosexual unions.

[rockpond]

If marriage was a civil right, you wouldn't need to ask permission (a license) let alone pay for the permission in order to get married.

The Supreme Court of the US disagrees with you (Loving v Virginia).

[Daniel2]

This just in, the the bolded which is relevant to is topic:

Dozens Of Major Corporations To File Supreme Court Brief Against Prop 8

Later this week dozens of major corporations will file a joint Supreme Court brief in support of the overturn of Prop 8. The names are huge, people. Fortune Magazine reports:

On Thursday, dozens of American corporations, including Apple, Alcoa, Facebook, eBay, Intel, and Morgan Stanley will submit an amicus brief in the landmark Hollingsworth v. Perry case broadly arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that laws banning same-sex marriages, like California's ballot initiative Proposition 8, are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

According to a draft copy obtained by Fortune, the companies argue that such laws "send an unmistakeable signal that same-sex couples are in some way inferior to opposite-sex couples, a proposition that is anathema to amici's commitment to equality and fair treatment to all."

At least 60 companies had committed to signing the brief as of Tuesday evening, according to Joshua Rosenkranz, who is counsel of record on the brief and head of the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. That number is expected to rise by Thursday, however, according to Rosenkranz. Others who have already committed to sign include AIG, Becton ****inson, Cisco, Cummins, Kimpton, Levi Strauss, McGraw Hill, NCR, Nike, Office Depot, Oracle, Panasonic, Qualcomm, and Xerox.

An excerpt from the brief declares that Proposition 8 "leaves companies in the untenable position of being compelled implicitly to endorse the second-class status to which their gay and lesbian employees, clients, customers, and business associates are relegated. Until the law no longer relegates same-sex couples to second-class status as inferior 'domestic partnerships,' our adherence to the law compels us to abide by a distinction that stigmatizes and dehumanizes gay men and lesbians."

While this board provides you with an amicable "echo chamber"of sorts on this issue, your arguments about same-sex marriage not being a matter of civil rights have not proved legally compelling so far, Wade. It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS finds them convincing.

Daniel2

[rockpond]

This just in, the the bolded which is relevant to is topic:

While this board provides you with an amicable "echo chamber"of sorts on this issue, your arguments about same-sex marriage not being a matter of civil rights have not proved legally compelling so far, Wade. It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS finds them convincing.

Daniel2

Yeah, I used to work for one of those corporations mentioned in your news clip. It was always a struggle for them because they wanted to recognize the gay unions but it wasn't that easy (back then) when working with, for example, an external health insurance company.

[wenglund]

I am really glad that Daniel posted that notice....not because I think the weak and tattered appeals to emotion it presented, fallaciously borrowed from the civil rights movement, are of any value to me. They aren't in the least. Rather, it is because it helps bring into focus the utter futility of my efforts. I mean, there is me....and then there are 60 or so highly reputed corporations. How can I compete with that?

Now, there was a time when those kinds of odds didn't necessarily matter. A clarion voice of reason could still pierce the din of social propaganda and change hearts and minds. But evidently not here, and not today.

I have been at this for a long time, and throughout I have watched to see if the numerous arguments I have raised may have caused even the slightest difference with those I oppose. And, while early on I sensed some positive impact, nowadays it is beyond nothing. If at all, it seems as though my efforts are causing the cement of their views to set and harden.

It also doesn't help to find that I keep getting banned from related thread by people I figured shared my point of view. Oh well...

So, while I, too, am more convinced now than ever that the gay movement in general, and the SSM initiative in particular, is, on balance, deleterious to all of us, individually and collectively, there appears little or no point in continuing to waste my breath. As much as I may be inclined otherwise, it is clearly time to step back and go relatively silent and sadly let people continue undeterred filling up their cups.

Cant say that I didn't try....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-