?

Log in

No account? Create an account
the girl with violets in her lap [userpic]

July 14th, 2006 (01:08 pm)
morose
Tags:

current mood: srsly

Gay couples don't deserve the right to get married because they are... better parents than straight couples?

Excerpt:

[T]he New York court also put forth another argument, sometimes called the “reckless procreation” rationale. “Heterosexual intercourse,” the plurality opinion stated, “has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.” Gays become parents, the opinion said, in a variety of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, “but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse.”

Consequently, “the Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples... the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.”

...

Wow! Did you hear what the New York Supreme Court said, folks? They said it's not that gays aren't good enough to get married, it's that STRAIGHTS aren't good enough to NOT get married!

No one could ever accuse them of homophobia now.

::headdesk:: Seriously, people. Stop trying to play both sides of the fence, placating both the radical righties and your own uneasy feelings around homosexuality by keeping gay marriage illegal while pretending that you're totally absolutely 100% a-okay with gay people. You're not fooling anyone.

Comments

Posted by: rainswolf (rainswolf)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:17 pm (UTC)

It's so dumb how an argument that should be about equal rights has turned into a semantics game as to how exactly we should define "marriage." People's obsession with defining "marriage" has kept others from rights for years and years and will continue to do so.

I am starting to think we should call them "commitments" or whatever and get the rights and then in 30 years when the political climate has changed we can worry about redefining "marriage."

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:20 pm (UTC)

Frankly, it's not such a bad idea. Separate but equal sucks, for sure, but people forget that separate but equal in terms of civil rights, though it was abused horrendously, was nevertheless a political stepping-stone. I'm not defending the history of separate-but-equal bullshit in civil rights legislation, just pointing out that full equality often doesn't come overnight, or in one step.

Posted by: rainswolf (rainswolf)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 08:21 pm (UTC)

That's what i mean. I would never be happy with separate-but-equal as the endword, but I think the "movement" should work towards it for now so people can get some rights while for the howevermany years it will take to get the equal marriage lable.

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:21 pm (UTC)

(I should add that once we get separate but equal we absolutely have to keep fighting for full equality! Just that asking for everything all at once may not be politically expedient.)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:34 pm (UTC)
gay marriage

Connecticut has done "separate but equal" - the lower-court judges ruled a couple days ago that civil unions are identical in all respects but name to marriages and therefore it's unreasonable to sue for the word alone.

That seems fair to me, in large part because the problem was that the civil rights' version was actually separate and UNequal. I've read CT's legislation myself; it explicitly states that "any law which uses the word 'marriage' shall be construed to apply to civil unions as well," and that civil unions are legally defined by cutting and pasting the definition of "marriage." It's really, truly identical except for the word, at least on a state level.

And what it means in practice is that the license will read "civil union license" rather than "marriage license." You can call the ceremony whatever you want; you can direct your celebrant to call it a marriage ceremony. You can send out wedding invitations. In the end, society at large will end up calling a civil union a "marriage" because they are lazy... and de facto if not de jure, you now have the word too. I was married by a JoP, after all, and for all that I technically have a "civil" union, no one has ever cared.

[don't get me wrong, MA did it better yet. But this is as close as you can come and still get *a Republican governor to sign off on it voluntarily, for the first time.*]

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:43 pm (UTC)

No, that sounds like an excellent, excellent system - light-years away from separate-but-equal as it existed for civil rights for blacks back in the day.

I seriously don't care what anyone calls it. I just want the government to acknowledge that my relationship with my partner is no less committed and stable than any relationship between a married man and woman, and to give me a certificate stating that. Also, to give me tax breaks.

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:47 pm (UTC)
Wedding

Tax breaks are good. :) Although it might make you feel better to know that we're at a tax *dis*advantage for being married, thanks to that "marriage penalty"! Be careful what you wish for....

but I'm seriously awed and delighted still that MA is offering you two what you deserve.

I mentioned CT because it seems that that's a much rarer case of gays suing FOR the word - the lawsuit in question is by a handful of couples who could contract a civil union but believe that lacking the word "marriage" is still discriminatory. (And it kinda is, but still, they've got 99% of what they want and are still fighting over the last 1%, which suggests that it's not only straights/homophobes who find the word itself to be important. Nor do I blame anyone on either side, really; words carry weight. It's why I advocate for the government only involving itself with "civil" in the sense of non-religious unions for everybody.)

Posted by: rainswolf (rainswolf)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 08:18 pm (UTC)

Of course, "separate but equal" hasn't worked at all in the public school system re desgregation, nor has desegregation worked at all in reality.

But something like marriage in which you can create equality via laws and policies seems like a better bet for a "separate but equal" kindof thing.

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 08:29 pm (UTC)

No, it was a total failure for desegregation. It's also not my first choice here, either, really. But to have a legislature and a governor do it voluntarily.... it's worth a certain degree of trade-off.

here's hoping soon no compromises will be necessary at all.

46 Read Comments