But what the heck / You're welcome / Join us at the picnic ...
August 31, 2007 12:06 AM Subscribe
The latest [phyrric] victory for gay rights occurs in ... Iowa?
Yup. Their going to put this on the ballot in '08 and the Repubs will sweep every office in Iowa down to dog catcher.
posted by Avenger at 12:12 AM on August 31, 2007
Yup. Their going to put this on the ballot in '08 and the Repubs will sweep every office in Iowa down to dog catcher.
posted by Avenger at 12:12 AM on August 31, 2007
Interesting survey:
In a 2005 Nicholas Institute project, respondents were asked if they would vote for a candidate who did not share their views on a particular issue. Even self-described environmentalists place gay marriage, abortion, and illegal immigration higher than the environment.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:13 AM on August 31, 2007
In a 2005 Nicholas Institute project, respondents were asked if they would vote for a candidate who did not share their views on a particular issue. Even self-described environmentalists place gay marriage, abortion, and illegal immigration higher than the environment.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:13 AM on August 31, 2007
You know, I think that this will be worked out with civil unions. This is how far this stuff has come in the last few years. 2004 was the farthest the bad guys will ever go. Rollback from here on out.
As for a GOP sweep in Iowa based on this? Not the Iowa I know.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:15 AM on August 31, 2007
As for a GOP sweep in Iowa based on this? Not the Iowa I know.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:15 AM on August 31, 2007
Good for that judge, I guess, and good for gays temporarily, until the homophobes use it to rush through a state constitutional amendment. Whatever, same old game for another 10 years, I figure, until a U.S. Supreme Court that includes a couple of justices with gay kids finally acknowledges that the law should apply equally to everyone.
That said, I still hate that marriage has crowded all other gay rights issues off the table, and think if politicians would first focus on job discrimation protection, we could actually get something accomplished in moving the country forward to full acceptance. The focus on marriage in the U.S. has made the path a lot longer and harder than it should have been if we'd focused on the workplace first.
posted by mediareport at 12:19 AM on August 31, 2007
That said, I still hate that marriage has crowded all other gay rights issues off the table, and think if politicians would first focus on job discrimation protection, we could actually get something accomplished in moving the country forward to full acceptance. The focus on marriage in the U.S. has made the path a lot longer and harder than it should have been if we'd focused on the workplace first.
posted by mediareport at 12:19 AM on August 31, 2007
Maybe so, Avenger, but maybe not. Here in Arizona we finally defeated an anti-gay initiative in 2006, and elected a couple more democratic congresscritters to boot. Doesn't mean Iowa will play the same way, of course, but Arizona isn't exactly Massachusetts.
And personally, I'm tired of hearing that I have to wait for a more favorable political climate to try to get equal rights. There comes a point where I have to stop being a pragmatist and start simply being against injustice.
posted by kyrademon at 12:23 AM on August 31, 2007 [7 favorites]
And personally, I'm tired of hearing that I have to wait for a more favorable political climate to try to get equal rights. There comes a point where I have to stop being a pragmatist and start simply being against injustice.
posted by kyrademon at 12:23 AM on August 31, 2007 [7 favorites]
Just to add to Avenger's cynicism, I was wondering today when the GOP would pull out its tried and true gay-panic meme to combat the Larry Craig body blow.
And here it is!
posted by bardic at 12:35 AM on August 31, 2007
And here it is!
posted by bardic at 12:35 AM on August 31, 2007
(It's a good decision, obviously, but I'm none too excited for the whole Craig thing to be brushed under the carpet. But at least immigration is no longer a valid part of the Republican playbook.)
posted by bardic at 12:37 AM on August 31, 2007
posted by bardic at 12:37 AM on August 31, 2007
Maybe so, Avenger, but maybe not. Here in Arizona we finally defeated an anti-gay initiative in 2006, and elected a couple more democratic congresscritters to boot. Doesn't mean Iowa will play the same way, of course, but Arizona isn't exactly Massachusetts.
I hope you're right. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but your state has been the only one so far that refused to ban equal protection in it's constitution when it's come up for a vote. Even my pinko, liberal home state of CA voted overwhelmingly to ban equal protection.
I guess I've just lost faith in the American people to do the right thing. Another casualty in the culture wars, I guess.
posted by Avenger at 12:41 AM on August 31, 2007
I hope you're right. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but your state has been the only one so far that refused to ban equal protection in it's constitution when it's come up for a vote. Even my pinko, liberal home state of CA voted overwhelmingly to ban equal protection.
I guess I've just lost faith in the American people to do the right thing. Another casualty in the culture wars, I guess.
posted by Avenger at 12:41 AM on August 31, 2007
Ironmouth said: 2004 was the farthest the bad guys will ever go.
I hope you're right. But, sometimes I worry that the bad guys are at their most dangerous just when we think they're losing ground. I won't breathe a sigh of relief until after the 2008 elections.
posted by amyms at 12:53 AM on August 31, 2007
I hope you're right. But, sometimes I worry that the bad guys are at their most dangerous just when we think they're losing ground. I won't breathe a sigh of relief until after the 2008 elections.
posted by amyms at 12:53 AM on August 31, 2007
The Cornhole state.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:56 AM on August 31, 2007 [5 favorites]
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:56 AM on August 31, 2007 [5 favorites]
Time for a charm offensive. The courts can do their part, but the best way to guarantee that gay people will finally be officially covered by equal protection recognition is through the legislature.
posted by 1adam12 at 1:01 AM on August 31, 2007
posted by 1adam12 at 1:01 AM on August 31, 2007
Wow. Fantastically lame shot at irreverence, AV.
posted by polytropos at 1:13 AM on August 31, 2007
posted by polytropos at 1:13 AM on August 31, 2007
God, guns, gays and abortion. Must be an election around the corner.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 3:21 AM on August 31, 2007
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 3:21 AM on August 31, 2007
I'm not sure it'lll impact the election much.. many people have this "eww gay marriage" reaction.. but this turns into "oh yeah I forgot about that, how nice for them" once they notice it doesn't impact them.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:23 AM on August 31, 2007
posted by jeffburdges at 3:23 AM on August 31, 2007
I thought the cornhole gag was quite funny.
While still really, really, really not understanding at all why regular American folks get so hot under the collar about homosexuals.
posted by rhymer at 3:52 AM on August 31, 2007
While still really, really, really not understanding at all why regular American folks get so hot under the collar about homosexuals.
posted by rhymer at 3:52 AM on August 31, 2007
Well, for cynicism, I'm sure that the local Republican party will begin hounding the judge for "legislating from the bench", and all the other codewords they use to mean "doing his job and interperating the law".
The problem is that people like the grand, sweeping, phrases of freedom. "With liberty and justice for all", "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion"
Or, in this case, Article 1, section 6 of the Iowa constitution:
"All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens."
