Thought for the day

1: They are in Connecticut at least.

Prop 1 in CT was primarily fought along the same lines as prop 8 in CA. It’s not obvious from the question “Shall there be a constitutional convention…”, but Yes was being pushed hard by the anti-gay forces, because similar to california, courts recently ruled that gay marriage is legal according to the state constitution. Unlike CA, they weren’t able to get a ban amendment on the ballot, so they tried to sneak this one past us, hoping for the “Oh, that sounds like a reasonable idea” vote, and then follow it up by getting plenty of anti-gay (and anti-abortion) lobbyists appointed to the convention.

But it didn’t happen, and not only that, Dems swept to sizable supermajorities in both state-houses, so it’s quite unlikely we’ll be seeing any real challenge to that decision in the next few years. New York may join us soon as well, they already recognize marriages from MA and CT.

I’m sorely, sorely disappointed about CA though. It hurts my heart on a night and day when I wanted to rejoice with abandon.

Don’t worry, D.P. Our sons and daughters can still get married to a person of the same sex in a church, temple, mosque, meeting house, resort, or anywhere else–so long as someone they regard as an authority is willing to declare them “married.” It’s just that the state generally refuses to declare them “married”–even when, as in California, there is no de jure, functional difference between marriage and domestic partnership.

By the way, gay marriage supporters might want to reconsider the tactical value of insisting on a close comparison–as D.P. tacitly does, in spoiled sport fashion–between the civil rights and broader social circumstances of African Americans and homosexuals. This mainly has the effect, at this point, of (not unreasonably) annoying many African Americans–more than a few of whom might otherwise be converted to support gay marriage or at least not to support outlawing extension of “marriage” to same-sex unions.

Back on point: As an African American and an Obama sympathizer, I must confess to not feeling all that moved by the racial symbolism of Obama’s election. But I tend to side with Derrick Bell about the (very modest) cash value of racial symbols.

How much is Gay Marriage about ego?

None. HTH.

Else, no one ever in the history of mankind has ever stopped penis in anus, gender notwithstanding. Not to speak of tongues in vaginas, which always was a superb turn-on for any and all.

Thanks for sharing.

Asshole.

So much hullabaloo over gay marriage, and decade comes to century, we end up with opposite sex unions as “special”.

I have no idea what that means. Based on this conversation so far, I don’t care, either.

Anyway, I’m sorry that we aren’t willing to just accept the second-class status that you apparently think we deserve. Apparently you think we should just celebrate the fact that the authorities don’t throw us in jail or mental hospitals anymore, and be grateful for that. But instead we have to get all uppity. It’s clearly very upsetting for you.

Yes, you couldn’t bequeath your estate to him or her. But only by default. You could always choose to.
This is simply false. There are hundreds of cases of loving gay partners leaving their estates to their long-time companions, only to have next-of-blood-kin show up and successfully contest the wills – even when the parent or sibling was a homophobe who hadn’t spoken to the deceased in years, while the partner nursed him through last-stage AIDS. Wills don’t mean anything if judges are bigots. Yet another reason why marriage, rather than mere civil unions or domestic partnerships, is important.

When Bobby Jindal becomes president in 2016, then you’ll really be able to sell your sons the American dream.

Henry:

That is very well put, and exactly why I have wept with joy from time to time over the past few weeks. It really is an incredible milestone for this country.

Uh, DFTT folks.

So what are the chances the GOP will eventually run Arnold Schwarzenegger for President? And that the American electorate would lap this up as more hope and change?

“Yet another reason why marriage, rather than mere civil unions or domestic partnerships, is important.”

in .uk civil unions convey exactly the same legal rights, including inheriting, as marriage. yes, the naming convention is a sop to bigots, but it’s a good indicator that not being called ‘marriage’ doesn’t have to affect the actual rights associated with the process.

We are still waiting, however, for a woman of any ethnicity to become president, or even be a major-party candidate. This is more glaring given that the number of female governors and senators (the usual presidential recruitment pool) is much greater than the number of non-white males in that set.

Obama had committed himself to overturn DOMA, and Biden’s VP debate claims would require that. Greenwald has a good piece on this.

Regarding marriage vs. civil union, lots of people think it’s silly to insist we give exactly identical legal rights to two different types of marriage-like entities without calling them the same thing.

We already do that with marriage-like entities that are already called “marriage” — different states in the U.S. have different laws regarding marriage. In some places, a man can marry a 16-year-old girl. In others, not. The differences are virtually endless.

I’ve long thought that the best way around this impasse would be for gay rights activists to:

— Accept civil unions as the practical status quo solution.
— Work to make the law regarding civil unions as uniform as possible around the U.S.
— Then work to make civil unions a better deal than marriage, for most people.

Basically, when most straight couples are signing civil union papers down at city hall, for all the advantages, but saying “married” in casual conversation, you’ve won.

Until that day, when cultural conservatives complain that step 3 means “gays are privileged”, you come right back with this: “What the hell are you talking about? Nobody’s preventing you from entering into a civil union. In fact, precisely because we’re so considerate of everybody’s basic human rights, we’ve lobbied strongly for the ability to convert a marriage directly to a civil union, the same day, without even getting divorced first. Divorce can be so wrenching, you know. Traumatic for the kids.”

Of course, then you’ll get hit with, “But I don’t want to have to say I’m the ‘domestic partner’ of somebody, for various legal purposes, in order to get all the same rights you have with civil unions.”

That’s when you get to roll your eyes, sigh, shake your head sadly, and respond, “Oh, that objection is just so —gay.”

>> civil partnerships may not happen in a church or other place of worship, and must be conducted in a strictly secular fashion.

It may have changed. I am not one of Her Majesty’s subjects. But isn’t the crown the head of the church as well? In which case that makes sense. Toleration of being a-religious is secondary to acceptance of the state church.