First of all, I am not gay, but I am not against homosexuality. I am concerned about the success and tactics of the movement. What is the biggest reason people want same sex marriage? I would say that it is so homosexuals who are also religious can get married in the church, and be able to have it recognized "by god." But I see this as partial insanity because the bible contradicts this idea, and many Christians will not recognize it as valid.
So are gays wanting to change the religious/political construct of marriage, and get churches to accept this? To me, this is a losing battle because it clearly does state in the bible that homosexuality is wrong. I do not agree with this stance, but it seems to be written into the moral code of Christians, and several other religions that recognize marriage. I think it would be more effective if gays were to focus on marriage rights than it is to focus on what it is "called." If they started a movement that did not involve the word marriage at all, it could be more effective. People clearly don't like the term "civil union." It does sound cold, like going and getting paperwork drawn up or something that dry. I am not against "gay marriage," because I am not religious, nor do I think it is wrong. But what I am saying is I think this is a losing battle (legally) because it involves trying to change religion's deep-seated moral constructs. There has to be a better way to increase the rights of homosexuals, and prioritize one step at a time-from a political strategist's perspective. I'm very curious about what you think!
So who are you to tell gay people they should be satisfied with a "domestic partnership"? How would you like to be told you can't get married since you are unworthy as a human being? If it was me, I would be very annoyed.
I'm saying that it is a start. I am talking about adding gasoline to the fire. How long will it take to get social change and legal rights for gays in all 50 states doing it the current method? I think we need to take what we can get; look at it as every step that increases the rights of gays is a win. Even if it is a one step at a time thing. What has happened in Hawaii is an example of this problem of using the word "marriage."
I suspect this is now headed to SCOTUS.
There are several cases in appeals courts that look like defenders of "traditional marriage" are trying to push to the Supreme Court because they keep losing. These things keep getting knocked down again and again. It will eventually turn out like Loving v. Virginia where interracial marriage bans were over turned in all states by a SC decision.
Since when did expressing my own thoughts amount to telling anyone anything? So people who think they are wrong should just shut up, according to Simon Paynton?
So are gays wanting to change the religious/political construct of marriage, and get churches to accept this?
Many churches already accept it; however, that is not necessarily required. As has been mentioned already, marriage is not currently, or historically a strictly religious institution. A church or religious service is not required for two people to get married. For this reason, many regions that allow same-sex marriage do not require churches, mosques, synagogues (or other religious groups) to perform these ceremonies. so if a church still doesn't like it? Who gives a fuck? That's their problem. I mean, it's unfortunate that they don't like it, but that's not a good basis for legislating how other people live.
One of my biggest concerns with laws that ban same-sex marriage has little to do with LGBT rights. It bothers me that people would actively make laws barring people from a certain activity when they have presented no objective reasons for doing so. There is a regulation in place, for instance, that men who have sex with men cannot be blood donors in Canada. Some may say that's discriminatory, but the concern there is HIV transmission. MSM is targeted because it's the group with the highest infection rate. Is that regulation right or ethical? I'm not quite certain. The thing is, at least the reason provided is objective, and if one wanted to oppose it, scientific studies or reasoned arguments could be used to resolve the matter. The same isn't entirely true with same-sex marriage bans. "God don't like it and most people don't like it" isn't a rational basis for legislation. That's not a good place to be.
First to clarify, I am very pro-gay rights. And I think gays should have all the same rights as people who marry in the United States. But there is no denying that we are a heavily religious country, Christian oriented. And there are PACs all over the country that do not want gays to be able to "marry." I want to know how many people have tried to fight legally as in suing for the same rights as a married couple, without being concerned about the word "marriage"? And what happened? Because under the 14th amendment, Equal Protection Clause, should back this up at the state level. Political reasons and agendas of Christians are keeping the movement down. Period. Gays need access to these rights, because Christians (namely the ones in power) are cock-blocking these rights. I am simply saying, does this make sense from a political strategy/legal strategy standpoint to fight using this word-the very word that Christians in power will defend till the death? I am inclined to think you need to learn to walk before you can run. But what I mean to call into question is whether or not gays rights should fight using a word that has such a deep religious meaning for so many Christians that it causes a pushback of sorts on those grounds alone. I don't think we should fight the game against "Christian thinking." I want this movement to focus more on the human rights side of things, and less on "we want to do what you do, and call it the very same thing."
Majority beliefs don't sway the Federal court (normally). The courts have more than once gone against the popular opinion, especially if it involves an equal protection issue. And if the word "marriage" is the one use in the statutes, then that is the terminology that will hold. There are cases on their way now to the Supreme Court with the LGBT groups already successfully arguing their cases in lower courts. So, it appears the strategy is appropriate so far. A similar pattern held with the civil rights movement in the "Deep South" - a very religious stronghold. And the majority of Americans are only nominally Christian. The "separate but equal" approach that you are suggesting hasn't been upheld for very long.
I believe the primary thing that gays want is to be accepted as first-class citizens with full rights and privileges.
They have that in a domestic partnership, though. What right don't they have? How important is it? So important that they would hand back all those gains just to have it. Of course not.
This is a situation where they have won, don't seem to know they have won, and continue on fighting like the Japanese soldiers who continued holed up in the hills of New Guinea after WWII was over. To go further at this time will simply make them annoying and cost them support.
Perhaps they could wear special hats -- hats which no gay person would ever want to wear.