Well, I think it's an over-generalization to think that Christians passed proposition 8. I'm certain there are athiests out there who don't like gays and readily voted for it. I also think many Christians voted against it. Homophobia, to me, is a social-issue that's expressed through religion in some cases, but not limitted to it.
My thoughts are this: What is wrong with aspiring to have Civil Unions? If it had all the legal implications of marriage, why isn't that acceptable?
In my mind, I think it would be cool to have something like Civil Unions that would be almost gay specific. It could be a cultural hallmark. It could set us aside from hetereosexuality, but it would be recognized as equally valid as far as legal matters are concerned.
I guess what I don't understand is why some people insist that it be called "marriage". Any insight?
I agree whole heartedly with psychboi, i think there's alot more to it than just the christians.
On the question of why people insist it be called marriage, I think that has to do with the social aspect of it. Being able to say their married. Marriage is so widely accepted that by being able to say "we're married" i think is a huge deal to a lot of people.
It just kinda goes along with the "label" way of thinking. They need that label to justify it.
However my thoughts on it are basically the same as psychboi in that one day when i decide its time to get married or well civil union or w/e its called then, i want to know that my partner can be by my side in anything where with out those legal rights she couldnt be. More specifically with my children(when i have them) like i want to know their her kids to and if anything were to happen to them she gets them. it doesnt become a fight of families and all that if it makes sense.
But i truly do think its very label based in peoples minds as equally in the opposing side as our side. they're willing to call it a civil union and give the same rights. but yet they dont want it callled marriage. And you have the glbt community well lot of them that want it called marriage for that reason. so idk those are my thoughts
During the earlier civil rights struggles there was a position called 'seperate but equal' which was an excuse for segregation by race. This smacks of 'seperate but equal' and so really bothers some people, especially those of us old enough to remember some of that earlier struggle.
There is also associated with marriage a legal standing and certain bundle of rights. This is because marriage is a legal contract and state recognized relationship, though it also may be sacralized by religious groups. It is the legal state recognized marriage that we are talking about. A civil union woud have to supply all of the same bundles of rights as marriage in order to be the same but this would still make things 'seperate but equal'.
Then there is the issue of dignity which again seperate but equal violates in that marriage has a certain social dignity which is denied by domestic partnership.
There are also historical arguments being tossed about. Some of them are interesting and some of them are siily.
Marriage is a religious term, so I say keep it in the church and EVERYONE can get a civil union. But good luck trying to change heterosexual marriages now and call them civil unions (even if its exactly the same legally, and god forbid the name changes of their union when they've been allowed to have them for centuries) so, I really end up going back to what Maestro said and it ends up being "separate but equal". not in terms of paper/on the books, but in terms of everyday existance and dealings.. I think we'll wait longer for the name marriage but that it will eventually be "accepted" even if full benefits of civil unions are created and recognized sooner. And IDK but some churches/conservative religious sects will probably come around too. (in a few more centuries? lol but really)
Maestro, you said exactly what was on my mind, good job! Separate but equal never really works lol. However, I do like the idea of making the secular "marriage" into "civil unions" for everyone.
Update: the California supreme court is going to hear the case of whether Prop 8 has the authority to deny rights to citizens in that manner. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. And, we have Conn. and Mass. still!
It wasn't just Christians who voted for Prop 8, but the Catholic church, and also the Mormons, were the ones who funded it, pushed it, and really put all their money and muscle behind it.
Also, "civil unions" do NOT confer all the legal rights and benefits of marriage.
My mother and my father were married in San Francisco's City Hall, with a piece of paper, just like many gay couples were. There was nothing religious about it. It was a legal transaction. A CIVIL marriage.
Marriage is NOT just a religious term, not even for heterosexuals!
Offline
My thoughts are this: What is wrong with aspiring to have Civil Unions? If it had all the legal implications of marriage, why isn't that acceptable?
In my mind, I think it would be cool to have something like Civil Unions that would be almost gay specific. It could be a cultural hallmark. It could set us aside from hetereosexuality, but it would be recognized as equally valid as far as legal matters are concerned.
I guess what I don't understand is why some people insist that it be called "marriage". Any insight?
On the question of why people insist it be called marriage, I think that has to do with the social aspect of it. Being able to say their married. Marriage is so widely accepted that by being able to say "we're married" i think is a huge deal to a lot of people.
It just kinda goes along with the "label" way of thinking. They need that label to justify it.
However my thoughts on it are basically the same as psychboi in that one day when i decide its time to get married or well civil union or w/e its called then, i want to know that my partner can be by my side in anything where with out those legal rights she couldnt be. More specifically with my children(when i have them) like i want to know their her kids to and if anything were to happen to them she gets them. it doesnt become a fight of families and all that if it makes sense.
But i truly do think its very label based in peoples minds as equally in the opposing side as our side. they're willing to call it a civil union and give the same rights. but yet they dont want it callled marriage. And you have the glbt community well lot of them that want it called marriage for that reason. so idk those are my thoughts
There is also associated with marriage a legal standing and certain bundle of rights. This is because marriage is a legal contract and state recognized relationship, though it also may be sacralized by religious groups. It is the legal state recognized marriage that we are talking about. A civil union woud have to supply all of the same bundles of rights as marriage in order to be the same but this would still make things 'seperate but equal'.
Then there is the issue of dignity which again seperate but equal violates in that marriage has a certain social dignity which is denied by domestic partnership.
There are also historical arguments being tossed about. Some of them are interesting and some of them are siily.
Update: the California supreme court is going to hear the case of whether Prop 8 has the authority to deny rights to citizens in that manner. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. And, we have Conn. and Mass. still!
Also, "civil unions" do NOT confer all the legal rights and benefits of marriage.
My mother and my father were married in San Francisco's City Hall, with a piece of paper, just like many gay couples were. There was nothing religious about it. It was a legal transaction. A CIVIL marriage.
Marriage is NOT just a religious term, not even for heterosexuals!
I am not a man, I am dynamite. -Nietzsche