Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

Can you not dislike the way a group's way of trying to get those rights and thus not support them with your time/money but still ideologically support their rights?

I can say that I support civil rights for everyone but if I don't go out and donate my time and money there is little difference I'm making.

The "civil rights" movement of the past was successful because it involved people that were not black.

While there are people like yourself that are willing to say "well, since civil unions are not the same as marriages and since I want equal rights for everyone then I guess we should allow everyone to marry" I'm not willing to accept that way. I'd rather partake in the long and costly fight to take the religious institution of marriage out of the political arena and have civil unions for everyone which give everone same rights.

Sure, the fight will be a lot longer and some people might say that I can afford to do that since I'm not gay and I don't plan on marrying anyone of my own gender... but tough luck. That's how I see it.

I support gay marriage for ethical and religious reasons. I'm not nearly as concerned with defining it as a civil right as I am concerned with getting it legally recognized.

I would like to see Prop 8 overturned because it's wrong. On a number of levels.

I haven't really considered the idea of marriage as a civil right, until today. I'm not sure there is a "right" to marriage for anyone; it's like saying there's a "right" to baptism. But since the law is already involved, I don't think anyone should be barred from marriage by law - unless everyone is.

Now I'll try to give you my reasoning on the civil rights question, which is one I had not considered until today.

It seems to me that if legal recognition of marriage is wrong for some, it's wrong for all. If it's right for some, it's right for all. If the state stopped keeping records of marriages and divorces entirely, would that be denying the civil rights of citizens to marry? I'm not sure. I'd have to give it more thought. Right now I'm leaning towards no.

However, if the state said "only certain adults are allowed to vote. It should be all or nothing; therefore no one is allowed to vote," that does deny a civil right. Marriage, perhaps because of the muddle of state and religion, is not so clear to me. I can't draw a clear parallel.

But I don't need an answer to that question in order to know that I oppose Prop 8 on the grounds that it is discriminatory - a view I've held since the election.

then, in the spirit of good citizenship, I am sure you will voluntarily give up all the special privileges accorded you under the law, assuming you are married, of course.

Excellent post, Mellow Julia. Your thought process describes the reason I feel that the "M" word is the source of all the trouble. The government has no business identifying a contractual agreement with legal standing by invoking a religious term.

I wouldn't think of denying you your right to see it that way, kap. I'm expressing my opinion, not criticizing you for yours.

If we were still living in the days of American Apartheid, I would be similarly advocating for people of color to sit at White lunch counters, and I'd be sitting there with them. I wouldn't put you under any obligation to do so, and I'd be glad for whatever part you would play in the long and costly fight to make all lunch counters equally accessible to all people, even though as a White person you could afford to say "so what".

So I applaud your choice, kap. Please do partake of that fight!

Yes, Julia, we are on the same page. Possibly let me point out I am not claiming marriage is a civil right, but that equal treatment under the law is.

Certainly. As I will point out that it was neither you nor I who brought the term "civil rights" into the conversation.

...it was I who did (...as a result of Black Americans calling into KGO 8.10 San Francisco and stating that "gay rights" and marrying each other are not equal to their "civil rights" struggle.)

Which, of course it is not. But that is, as I have put forth, a misreading of the issue. See above.

Here's an idea, and I'm surprised I haven't posted it before now:

Take gay rights out of the argument.
Take civil rights out of the argument.

The problem is unequal treatment of married and single adults.

If, as I understand it, registering a marriage with the state is desirable because it bestows certain legal and/or financial rights -- then it's not the marriage that's the problem, it's the legal and financial benefits. If we are talking about discrimination, then legal benefits granted by the state to married people are legal benefits unfairly withheld from me as a single person.

Right now, I have to prepare legal forms, get witnesses, and distribute the completed forms to appropriate people so that if I'm hospitalized and can't make decisions, others can get medical information about me, and make decisions on my behalf. I shouldn't have to do that. I should make similar arrangemens about what happens to my body when I die. But if I was married, my spouse would have those rights without any paperwork. Estate rights could be handled the same way (all this in absence of other arrangements, wills, etc.)

I should be able to specify someone as a spouse, next-of-kin, whatever we want to call it, when I register to vote, or get a drivers' license, or pay taxes, to deal with these and other matters. Marriage doesn't need to be involved there.

My understanding (and I don't have a reference for this, sorry) is that some of these benefits came into play as a way to strengthen the nuclear family and thereby strengthen our society. But the nuclear family is no longer the norm (if it ever was.) It's time to re-think this whole idea.

The parentage of children should be identified through birth certificates or adoption papers. Marriage isn't required for this either. (For that matter, if I have a child, and two other people are willing to raise that child with me, why can't I list all three of us as parents?)

I see two main benefits here.

First, marriage can continue to be registered by the government. If no government benefits are attached, there's no discrimination. The onus of equal treatment lands back with the churches, who are the ones making decisions about who can marry. If a church performs a marriage, the government can record it if requested. No benefits attached. (There should be a governmental equivalent - like British registry offices. The records made by the government should be exactly the same for state and religious unions.)

Second, instead of fighting for change for a small portion of the citizenry, and having to deal with questions of so-called morality, the change would benefit all unmarried adults. Armed forces members who have estranged or deceased parents would certainly benefit. People who are over 21 but have not built families of their own would benefit. Widows and widowers. Suddenly you have a lot more people involved, and the question becomes one of fairness, rather than one of morality.

There is a strategic order in which each change would have to be made - but when they're all in, it would be fair.

Wild hairs before bedtime. Still, it's an interesting thought.

(This is not a response to Rick; it just got tagged that way.)