Sounds great, doesn't it? A good sweeping declaration that "equal" means equal, damnit. No special rights for some groups, no unequal laws, etc. And people love that stuff, it sounds fantastic and I'm sure that everyone, including the frothing at the mouth homobigots would say that they think section 6 is a great, fastastic, freedom endorsing part of the constitution.
Until, of course, a judge actually applies the damn thing as written to a law forbiding same sex marriage. Until he says, basically, "well look here people, it ain't enough to *talk* big about freedom and equality, you've got to actually apply the law equally", then they'll scream about judges making the law, and all their other dogwhistle phrases that mean "DANGER, FREEDOM FOR PEOPLE WE DON'T LIKE, DANGER".
The bad news is that, like so many state constitutions, Iowa only requires a simple majority of the voters to alter its basic law, and decide that some classes of people (ie: hetrosexuals) do, indeed, deserve special rights denied to others (ie: homosexuals).
So who knows, maybe the special rights for straights crowd will win. Any proposed ammendment has to get passed by a majority in the state ledge too, so maybe it'll get stopped there. One can hope anyway.
posted by sotonohito at 4:07 AM on August 31, 2007
The problem is that people like the grand, sweeping, phrases of freedom. "With liberty and justice for all", "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion"
Or, in this case, Article 1, section 6 of the Iowa constitution:
"All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens."
Sounds great, doesn't it? A good sweeping declaration that "equal" means equal, damnit. No special rights for some groups, no unequal laws, etc. And people love that stuff, it sounds fantastic and I'm sure that everyone, including the frothing at the mouth homobigots would say that they think section 6 is a great, fastastic, freedom endorsing part of the constitution.
Until, of course, a judge actually applies the damn thing as written to a law forbiding same sex marriage. Until he says, basically, "well look here people, it ain't enough to *talk* big about freedom and equality, you've got to actually apply the law equally", then they'll scream about judges making the law, and all their other dogwhistle phrases that mean "DANGER, FREEDOM FOR PEOPLE WE DON'T LIKE, DANGER".
The bad news is that, like so many state constitutions, Iowa only requires a simple majority of the voters to alter its basic law, and decide that some classes of people (ie: hetrosexuals) do, indeed, deserve special rights denied to others (ie: homosexuals).
So who knows, maybe the special rights for straights crowd will win. Any proposed ammendment has to get passed by a majority in the state ledge too, so maybe it'll get stopped there. One can hope anyway.
posted by sotonohito at 4:07 AM on August 31, 2007
...American folks get so hot under the collar about homosexuals.
You know how I know they're gay?
posted by psmealey at 4:16 AM on August 31, 2007
You know how I know they're gay?
posted by psmealey at 4:16 AM on August 31, 2007
Bravo that judge. Retiring soon is he?
Reversed in 5...4...3...2...
posted by pompomtom at 4:58 AM on August 31, 2007
Reversed in 5...4...3...2...
posted by pompomtom at 4:58 AM on August 31, 2007
House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, said the ruling illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," he said. "I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.
Recent history has clearly shown that anti-gay legislators are real cocksuckers.
posted by effwerd at 5:05 AM on August 31, 2007 [7 favorites]
"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," he said. "I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.
Recent history has clearly shown that anti-gay legislators are real cocksuckers.
posted by effwerd at 5:05 AM on August 31, 2007 [7 favorites]
posted by psmealey at 5:18 AM on August 31, 2007
stale onion.
posted by quonsar at 5:34 AM on August 31, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by quonsar at 5:34 AM on August 31, 2007 [1 favorite]
Just noticed the title. Good call.
"They're sucking cock in I-o-wayyyyy...."
Bravo for:
1. This action. Bout time.
2. AV's cornhole joke.
3. The "Music Man" reference in the title.
This may end up being a good day.
posted by grubi at 5:50 AM on August 31, 2007
"They're sucking cock in I-o-wayyyyy...."
Bravo for:
1. This action. Bout time.
2. AV's cornhole joke.
3. The "Music Man" reference in the title.
This may end up being a good day.
posted by grubi at 5:50 AM on August 31, 2007
Wish it weren't so, but this will be a big rallying (and fundraising) point for the Christian right. I mean, what else have they got?
Whether the rallying will work is another matter, but there are ballot measures circulating in a number of states for the 2008 ballot that would do exactly what the Iowa ban does (or did before the judge struck it down). I live in CA and there are no fewer than four ballot measures circulating for 2008 that would not only ban same-sex marriage but civil unions, hospital visitation rights, you name it.
posted by blucevalo at 6:03 AM on August 31, 2007
Whether the rallying will work is another matter, but there are ballot measures circulating in a number of states for the 2008 ballot that would do exactly what the Iowa ban does (or did before the judge struck it down). I live in CA and there are no fewer than four ballot measures circulating for 2008 that would not only ban same-sex marriage but civil unions, hospital visitation rights, you name it.
posted by blucevalo at 6:03 AM on August 31, 2007
You know, I think that this will be worked out with civil unions.
We already tried "Separate but Equal" in this country, it's illegal now.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:29 AM on August 31, 2007 [7 favorites]
We already tried "Separate but Equal" in this country, it's illegal now.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:29 AM on August 31, 2007 [7 favorites]
But, but, but...I already HAVE a big strapping farm boy all my own! Except he's not a farm boy, just Flemish. And we're already married! Except it's German Lebenspartnershaft.
As for those infernal Republican/Christians: Just hit them over the head with one Grecian urn, 2 Grecian urns, then trow them in a damn fountain!
posted by Goofyy at 6:31 AM on August 31, 2007
As for those infernal Republican/Christians: Just hit them over the head with one Grecian urn, 2 Grecian urns, then trow them in a damn fountain!
posted by Goofyy at 6:31 AM on August 31, 2007
Yup. Their going to put this on the ballot in '08 and the Repubs will sweep every office in Iowa down to dog catcher.
We don't have ballot initiatives here.
posted by delmoi at 6:38 AM on August 31, 2007
We don't have ballot initiatives here.
posted by delmoi at 6:38 AM on August 31, 2007
Actually the result of this will probably be a Civil Unions law here. This morning some guy was calling into a radio station saying he opposed gay marriage but had no problem giving them the civil unions and "all the rights." and that's actually how most Americans feel, IIRC.
posted by delmoi at 6:43 AM on August 31, 2007
posted by delmoi at 6:43 AM on August 31, 2007
delmoi, the reason people do that is because they have this imaginary idea that marriage is somehow tied to the supernatural. And oh, doncha know, Teh Gheys have no right to consort with the supernatural!
posted by grubi at 6:59 AM on August 31, 2007
posted by grubi at 6:59 AM on August 31, 2007
We already tried "Separate but Equal" in this country, it's illegal now.
Although I agree with you, strongly...
as a simple statement of interest, it should be noted that here in NJ, the (relatively young) civil unions law has pushed the legislature and the populace MUCH further towards full equality, because a) the world didn't end, and b) people are seeing that civil unions aren't working out.
