The Marriage Equality Thread

[sarthaz]

I'll respond to this in confusing and controversial fashion, but first let me clarify that I have no problem with homosexuality and am perfectly content with same-sex unions/marriages/whatever.

HOWEVER ... it is intellectually dishonest to equate a same-sex marriage with an interracial marriage, and it drives me nuts when people who should know better try to bolster their opinions in this manner. There is a fundamental difference between a man-woman union and a same-sex union, and to deny otherwise is just dishonest. It doesn't mean one is "wrong" -- but they *are* different. To the contrary, though, there is *NO* meaningful difference between a same-race union and an interracial union. For one, the very idea of "race" is completely nebulous, so to differentiate between "race" is pretty ridiculous in the first place; but even if you could precisely trace lineage to label people like dog breeds, the only difference between a same-race union and a multi-race union is external perception. In every other conceivable way (save perhaps the Sharwa in Tibet who possess an altitude specific gene), there is no distinction.

Same-sex unions, however, are *actually* different in a pretty significant way -- procreation. And since the whole construct of marriage is based around solidifying families, you cannot have an honest discussion of this "issue" without addressing that. Now, I personally believe that families exist in myriad ways, and I feel a gay couple can raise an adopted child as well as a heterosexual couple can raise their own child (or an adopted one, or a step-child, or a foster child, etc). But it's still flat out wrong to argue this issue by appealing to the false analogy to racism, and jms should know better.

All of that said, "Christians" piss me off. Not Christians ... "Christians". The way people use religion to justify their hatred is sickening. Jesus Christ never said a darn thing about homosexuality, and the whole idea of being a Christian is to follow the teachings of Christ. It's kind of the whole word. Yes, Jesus did list (what we've translated to be "sexual immorality") in a long list of crap you shouldn't do (along with mortal sins like "greed" and "arrogance"), but that's really it. Paul comes along and uses the word arsenokoietes, which is most likely in reference to a more insidious enslaved child-prostitution than a general condemnation of homosexuality, but even if that's what he did mean, those are his words, based on his bias, not Jesus's. Ya know what Jesus did say? Love thy neighbor as thyself. Other than loving God, he's pretty stinkin' clear that this is the most important lesson to take from his existence in this world. God is love, and to love God, you must love others. He could not be more clear on this. How people can call themselves "Christians" and miss this basic fundamental aspect of the whole religion is confusing and saddening.

I know it's the oldest crutch in the book -- using religion to justify your own bias -- but Jesus never taught any of this, no matter how loudly the hate-mongers shout it.

I'll stop rambling now ...

[Jan]

Adding JMS' latest essay here in case there's more discussion.

As we consider the current discussion regarding same-sex marriage, let us remember that this discussion does not take place in a historical vacuum, and that a view to the past might illuminate the present.

To those who cite religious reasons for not marrying same-sex couples, it’s worth pointing out that religious reasons were generally behind the miscegenation laws created to prevent people from different ethnic groups from marrying, laws that were passed and enforced in the United States until relatively recently.

These laws date back to the creation of the United States (so certainly one can make the claim that the Founding Fathers endorsed such ideas, a thread in many articles by those who would see same-sex marriage banned). Pennsylvania was the first state to eliminate the ban in 1780, followed soon after by Massachusetts. But over two dozen states continued to enforce these laws. Even California, founded much later, had laws banning miscegenation…and all of these laws were, for a time, actually upheld by the Supreme Court.

Just as there are current attempts by members of Congress to create constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, there were multiple Congressional attempts to pass such amendments banning interracial marriage. In 1913, Seaborn Roddenberry, a Congressman from Georgia, tried to pass an amendment which would forever ban Caucasians from marrying “persons of color” if there was even the smallest trace of African blood. He called it an “un-American and inhuman leprosy.”

His resolution, which can still be viewed as part of the Congressional Record, read in part, “Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania.”

The attempted amendments never gained enough traction to pass, despite quite a bit of support from other congressmen, but local and state laws against interracial marriage not only remained on the books, they were often rigorously enforced. City officials and clergy refused to perform such marriages, and those making the attempt were frequently arrested, jailed or forced by state officials to leave the states in which they had been living, sent into exile elsewhere.

Why is this worth mentioning now?

