The AP on Minnesotans' views on marriage:
"...Ujay Gang of St. Paul regularly attends Nativity with his wife and two young children. He said, for him, the marriage amendment is about the definition. Other Nativity parishioners said they support the amendment but declined to comment on the record.
"I don't understand why the homosexuals are trying to redefine marriage," Gang said. "They should come up with their own word. They are pushing their view on others."
At the Pride Festival, Karen Ahern, a lesbian from Bloomington, agreed.
"It hits a nerve with the straight community," Ahern said. "They should call it 'unions' or something else. It's polarizing, and I know that people here will (have) a fit because I said that, but just get the thing done. Don't agitate people."
16 Comments
Yes! God Bless your li'l heart, Karen Ahern. It took real gumption to speak the truth and I hope you will stay true to it.
Civil unions with the same rights as marriage is fine to the gay community. The problem is civile unions are not equal and nom doesn't support them so yet again were in a fight for equal rights
yeah, they should be called Civil Unions but the important thing is they should not have all the rights of marriage, they should not have the sine non qua right that is exclusive and essential to marriage: the right to conceive offspring together.
Personally, I like the North Carolina approach — no unions for gays, and no easy way out for straight couples. You love someone? Then commit.
Civil Unions are fine. They should be afforded all the same legal protections as a Married couple minus the legal title of Marriage.
I respectfully beg to differ. My former best friend — and still a good friend — is gay. But I cannot assent to civil unions (although I don't suppose anyone but God is in control). Civil unions, and to a lesser extent domestic partnerships, are affirmations of a phenomenon that simply is not meant to be recognized by society.
While I follow the Bible, I don't believe our liberal (in the classical sense) society ought to be hanging persons engaged in sodomy. Nonetheless, society should not be affording legal recognition to such. When I can procure a "Certificate of Friendship" for me and my bosom buddy, then we can talk civil unions.
The problem with civil unions is that they've been used by the opposition as a Trojan horse. Whenever they've been implemented the opposition has used them as a legal stepping stone to redefine marriage.
It seems the opposition won't be satisfied until they redefine the word "marriage."
sounds A LOT like separate but equal, yeah? hmm...why don't we let history teach us a bit about how well that works out.
So if gay people came up with another word for their partnerships, NOM would stop fighting gay rights?
WRONG.
NOM is against gay people, period. This is not about marriage, it's about treating people with respect and equality. NOM wants to strip gay people of any and all legal rights, which is completely unconstitutional and unamerican.
@AD
"NOM wants to strip gay people of any and all legal rights"
Please document that assertion. Please show one legal brief where they have argued for that position. Please name one ad or press release that has advocated that policy.
Respect is earned, not coerced. Equality is already guaranteed. SSM is not a Constititionally protected right. SSM is extra constitutional, used only to forward divisive sexual identity politics, and that is in-American. But it is very Marxist.
Zack: "Civil Unions are fine. They should be afforded all the same legal protections as a Married couple minus the legal title of Marriage."
Actually, Zach, they should not be afforded the right to conceive offspring together. Civil Unions should not give the same approval and protection of the right to have sex and procreate offspring that marriage always has provided and should always provide. Civil Unions should be defined as "marriage minus conception rights."
Barbara, if they were defined this way, they could not be a stepping stone to marriage as long as procreation was limited to the union of a man and a woman using their unmodified gametes, which we also need to do with a federal law.
We need three laws:
1) prohibit creating people by any means other than natural conception of a man and a woman.
2) set the effect of marriage as approving and allowing the couple to conceive offspring together with their own genes.
3) give federal recognition of state Civil Unions if they are defined as "marriage minus conception rights."
So NOM has never tried to repeal civil unions? Like R-71 in WA state in 2009? Nice try.
"Civil Unions should not give the same approval and protection of the right to have sex and procreate offspring that marriage always has provided and should always provide."
John, this would not be a suitable compromise for ssm advocates. They can't have any law which rightly distinguishes marriages from same-sex pairings, no matter how different the unions truly are. They *need* to attach themselves in *every* way to the conjugal union.
A law which gives them benefits but doesn't pay due deference to their sexual practices will not suffice.
I like how Robert George explained it:
"It’s about sex. Those seeking to redefine marriage began by insisting that what they were fundamentally interested in was gaining needed benefits for same-sex domestic partners. Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships was necessary, they said, so that partners could visit each other in hospitals, extend employer-provided health insurance and other benefits to each other, and so forth. Some people who said this were, I’m sure, being sincere. Most, however, were not telling the truth. Their goal was to win official approbation for sodomy and other forms of sexual conduct that historically have been condemned as immoral and discouraged or even banned as a matter of law and public policy. The clear evidence for this is the refusal of most same-sex 'marriage' activists to accept civil unions and domestic partnership programs under which the benefits of marriage are extended, but which do not use the label 'marriage' or (and this is very important) predicate these benefits on the existence or presumption of a sexual relationship between the partners. So, it is not really about benefits. It is about sex."
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/07/381
The Netherlands has had ssm for years, but they were smart enough to not try and transform the presumption of paternity into a gender neutral construct. They rightly said that the law would become too divorced from reality if the state were to presume that a child born to a lesbian union resulted from both women.
Nevertheless, LGBTs are whining about not having "full equality" because the government won't pretend that a child resulted from two women engaging in sexual practices.
And, of course, the Iowa Supreme Court twisted the presumption of paternity several months ago saying that gays and lesbians must have "full access" to the institution of marriage. This happened at least two years after the imposition of ssm.
I understand that you post mainly focuses on the genetic engineering of children and conception rights, while my post is more so on parentage as a legal fact.
But my point in response to you is that SSMers are unreasonable, and will not accept any distinction between marriages and same-sex pairings, regardless of how deeply rooted in biology said distinctions are. And they will not settle for a status that doesn't give them praise for being involved with the same sex.
A legal status that gives them benefits without the name, or that leaves out sexual/filial notations, will not suffice. The ultimate horror for them would be if we extended benefits to same-sex couples but lumped them in with other family forms who don't have sexual/filial rights, such as two sisters.
I agree with you, by the way, on preventing the engineering of children.
Ash, of course they want full equality including equal conception rights together using genetic engineering, that's why this is a compromise: They give up the unreasonable demand for full equality and marriage and accept that their unions are different and unequal, but they get the federal recognition and recognition in more states that same-sex couples say they need.
We're not asking them, we are telling them that is the best deal they will get. Of course they will be profoundly unhappy to admit complete defeat on the demand for marriage, but they should be forced to explain why same-sex conception rights - which can't even be done and might never possible or practical - is a higher priority than security for same-sex couples in the form of federally recognized Civil Unions defined as "marriage minus conception rights."
So no more defeatism, Ash, time to take charge and tell them what suffices, we don't need their permission to stop SSM and preserve marriage.
"The ultimate horror for them would be if we extended benefits to same-sex couples but lumped them in with other family forms who don't have sexual/filial rights, such as two sisters."
Yes, and that's exactly what we need to do. Two sisters or even a brother and sister could get these Civil Unions defined as "marriage minus conception rights" because they wouldn't give state approval to have sex or conceive offspring together. Sex would still be illegal in these Civil Unions, whereas marriage always makes sex and conception legal.