You'll see me often on this site and others arguing that civil unions are insufficient, and they are. But, in NJ at least, they have had their tactical place, and I honestly think we'll be joining Massachusetts very shortly after the '08 election, if not before, due largely to the civil union law's being able to quash both the "but it'll be a disaster to let them be couples," and the "but civili unions are good enough, no need to call it marriage" arguments.
Keep in mind though, we're New Jersey. Even our Republicans tend to be, if not pro-equality, at least not outright anti-gay.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 6:59 AM on August 31, 2007 [3 favorites]
Although I agree with you, strongly...
as a simple statement of interest, it should be noted that here in NJ, the (relatively young) civil unions law has pushed the legislature and the populace MUCH further towards full equality, because a) the world didn't end, and b) people are seeing that civil unions aren't working out.
You'll see me often on this site and others arguing that civil unions are insufficient, and they are. But, in NJ at least, they have had their tactical place, and I honestly think we'll be joining Massachusetts very shortly after the '08 election, if not before, due largely to the civil union law's being able to quash both the "but it'll be a disaster to let them be couples," and the "but civili unions are good enough, no need to call it marriage" arguments.
Keep in mind though, we're New Jersey. Even our Republicans tend to be, if not pro-equality, at least not outright anti-gay.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 6:59 AM on August 31, 2007 [3 favorites]
The real winner is going to be the first state that creates a form of civil union that's available to any two consenting adults who wish to form a life partnership, and leaves the whole nonsense of "marriage" to the god-botherers.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:09 AM on August 31, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:09 AM on August 31, 2007 [4 favorites]
What FOB said. I consider Civil Unions and Marriages to be two different things; unions should just be the legal/financial contract and marriage is the personal/community/religious commitment between two people.
posted by octothorpe at 7:26 AM on August 31, 2007
posted by octothorpe at 7:26 AM on August 31, 2007
I'm using tabbed browsing in Safari, and the article's title in the tab appears as, "Judge strikes down low..."
(I wonder if the judge's name was Tucker Carlson?)
posted by the_bone at 7:28 AM on August 31, 2007
(I wonder if the judge's name was Tucker Carlson?)
posted by the_bone at 7:28 AM on August 31, 2007
We already tried "Separate but Equal" in this country, it's illegal now.
Separate But Equal Marriage
posted by flarbuse at 7:39 AM on August 31, 2007 [2 favorites]
Separate But Equal Marriage
posted by flarbuse at 7:39 AM on August 31, 2007 [2 favorites]
Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue is not for a judge to decide.
Then who gets to decide, genius?
posted by quarter waters and a bag of chips at 8:03 AM on August 31, 2007
Then who gets to decide, genius?
posted by quarter waters and a bag of chips at 8:03 AM on August 31, 2007
There's normally a three-day wait on marriage licenses in Iowa, but apparently a judge has been waiving that this morning.
Here's the developing story in the Des Moines Register.
posted by mikeh at 8:05 AM on August 31, 2007
Here's the developing story in the Des Moines Register.
posted by mikeh at 8:05 AM on August 31, 2007
While this makes me gosh darn proud of my home state, the homophobic assholes commenting on that Register thread are reminding me of why I left.
posted by idigress at 8:22 AM on August 31, 2007
posted by idigress at 8:22 AM on August 31, 2007
The DM Register has some of the most hilarious trolling known to man in their comments, though. Any news article will turn into a debate on gun control or illegal immigration within three comments! I actually have a friend who sarcastically does so for fun occasionally.
posted by mikeh at 8:42 AM on August 31, 2007
posted by mikeh at 8:42 AM on August 31, 2007
Romney bashes Iowa judge for striking down ban on gay marriage.
posted by ericb at 9:35 AM on August 31, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by ericb at 9:35 AM on August 31, 2007 [1 favorite]
I thought the comments on the Register were overwhelmingly positive. Congrats indeed, Iowa! I'm surprised but incredibly pleased.
posted by agregoli at 9:35 AM on August 31, 2007
posted by agregoli at 9:35 AM on August 31, 2007
Romney bashes Iowa judge for striking down ban on gay marriage.
Flip Romney in 1994:
posted by ericb at 9:45 AM on August 31, 2007 [2 favorites]
Flip Romney in 1994:
"For some voters, it might be enough to simply match my opponent's record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent [Senator Ted Kennedy] cannot do this. I can and will.... I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party, and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts"Fuck you, you opportunist!
posted by ericb at 9:45 AM on August 31, 2007 [2 favorites]
delmoi: We don't have ballot initiatives here.
Well that'll teach me for assuming the rest of the country is like California.
Seriously, though, there is a fine balance between short-term victories and long-term goals. Take Roe v. Wade, for example. Short term: women can have abortions (and yes, I'm saying that 40+ years is "short term"). Long term: It can be completely reversed if 5 of the right (or wrong) type of judges are appointed to the bench. Imagine a bloc of 5 young, right-wing judges keeping abortion illegal in America for the rest of their lives. At that point, the only way abortion would be legal is through Constitutional amendment, which is extremely unlikely.
So Roe might have been a spectacular short-term victory for women, but extremely unstable and perhaps ultimately doomed in the long run. Would it have been worth it, then? Would it have been better to wait for pro-choice legislation to slowly creep it's way towards legality? Something that might have taken away the massive, multi-billion dollar fundraising opportunity for the Right that Roe became?
Same thing for these kinds of gay marriages. If the short-term result is six couples getting married, then great. But what if the long-term consequences is a decades-long national backlash against LGBT folk? Would it have been worth it? Are six marriages in Iowa worth a Federal Marriage Amendment that could literally last for a hundred years?
posted by Avenger at 10:05 AM on August 31, 2007
Well that'll teach me for assuming the rest of the country is like California.
Seriously, though, there is a fine balance between short-term victories and long-term goals. Take Roe v. Wade, for example. Short term: women can have abortions (and yes, I'm saying that 40+ years is "short term"). Long term: It can be completely reversed if 5 of the right (or wrong) type of judges are appointed to the bench. Imagine a bloc of 5 young, right-wing judges keeping abortion illegal in America for the rest of their lives. At that point, the only way abortion would be legal is through Constitutional amendment, which is extremely unlikely.
So Roe might have been a spectacular short-term victory for women, but extremely unstable and perhaps ultimately doomed in the long run. Would it have been worth it, then? Would it have been better to wait for pro-choice legislation to slowly creep it's way towards legality? Something that might have taken away the massive, multi-billion dollar fundraising opportunity for the Right that Roe became?
Same thing for these kinds of gay marriages. If the short-term result is six couples getting married, then great. But what if the long-term consequences is a decades-long national backlash against LGBT folk? Would it have been worth it? Are six marriages in Iowa worth a Federal Marriage Amendment that could literally last for a hundred years?
posted by Avenger at 10:05 AM on August 31, 2007
Well, in that case, I'm not married. I'm civil onioned. Er, unioned.
posted by grubi at 10:14 AM on August 31, 2007
posted by grubi at 10:14 AM on August 31, 2007
Bravo for the judge!