Because given the latest news of Alabama’s constant attempts to refuse to enforce laws allowing same-sex marriage, it should be noted that the last state to repeal its laws against interracial marriage…was Alabama.

In the year 2000.

Let me repeat that for emphasis. Laws banning interracial marriage were still on the books in Alabama as late as the beginning of this century. And even after they were finally repealed by a narrowly won referendum, it still took effort to make local officials, clerks and justices of the peace hew to those new laws. These folks felt that their personal freedom and religious dogma was sufficient justification to refuse to comply. (Not to give Alabama a pass, but as recently as 2009, a Justice of the Peace in Louisiana refused to conduct an interracial marriage.)

You could go back into this text, take the words “interracial marriage” and “same sex marriage” and swap them and have every argument that is still being made today. I suspect that none (well, few) of the proponents of the current bans would look back at the laws banning miscegenation and think those were good ideas. But in the final analysis, both arguments have the same basis, the same justifications and rationalizations.

Proving once again that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

At least in Alabama.

My main response to this was that "Let them have a civil union, just don't call it marriage!" is the 21st century version of"Separate but equal".

Jan

[Looney]

I agree with you that it all matters. Other than that, I don't want to rain on your parade. I'll just say that my personal opinion is that what happened yesterday is really, really bad. What happened today means a struggle can continue and one of the opposing sides, who doesn't handle disappointment well, just got disappointed big time. (WOW! My superpower really is looking at the negative side of everything. AHHHH ! ! ! I hate it when that happens.)

[Jan]

Have to disagree there. It all matters. And there's a difference. Yesterday they said, 'it's too old, fix it' which ordinarily would mean a heated discussion or six but the formula would be fixed. It's one of those things that needs constant monitoring, just as all of those other attempts at restricting voting do.

But the rulings today, while I haven't read them in detail, simply throw out both DOMA and Prop 8 in their entirety. There's still LOTS of work to do. I have a gay friend who's concerned about her status while she'll be living in a state where her marriage is legal and recognized (now) both federally and on the state level *but* who lives here in Florida where her marriage isn't recognized by constitutional amendment. So that couple will effectively be married in one state but not in the other. Definitely something that will need to be fixed but let's enjoy today and get back to work tomorrow.

Jan

[Looney]

My opinion is that if you make it more difficult to vote with new restrictions then you control who votes. When you start controlling who votes then today's decision doesn't matter.

[Jan]

Their decision yesterday on the Voting Rights Act really had me concerned over what the decisions would be today. I'm happy to have been wrong. Now if only I had confidence that our dysfunctional Congresscritters might get their act together and fix the VRA, it would be a good week. Sadly, I don't have any confidence in that at all.

Jan

[Looney]

And how do you feel about what they did yesterday? (Oh wait, This is the Marriage EQUALITY Thread.)

[Jan]

I'm incredibly happy this morning since the Supreme Court has struck down *both* the (so-called) Defense of Marriage Act and California's Prop. 8. It's a historic day and I'm glad I was around to witness it.

Jan

[WorkerCaste]

I got some very strange reactions from people I thought were okay with me.
I was called afflicted, lacking in morals, damned to hellfire and when I pointed out the shaky basis behind these notions I was accused of mocking the faith of these people.

Scratch the veneer of society and there is a whole lot of ancient nastiness under there.

Sometimes society is nasty and people are good, and sometimes it works the other way around, but in spite of the nastiness that remains, I am more hopeful now about gay rights than I ever remember being. Maybe it's naive of me, but I think things are turning for society and it's becoming more a case of individuals being nasty, and, of course, the internet is the place to find any nasty individuals amongst a group of good people.

I hope you still feel comfortable here, though. This is one of the most consistenly nice and polite discussion groups I"ve found.

[Ubik]

.

I don't want to start up trouble by using this place to fire shots at another so I shan't name names but I've spent a number of years posting on another forum.

I felt very comfortable there and explained my position on this subject.

I got some very strange reactions from people I thought were okay with me.
I was called afflicted, lacking in morals, damned to hellfire and when I pointed out the shaky basis behind these notions I was accused of mocking the faith of these people.

Scratch the veneer of society and there is a whole lot of ancient nastiness under there.

Personally I think it's best to change this now, get people used to it and hopefully their religious objections will go the way of the shrimp laws of Leviticus.