I did like the caption on the photo to the left, though:
Reuters Photo: A man puts a wedding ring on his partner's finger in a file photo. Gay...
posted by Arch_Stanton at 10:22 AM on August 31, 2007
I did like the caption on the photo to the left, though:
Reuters Photo: A man puts a wedding ring on his partner's finger in a file photo. Gay...
posted by Arch_Stanton at 10:22 AM on August 31, 2007
I'm not terribly surprised to hear of this happening in Iowa.
While the state definitely leans conservative, it's remarkably progressive in some ways. Old Tom Harkin has a pretty solid lock on his Senate seat despite being a fairly outspoken liberal. And while the state voted for Bush in 2004, Iowa's electoral votes went to Gore and Clinton in 2000, 1996 and 1992.
And while Republicans will undoubtedly try to use this to their advantage, remember the old saying: As Iowa goes, so goes the nation!
posted by aladfar at 10:53 AM on August 31, 2007
While the state definitely leans conservative, it's remarkably progressive in some ways. Old Tom Harkin has a pretty solid lock on his Senate seat despite being a fairly outspoken liberal. And while the state voted for Bush in 2004, Iowa's electoral votes went to Gore and Clinton in 2000, 1996 and 1992.
And while Republicans will undoubtedly try to use this to their advantage, remember the old saying: As Iowa goes, so goes the nation!
posted by aladfar at 10:53 AM on August 31, 2007
the spitting, red-faced apoplexy of the iowa christers this morning is like distant violin music.
some of us have just one small reservation about gay marriage: once they start filing joint tax returns, they'll save money and our taxes will have to go up to even it out. i suspect there's a counterargument to this involving greater economies and efficiencies flowing to all from gay marriage, but i've never heard it made. somebody out there who knows more than i do should write a book gay marriage: a revenue-positive proposition for straight taxpayers. if such a book achieved wide circulation in the trailer parks, it could be the decisive element in the controversy.
final kulturkampf shot: i am not aware that there have ever been any gay marriages in europe (haven't googled, could just be ignorant). we hear incessantly that europe is so much more worldly, sophisticated, cosmopolitan, civilized than we benighted barbarians over here. could it possibly be that europe is now exceeded in these properties by des moines, iowa??
posted by bruce at 11:14 AM on August 31, 2007
some of us have just one small reservation about gay marriage: once they start filing joint tax returns, they'll save money and our taxes will have to go up to even it out. i suspect there's a counterargument to this involving greater economies and efficiencies flowing to all from gay marriage, but i've never heard it made. somebody out there who knows more than i do should write a book gay marriage: a revenue-positive proposition for straight taxpayers. if such a book achieved wide circulation in the trailer parks, it could be the decisive element in the controversy.
final kulturkampf shot: i am not aware that there have ever been any gay marriages in europe (haven't googled, could just be ignorant). we hear incessantly that europe is so much more worldly, sophisticated, cosmopolitan, civilized than we benighted barbarians over here. could it possibly be that europe is now exceeded in these properties by des moines, iowa??
posted by bruce at 11:14 AM on August 31, 2007
*adds Iowa to list of places to visit*
If the short-term result is six couples getting married, then great. But what if the long-term consequences is a decades-long national backlash against LGBT folk? Would it have been worth it? Are six marriages in Iowa worth a Federal Marriage Amendment that could literally last for a hundred years?
I agree with you somewhat. I agree that some of the short-term gains sometimes seem dicey, but the erosion of social stigma should be factored in as well. Greater visibility and legal gains increase acceptance and understanding in addition to the risk of a backlash. The problem is being unable to predict which actions will promote enough positive social change to be worth the risk of the backlash, or even to weaken it.
bruce: Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands, if I recall correctly.
posted by Tehanu at 11:20 AM on August 31, 2007
If the short-term result is six couples getting married, then great. But what if the long-term consequences is a decades-long national backlash against LGBT folk? Would it have been worth it? Are six marriages in Iowa worth a Federal Marriage Amendment that could literally last for a hundred years?
I agree with you somewhat. I agree that some of the short-term gains sometimes seem dicey, but the erosion of social stigma should be factored in as well. Greater visibility and legal gains increase acceptance and understanding in addition to the risk of a backlash. The problem is being unable to predict which actions will promote enough positive social change to be worth the risk of the backlash, or even to weaken it.
bruce: Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands, if I recall correctly.
posted by Tehanu at 11:20 AM on August 31, 2007
Sorry, bruce--something like it is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and (Catholic!) Spain at the very least.
kyrademon, I'm with you ...
posted by wintersweet at 11:23 AM on August 31, 2007
kyrademon, I'm with you ...
posted by wintersweet at 11:23 AM on August 31, 2007
there is a fine balance between short-term victories and long-term goals.
Long-term goals require an organization, a movement. Short-term goals require individuals dedicated to changing their own lives.
If the short-term result is six couples getting married, then great. But what if the long-term consequences is a decades-long national backlash against LGBT folk?
This corrosive realpolitik calculation is, in my own opinion, the biggest threat to any sort of forward movement. The time isn't right for gay marriage? When will it be right, then? How many people should sacrifice their rights now, for the sake of this future?
posted by me & my monkey at 11:32 AM on August 31, 2007 [3 favorites]
Long-term goals require an organization, a movement. Short-term goals require individuals dedicated to changing their own lives.
If the short-term result is six couples getting married, then great. But what if the long-term consequences is a decades-long national backlash against LGBT folk?
This corrosive realpolitik calculation is, in my own opinion, the biggest threat to any sort of forward movement. The time isn't right for gay marriage? When will it be right, then? How many people should sacrifice their rights now, for the sake of this future?
posted by me & my monkey at 11:32 AM on August 31, 2007 [3 favorites]
And personally, I'm tired of hearing that I have to wait for a more favorable political climate to try to get equal rights. There comes a point where I have to stop being a pragmatist and start simply being against injustice.
I have sympathy for this feeling, but suspect that it will lead to a bad outcome for future generations of gays and lesbians. They may prefer that you stay a pragmatist.
You (and I) can and should be fighting for equal rights now, but part of that fight is laying the social groundwork and another part of that fight is having a very good strategy. My fear is that without these two elements, we are creating the environment for a Jim Crow era of anti-gay discrimination in the States, rather than creating a new era of civil rights for LGBT's.
There are a majority of Americans in a majority of the States who don't want gays and lesbians to marry. Until we convince them otherwise, they'll pass laws and constitutional amendments that will be very hard to eliminate in coming years (again, think Jim Crow, which was a reaction to a failed civil rights movement).
I don't think that legal action in States with a large rural population will erode the social stigma of homosexuality. Social action will erode the stigma. This means that the true vanguard are the gays and lesbians outside of liberal enclaves who show their families and neighbors that they meet all the responsibilities a community could ask, and thus deserve all the rights.
In the meantime, gay and lesbian advocacy groups have to pick legal battles that they will likely win. This, too, will show that gay rights aren't a threat.
I doubt the Iowa decision is more than a temporary victory, but will be very happy if I'm proven wrong.
posted by ferdydurke at 11:48 AM on August 31, 2007
I have sympathy for this feeling, but suspect that it will lead to a bad outcome for future generations of gays and lesbians. They may prefer that you stay a pragmatist.
You (and I) can and should be fighting for equal rights now, but part of that fight is laying the social groundwork and another part of that fight is having a very good strategy. My fear is that without these two elements, we are creating the environment for a Jim Crow era of anti-gay discrimination in the States, rather than creating a new era of civil rights for LGBT's.
There are a majority of Americans in a majority of the States who don't want gays and lesbians to marry. Until we convince them otherwise, they'll pass laws and constitutional amendments that will be very hard to eliminate in coming years (again, think Jim Crow, which was a reaction to a failed civil rights movement).
I don't think that legal action in States with a large rural population will erode the social stigma of homosexuality. Social action will erode the stigma. This means that the true vanguard are the gays and lesbians outside of liberal enclaves who show their families and neighbors that they meet all the responsibilities a community could ask, and thus deserve all the rights.
In the meantime, gay and lesbian advocacy groups have to pick legal battles that they will likely win. This, too, will show that gay rights aren't a threat.
I doubt the Iowa decision is more than a temporary victory, but will be very happy if I'm proven wrong.
posted by ferdydurke at 11:48 AM on August 31, 2007
So, the latest I see today is that the first gay couple get married in Iowa. But already the judge has apparently issued a verbal stay of the ruling. So no more licenses will be issued, probably, until it's appealed to some level.
Avenger: To say that Roe has been anything but a good thing for woman is incorrect. By your logic the Brown v. Board might just be a "short term" good thing for blacks because if the correct 5 justices join the court, schools could be completely segregated again.
So far, it appears that court cases ruling in favor of marriage rights are only advancing the rights in questions. Since everything start happening Massachusetts and other states, the overall support level among the population has only increased. The states that have passed constitutional amendments and other laws banning gay marriage were already states that were against it.
posted by skynxnex at 11:55 AM on August 31, 2007
Avenger: To say that Roe has been anything but a good thing for woman is incorrect. By your logic the Brown v. Board might just be a "short term" good thing for blacks because if the correct 5 justices join the court, schools could be completely segregated again.
So far, it appears that court cases ruling in favor of marriage rights are only advancing the rights in questions. Since everything start happening Massachusetts and other states, the overall support level among the population has only increased. The states that have passed constitutional amendments and other laws banning gay marriage were already states that were against it.
posted by skynxnex at 11:55 AM on August 31, 2007
Ugh, I have to agree that the time is NOW and has been now for gays to have the right to marry. No one has to "prove" or convince any bigot that they deserve equal rights with them. Especially since there is religious basis for this ugliness against gay people, a large contingent of Americans will NEVER change their minds about gay marriage.
posted by agregoli at 11:56 AM on August 31, 2007
posted by agregoli at 11:56 AM on August 31, 2007
You're right, we should hold out on gay marriage until later, when everyone will be either for it or at least apathetic so it'll become a legal normality incredibly easily. I'm sure there is a magical point in the future where this will happen with no public uproar or dissension, and it is undoubtedly within my lifetime.
(intense, intense sarcasm above)
posted by mikeh at 12:02 PM on August 31, 2007
(intense, intense sarcasm above)
posted by mikeh at 12:02 PM on August 31, 2007
Just to bring up my pet issue: I don't want marriage legalized for same-sex couples, I want civil unions legalized for opposite-sex ones.
Marriage is a religious tradition, (hence all the "grar grar no gays" in the first place) and our government has no business sanctioning it. I'm an atheist; I don't want a marriage. I also don't want some separate-but-equal bullshit. Take the value and tradition label off the thing.
/one half of a hetero pair who's gonna have to live with a commitment ceremony and no legal status
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:07 PM on August 31, 2007
Marriage is a religious tradition, (hence all the "grar grar no gays" in the first place) and our government has no business sanctioning it. I'm an atheist; I don't want a marriage. I also don't want some separate-but-equal bullshit. Take the value and tradition label off the thing.
/one half of a hetero pair who's gonna have to live with a commitment ceremony and no legal status
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:07 PM on August 31, 2007
But I still like my slogan "No marriage till gay marriage" to get the point across.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:08 PM on August 31, 2007
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:08 PM on August 31, 2007
skynxnex wrote: "To say that Roe has been anything but a good thing for woman is incorrect. By your logic the Brown v. Board might just be a "short term" good thing for blacks because if the correct 5 justices join the court, schools could be completely segregated again."
Actually, you've done a good job illustrating just how precarious all of our previous Civil Rights advances have been. We liberals have used the USSC as a way to bring about social change (for the better, I believe), but the longevity of that social change rests completely on the shoulders of sympathetic judges.
If and when those judges are replaced by less sympathetic ones, civil rights (for gays, blacks and everyone else) will be in for a world of hurt.
I guess I'm just saying that people hoping for more civil rights have "bet the farm" on the continued liberalty of our judicial system, but it doesn't seem like a sure bet to me.
posted by Avenger at 12:29 PM on August 31, 2007
Actually, you've done a good job illustrating just how precarious all of our previous Civil Rights advances have been. We liberals have used the USSC as a way to bring about social change (for the better, I believe), but the longevity of that social change rests completely on the shoulders of sympathetic judges.
If and when those judges are replaced by less sympathetic ones, civil rights (for gays, blacks and everyone else) will be in for a world of hurt.
I guess I'm just saying that people hoping for more civil rights have "bet the farm" on the continued liberalty of our judicial system, but it doesn't seem like a sure bet to me.
posted by Avenger at 12:29 PM on August 31, 2007
But what if the long-term consequences is a decades-long national backlash against LGBT folk?
What if the long-term consequences of the civil rights movement in the 1960s was the wholesale slaughter of African-Americans? It probably wasn't what you would call wholesale, but it was nevertheless pretty brutal, and because of those early risks to life and limb, support for it increased and even the most backwards part of the country moved past it and accepted the changes.
I think the point is that you have to start somewhere, and start boldly. Not doing anything and hoping attitudes and laws will miraculously change due to the next Will & Grace-type tv series ain't going to cut it.
posted by psmealey at 12:34 PM on August 31, 2007 [1 favorite]
What if the long-term consequences of the civil rights movement in the 1960s was the wholesale slaughter of African-Americans? It probably wasn't what you would call wholesale, but it was nevertheless pretty brutal, and because of those early risks to life and limb, support for it increased and even the most backwards part of the country moved past it and accepted the changes.