So sorry to hear that. I still find it hard to believe people continue to be prejudiced against same sex marriage / love. You'll hear none of that bigoted nonsense from me! I'm straight, but a lot of my favourite musicians were outspoken gay rights activists. I'm a massive Coil fan, and alongside film maker Derek Jarman (amongst others) they campaigned fervently via their music for gay rights.

[Jan]

The situation here in the States is an unholy mess. Some states don't have any allowances for gay partnerships, others do, still others allow marriage (and oddly, straight people's marriages seem to remain unscathed) and yet in no way does the Federal government recognize any of those legal marriages.

I think the Supreme Court is probably going to strike down the (gag) Defense of Marriage Act when they finally hand down their decisions. Not sure about California's Prop. 8, though.

Jan

[Shr'eshhhhhh]

Like a lot of gay people I never really saw this as an issue after the passing of civil partnership legislation here in the UK. The situation where I might be denied access to my partner should he be dying, whereas the family he had a lot of trouble with may have immediate access was gone. I didn't have to worry about him being booted out of our home should anything happen to me so I thought it was just a word and as such not worth worrying about.

Then I started hearing the reactions of people against it.

It became clear to me that a lot the change that had seemed to have happened in society was merely a temporary submerging and some saw this issue as an excuse to bring their prejudice back up to the surface.

I don't want to start up trouble by using this place to fire shots at another so I shan't name names but I've spent a number of years posting on another forum.

I felt very comfortable there and explained my position on this subject.

I got some very strange reactions from people I thought were okay with me.
I was called afflicted, lacking in morals, damned to hellfire and when I pointed out the shaky basis behind these notions I was accused of mocking the faith of these people.

Scratch the veneer of society and there is a whole lot of ancient nastiness under there.

Personally I think it's best to change this now, get people used to it and hopefully their religious objections will go the way of the shrimp laws of Leviticus.

[Jan]

I log in to post a great quote... and y'all are using that vulgar four-letter F-acronym.

Okay, I give up. What's your problem with it? Or don't you like acronyms in general?

While the idea was well intentioned, the actual use/abuse, in the real world, particularly in small businesses, is that the fracking F*** law can be worse than useless, regardless of who (single/married) tries to exercise that "right".

Pretty much anything *can* be abused but I'm not sure that it's likely to be all that great a problem. First of all, FMLA doen't affect businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Now, that may still be a 'small' business, but it's not exactly a Mom & Pop operation. Second of all, having had to get the certifications necessary to take leave, it's not something one cour really do on a lark.

Geekiest quote of the week:
"You don't have to beta test rights."
by John Stewart, on The Daily Show (2013-Mar-28)

I like it!

Jan

[Chipmunk]

Geekiest quote of the week:
"You don't have to beta test rights."
by John Stewart, on The Daily Show (2013-Mar-28)

[Chipmunk]

The point about FMLA is that gay couples cannot take family leave for each other. I've read of at least one case where leave was denied to a couple legally married in their state who were denied leave because FMLA is a federal law that doesn't recognize their marriage.

As for it being a financial penalty as stated, that's incorrect because FMLA is for unpaid leave.

I log in to post a great quote... and y'all are using that vulgar four-letter F-acronym.

Yes, the four-letter-F law is for "unpaid leave", however it requires continued medical coverage, which can be a major financial benefit... if the law is followed/honored.

In the case of either a single or married person who gets sick themself, and has to take time off, continued medical coverage, until recently, could be the difference between life and death.
Until recently, termination of coverage for a sick person, could prevent the sick person from getting new coverage ("pre-existing condition").

This cost also provided some bad employers with a perceived reason to terminate such employees.

While the idea was well intentioned, the actual use/abuse, in the real world, particularly in small businesses, is that the fracking F*** law can be worse than useless, regardless of who (single/married) tries to exercise that "right".

Jan, in the scenario you refer to, the employer could have granted the leave (with or without continued medical coverage).
They did not because they chose to be unethical.

You can't force employers to be ethical.
They either do the right thing because it is the right thing, or they do whatever they think they can get away with.

Personally, I think a better approach would be to set the standards, then make it easy for abused employees to publish their experiences (including all documents), without having to worry about any legal consequences (e.g. waive confidentiality).