I think the point is that you have to start somewhere, and start boldly. Not doing anything and hoping attitudes and laws will miraculously change due to the next Will & Grace-type tv series ain't going to cut it.
posted by psmealey at 12:34 PM on August 31, 2007 [1 favorite]
Avenger: I guess I'm just saying that people hoping for more civil rights have "bet the farm" on the continued liberalty of our judicial system, but it doesn't seem like a sure bet to me.
What's your alternative? Attempting to pass constitutional amendments? So we'd only have the civil rights that have, in all likelihood, more than 70% support in America?
posted by skynxnex at 12:47 PM on August 31, 2007
What's your alternative? Attempting to pass constitutional amendments? So we'd only have the civil rights that have, in all likelihood, more than 70% support in America?
posted by skynxnex at 12:47 PM on August 31, 2007
Marriage is a religious tradition, (hence all the "grar grar no gays" in the first place) and our government has no business sanctioning it.
Historically and legally incorrect. This is the lie we've been sold, the lie used to justify barring interracial marriages pre-Loving, the lie used to justify marriage inequality today. Don't believe the hype, and don't advocate for some nonsense separate but equal dismantling of a perfectly working system in order to placate religious bigotry.
posted by Dreama at 12:55 PM on August 31, 2007 [1 favorite]
Historically and legally incorrect. This is the lie we've been sold, the lie used to justify barring interracial marriages pre-Loving, the lie used to justify marriage inequality today. Don't believe the hype, and don't advocate for some nonsense separate but equal dismantling of a perfectly working system in order to placate religious bigotry.
posted by Dreama at 12:55 PM on August 31, 2007 [1 favorite]
Dreama: you clearly did not understand my comment, unless you care calling my wish for a civil union with my boyfriend an act of bigotry.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:59 PM on August 31, 2007
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:59 PM on August 31, 2007
Dreama: I don't think what is being advocated is a "seperate but equal" idea, more that ALL couples should have civil unions (giving them all the same rights, whether they are hetero- or homosexual), and that those couples which happen to be religious can then go and get "married" in the religious tradition of their choice. The latter action grants them no additional civil rights. Perhaps this is quibbling over semantics, but words have power in debates like these.
posted by Anduruna at 1:01 PM on August 31, 2007
posted by Anduruna at 1:01 PM on August 31, 2007
House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City
That name is somewhat apropos.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:09 PM on August 31, 2007
That name is somewhat apropos.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:09 PM on August 31, 2007
Yes, I find it odd that this simple solution is so far from our usual discussion of this contentious issue as to be so frequently misunderstood, showing how embedded marriage is in our culture, but anyway, essentially what I want is for our government (Federal especially) not to acknowledge marriage as a bond at all, but rather create some legal state of mutual power-of-attorney, etc. less tied to values, ideals and pre-historic tradition (which I think are nearly universally religious in nature). All adult pairs should have access to this same legal state.
The government doesn't treat bar mitzvahed boys as adults, now, do they?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:13 PM on August 31, 2007
The government doesn't treat bar mitzvahed boys as adults, now, do they?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:13 PM on August 31, 2007
(I'm the other half of AV's hetero pair)
Andurana, you're pretty much right on about our position. The state should have nothing to do with marriage, period. If it's socially beneficial to give tax breaks, power of attorney etc. to long-term monogamous couples, then that should done be through civil union, domestic partnership, or other arrangement that doesn't carry the cultural/religious baggage of Marriage. If people want to give away brides and exchange dowries and whatnot, that's fine, but government has no business getting involved.
Obviously this position ("abolish marriage") is even tougher to push in today's political climate than legalization of gay marriage, but there are a couple of ways I could see true equality coming about:
1) Civil Rights activists push for gay marriage, all-or-nothing, one state at a time, ultimately getting the issue before the Supreme Court, which rules in their favor.
2) We compromise and allow a "separate but equal" institution to be created and implemented under the name of Civil Unions or something similar. Activists then shift focus toward getting heterosexual couples to eschew Marriage in favor of the completely secular Civil Union which gives them the same rights. Marriage slowly becomes the domain of religious holdouts who, if we follow the path of other industrialized nations (please? can we?) will become less powerful as successive generations come of age.
California has a Domestic Partnership law that AV and I have looked into, but we aren't eligible due to our status as a heterosexual couple.
posted by contraption at 1:35 PM on August 31, 2007
Andurana, you're pretty much right on about our position. The state should have nothing to do with marriage, period. If it's socially beneficial to give tax breaks, power of attorney etc. to long-term monogamous couples, then that should done be through civil union, domestic partnership, or other arrangement that doesn't carry the cultural/religious baggage of Marriage. If people want to give away brides and exchange dowries and whatnot, that's fine, but government has no business getting involved.
Obviously this position ("abolish marriage") is even tougher to push in today's political climate than legalization of gay marriage, but there are a couple of ways I could see true equality coming about:
1) Civil Rights activists push for gay marriage, all-or-nothing, one state at a time, ultimately getting the issue before the Supreme Court, which rules in their favor.
2) We compromise and allow a "separate but equal" institution to be created and implemented under the name of Civil Unions or something similar. Activists then shift focus toward getting heterosexual couples to eschew Marriage in favor of the completely secular Civil Union which gives them the same rights. Marriage slowly becomes the domain of religious holdouts who, if we follow the path of other industrialized nations (please? can we?) will become less powerful as successive generations come of age.
California has a Domestic Partnership law that AV and I have looked into, but we aren't eligible due to our status as a heterosexual couple.
posted by contraption at 1:35 PM on August 31, 2007
Although I'm 100% in favor of gay marriage, I have to wonder a bit about the use of the term "rights" and people being "denied their rights". Is marriage in general a right? Isn't it a set of advantages extended by the state in terms of taxes and the ability of one partner to make decisions for the other, etc.?
For what it's worth, in Mexico, religious and civil marriage is totally separate, and the civil part is indeed a sort of civil union. Gay marriage is still not legal, but the Mexico City government bypassed that by making a new civil union law where any two or more people can create a contract of mutual power of attorney and the like, allowing not only gay people to do so, but people who are close friends, or in nontraditional family settings, etc.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:43 PM on August 31, 2007
For what it's worth, in Mexico, religious and civil marriage is totally separate, and the civil part is indeed a sort of civil union. Gay marriage is still not legal, but the Mexico City government bypassed that by making a new civil union law where any two or more people can create a contract of mutual power of attorney and the like, allowing not only gay people to do so, but people who are close friends, or in nontraditional family settings, etc.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:43 PM on August 31, 2007
omg and we're about to go to Mexico...
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:44 PM on August 31, 2007
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:44 PM on August 31, 2007
House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, said the ruling illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," he said. "I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.
Eponysterical.
And a dick.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:09 PM on August 31, 2007
"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," he said. "I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.
Eponysterical.
And a dick.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:09 PM on August 31, 2007
Joakim Ziegler -- would you consider any of the following to be rights?
Retaining guardianship of a child you have raised when you partner dies. Being legally able to stay in the house you have lived in for decades if your partner dies. The ability to visit your partner if they are jailed or hospitalized. Inheritance priority for legal next-of-kin. Medical power-of-attorney for legal next-of-kin if you are in a coma. Community property for shared household goods and monies in the event of separation. The ability to visit a child you have raised in the event of separation. Obtaining citizenship status for your partner and children. Sharing your medical insurance with your partner and children. Etc., etc., etc.
Marriage covers a lot of things.
posted by kyrademon at 2:25 PM on August 31, 2007 [2 favorites]
Retaining guardianship of a child you have raised when you partner dies. Being legally able to stay in the house you have lived in for decades if your partner dies. The ability to visit your partner if they are jailed or hospitalized. Inheritance priority for legal next-of-kin. Medical power-of-attorney for legal next-of-kin if you are in a coma. Community property for shared household goods and monies in the event of separation. The ability to visit a child you have raised in the event of separation. Obtaining citizenship status for your partner and children. Sharing your medical insurance with your partner and children. Etc., etc., etc.
Marriage covers a lot of things.
posted by kyrademon at 2:25 PM on August 31, 2007 [2 favorites]
kyrademon: Some of them I would, some of them I wouldn't, I think.
Retaining guardianship of a child and staying in a house, definitely, but I don't know if marriage should be a requirement for any of those anyway, you seem to be setting other parameters ("a child you have raised", "the house you have lived in for decades"), maybe those should be the basis of that, not marriage as such.
Inheritance priority is nice, but I'm not sure if it's a right. Nor is visiting people in jail or in a hospital. Community property is also nice, but is it a right? And so on.
In short, a lot of the stuff you're mentioning could be solved (or if it can't, it should be legal to solve) through contracts.
Also, legal civil unions for gay people would, as far as I can see, solve all of these. What "rights" are being denied to gay people if gay civil unions are legal, but marriage is not?
As I said, I'm in favor of gay marriage, I'm just not convinced that it's incredibly important that it be marriage and not civil unions. But I generally think that marriage in the eyes of the state should be replaced by general civil unions anyway, and churches and other people with weird supernatural beliefs can do "marriages" that have nothing to do with law or anything.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:33 PM on August 31, 2007
Retaining guardianship of a child and staying in a house, definitely, but I don't know if marriage should be a requirement for any of those anyway, you seem to be setting other parameters ("a child you have raised", "the house you have lived in for decades"), maybe those should be the basis of that, not marriage as such.
Inheritance priority is nice, but I'm not sure if it's a right. Nor is visiting people in jail or in a hospital. Community property is also nice, but is it a right? And so on.
In short, a lot of the stuff you're mentioning could be solved (or if it can't, it should be legal to solve) through contracts.
Also, legal civil unions for gay people would, as far as I can see, solve all of these. What "rights" are being denied to gay people if gay civil unions are legal, but marriage is not?
As I said, I'm in favor of gay marriage, I'm just not convinced that it's incredibly important that it be marriage and not civil unions. But I generally think that marriage in the eyes of the state should be replaced by general civil unions anyway, and churches and other people with weird supernatural beliefs can do "marriages" that have nothing to do with law or anything.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:33 PM on August 31, 2007
JZ - I don't really disagree with your position; I was simply pointing out that marriage, as currently constructed, *does* confer rights (you agreed that at least some of those were rights), and that therefore, some people are being denied those rights.
Frankly, marriage in the U.S. currently IS a civil union, for all intents and purposes. Does it necessarily need to be conducted by a religious figure? No, it can be done by a civil authority with no religious involvement of any kind. Does it legally confer special religious privileges? No, but it does involve a host of legal civil principles.
As a legal and practical matter, marriage is a way of declaring a non-blood relative your legal next-of-kin. The closest legal equivalent is adoption, which does the same thing for a parent/child relationship, rather than a relationship between two adults.
Many of the *restrictions* on who can get married are leftover baggage from periods when religious groups were in charge of it. But marriage itself in the U.S. is very much a civil matter.
Now, could all those rights and issues be taken care of with a host of other laws, or a new procedure? Sure, absolutely, and I guess I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as they applied to everyone equally (e.g., everyone can get a new procedure called a civil union, as some have argued for.) But I think extending the current legal process we have for those issues to makes just as much sense (everyone can get married, which ... legally really means exactly the same thing.)
The real issue isn't what it's called, but that everyone gets the same thing, at least in the end, rather than having two "separate but equal" processes. And whichever you call it, it *is* an issue of rights, as you yourself have admitted.
posted by kyrademon at 2:55 PM on August 31, 2007
Frankly, marriage in the U.S. currently IS a civil union, for all intents and purposes. Does it necessarily need to be conducted by a religious figure? No, it can be done by a civil authority with no religious involvement of any kind. Does it legally confer special religious privileges? No, but it does involve a host of legal civil principles.
As a legal and practical matter, marriage is a way of declaring a non-blood relative your legal next-of-kin. The closest legal equivalent is adoption, which does the same thing for a parent/child relationship, rather than a relationship between two adults.
Many of the *restrictions* on who can get married are leftover baggage from periods when religious groups were in charge of it. But marriage itself in the U.S. is very much a civil matter.
Now, could all those rights and issues be taken care of with a host of other laws, or a new procedure? Sure, absolutely, and I guess I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as they applied to everyone equally (e.g., everyone can get a new procedure called a civil union, as some have argued for.) But I think extending the current legal process we have for those issues to makes just as much sense (everyone can get married, which ... legally really means exactly the same thing.)
The real issue isn't what it's called, but that everyone gets the same thing, at least in the end, rather than having two "separate but equal" processes. And whichever you call it, it *is* an issue of rights, as you yourself have admitted.
posted by kyrademon at 2:55 PM on August 31, 2007
(Just to clarify, the main reason for not having "seperate but equal" processes is that history has shown repeatedy that those may be separate, but they sure don't end up being equal.)
posted by kyrademon at 2:57 PM on August 31, 2007
posted by kyrademon at 2:57 PM on August 31, 2007
In short, a lot of the stuff you're mentioning could be solved (or if it can't, it should be legal to solve) through contracts.
Getting those contracts individually can be quite tedious. There are a LOT of these contractual issues bound up within civil marriage. Marriage takes care of them all at once.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:06 PM on August 31, 2007
Getting those contracts individually can be quite tedious. There are a LOT of these contractual issues bound up within civil marriage. Marriage takes care of them all at once.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:06 PM on August 31, 2007
Getting those contracts individually can be quite tedious.
Not to mention you can't get some of them without the state's say so.
posted by aspo at 3:32 PM on August 31, 2007
Not to mention you can't get some of them without the state's say so.
posted by aspo at 3:32 PM on August 31, 2007
I'm just not convinced that it's incredibly important that it be marriage and not civil unions.
Separate is not equal, though. The Civil Union laws have been an immense failure here in NJ (though, ironically, they've been a huge help to gays in NJ, as I mentioned above, for that very reason, and the fact that NJ legitimately WANTED to make something equal, and the world just won't let it happen without the word marriage attached.)
I've stolen the below from Garden State Equality:
Separate is not equal, though. The Civil Union laws have been an immense failure here in NJ (though, ironically, they've been a huge help to gays in NJ, as I mentioned above, for that very reason, and the fact that NJ legitimately WANTED to make something equal, and the world just won't let it happen without the word marriage attached.)
I've stolen the below from Garden State Equality:
Failure rate of NJ civil unions growsposted by John Kenneth Fisher at 4:03 PM on August 31, 2007
As of today, five months after New Jersey’s Civil Union Law took effect, at least 1 in every 7 civil-unioned couples in New Jersey is being denied equal protection under the law.
In today’s meeting of the New Jersey Civil Unions Review Commission, the state registrar reported that 1,359 couples have gotten civil-unioned in New Jersey since the law took affect on February 19, 2007.
During the same five-month period, 191 civil-unioned couples have reported to Garden State Equality that their employers refuse to recognize their civil unions. That is a 14 percent, or 1 in 7, failure rate, at least.
During the first four months of the law, the failure rate had been at least 1 in 8, demonstrating that employers have not increased their acceptance of the law as they’ve become more familiar with it. Employers are actually becoming more resistant.
“What society would tolerate a law’s failing 1 in 7 times?” said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality. “If New Jersey’s Civil Unions Law were a person, it would be arrested for committing fraud.”
In fact, the law’s failure rate is likely way higher than 1 in 7 because the 191 couples encompass only those who have come to Garden State Equality. The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights reports it is hearing from 90 couples a month inquiring about problems with civil union implementation — which would be potentially 450 couples.
The Star-Ledger recently ran a front-page story, picked up by news organizations across the country, on how one company, United Parcel Service, refuses to provide equal benefits to civil-unioned employees in New Jersey even though UPS provides equal benefits to its employees in Massachusetts who are married to same-sex spouses there.
Today’s new numbers demonstrate that the failure of New Jersey’s civil unions law goes way beyond UPS. The 191 cases that have come to Garden State Equality involve almost 191 companies.
Many of these companies point to a provision in Federal law that allows them to ignore the laws of various states that recognize same-sex relationships. This begs the question: If Federal law is the problem, what difference would it make to call same-sex relationships “marriage” rather than “civil union”?
A big difference. The Washington Post recently did an investigation in which it reported that companies in Massachusetts are hardly ever using federal law as an excuse to deny equal benefits to same-sex couples married in that state. Even with the problem of federal law, same-sex couples married in Massachusetts, as that state’s law allows are getting equality. Civil-unioned couples in New Jersey are not.
“Month after month, as new statistics of the Civil Unions Law’s failure are released, there’s tragically no improvement in acceptance of the law,” said Goldstein. “Civil unions just don’t work in the real world. Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world consistently accepts. And the only way to New Jersey will ever see equality is to give same-sex and opposite sex couples the same freedom to marry.”
"Iowa gay marriage ruling stirs 2008 race"
posted by Avenger at 5:24 PM on August 31, 2007
Later, campaigning in South Carolina, Romney said he would renew his calls to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. "That's essential to our future," he said.And so it begins...
While Romney is willing to generally leave it to states to decide how to set up health care coverage plans, he said it shouldn't be left to states to decide same-sex marriage issues.
"It's a status that lasts a lifetime. And so, if somebody is married in one state and they move to another state, that status travels with them. And so, if you have gay marriage in one state, whether you want it or not, you have gay marriage in all states," Romney told reporters after speaking at a Greenville, S.C., restaurant.
Dianne Bystrom, director of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University, said the ruling could fire up social conservatives.
"It will probably stir up the social conservatives in the state and make the climate better in Iowa for the most socially conservative of the presidential candidates," she said. "That would be most of them, except (Rudy) Giuliani, I guess."
She said Romney can use the issue to dispel any lingering doubts about his commitment to social conservative causes.
posted by Avenger at 5:24 PM on August 31, 2007
skynxnex wrote: "What's your alternative? Attempting to pass constitutional amendments? So we'd only have the civil rights that have, in all likelihood, more than 70% support in America?"
There really isn't a course of action that doesn't have any drawbacks. The main drawback of the judicial route is that a change in the makeup of the judiciary could reverse all Civil Rights laws.
The main drawback of the Constitutional amendment route is that I'm not completely sure that 70% of Americans support Civil Rights for gays, or even for blacks. I'm honestly not sure that (for example) an amendment banning racial segregation and discrimination could get more than about 50 or 60% approval across the country.
So, honestly, I'm really not sure about the "right way" to do things, since it seems to me that there isn't any.
posted by Avenger at 5:31 PM on August 31, 2007
There really isn't a course of action that doesn't have any drawbacks. The main drawback of the judicial route is that a change in the makeup of the judiciary could reverse all Civil Rights laws.
The main drawback of the Constitutional amendment route is that I'm not completely sure that 70% of Americans support Civil Rights for gays, or even for blacks. I'm honestly not sure that (for example) an amendment banning racial segregation and discrimination could get more than about 50 or 60% approval across the country.
So, honestly, I'm really not sure about the "right way" to do things, since it seems to me that there isn't any.
posted by Avenger at 5:31 PM on August 31, 2007
What the heck is the government doing in the marriage business anyway?
posted by rockhopper at 5:53 PM on August 31, 2007
posted by rockhopper at 5:53 PM on August 31, 2007
So, honestly, I'm really not sure about the "right way" to do things, since it seems to me that there isn't any.
Seems a good model would be interracial marriage, since it's pretty much the exact same issue, with the hate-groups having the exact same objections to it.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 6:23 PM on August 31, 2007 [4 favorites]
Seems a good model would be interracial marriage, since it's pretty much the exact same issue, with the hate-groups having the exact same objections to it.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 6:23 PM on August 31, 2007 [4 favorites]
So, honestly, I'm really not sure about the "right way" to do things, since it seems to me that there isn't any.
The right way is for every individual to fight for what he or she believes is right. It's not only the right way, it's the only way. That's how change happens, not through carefully planned and orchestrated movements led by politically savvy pragmatists concerned about winning the next election and the one after that.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:47 PM on August 31, 2007
The right way is for every individual to fight for what he or she believes is right. It's not only the right way, it's the only way. That's how change happens, not through carefully planned and orchestrated movements led by politically savvy pragmatists concerned about winning the next election and the one after that.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:47 PM on August 31, 2007
« Older Inspired feelings of terror among the local... | Copyright Infringement Comes Full-Circle? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by delmoi at 12:11 AM on August 31, 2007