In my job I'm pretty heavily involved in the political movement for gay rights. I've always been a proponent of not making compromises--We'll take gay marriage because Civil Unions aren't enough.
But recently I've had an experience where a gay friend of mine could not see her partner in the hospital for weeks and had no way of knowing what was going on, or even if she was alive or dead. And I began to wonder whether it's really worth it to fight for Gay Marriage right now. Civil Unions will give us all the important things--visitation rights, legal partnerships, adoption (hopefully by extension, although not necessarily). There's really not much practical difference between Civil Unions and Marriage. Plus, Americans are MUCH more open to legal Civil Unions (73 percent) than GM (39 percent).
The problem that I see is that compromise could lead to us getting nothing. We lose a bargaining chip. What do you think?
2006-07-02 18:20:35 · 10 answers · asked by sam 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Human Rights issues mean full equality. Gay Marriage is a human rights issue. Seperate but equal is not constitutional and in time will not stand the test of a true and just society. Civil Unions do not give all the rights due to same-sex couples who seek to marry. Just because a majority are more disposed to denying some group certain rights does not make it right or just. Why not let heterosexuals have civil unions if they don't want a full marriage, why not create all sorts of graduated levels of legal coupling, why because that makes a mockery of marriage.
With all due respect to Vermont, it is time for same-sex marriage rights, civil unions are the homage vice pays to virtue in the case of full and legal acceptance of same-sex couples as married.
2006-07-02 18:27:54 · answer #1 · answered by Out $1000 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The end goal is marriage, no questions asked. IF everyone from within the movement realizes that, and will keep fighting till we get that, I don't think I'm in a position of knowledge or wisdom enough to tell if it's a rational move to use civil unions as a stepping stone. It might be, or it might not be like you said. But civil unions ARENT equality, as you seem to already know; even if there were some kind of "federal civil union" that wrote EVERYTHING as equal, it would still be entirely to easy for someone to come along and change that. Or, the next time marriage laws are changed, there's no legal requirement that our unions get changed with them.
2006-07-03 14:28:27 · answer #2 · answered by Atropis 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am afraid that as long as the word marriage is attached, we will never achieve it. Most people think of marriage as a church ceremony with all of the religious rituals attached. Many straight couples choose not to have that. They have ceremonies performed by judges in non-religious venues. They are still married and still have those rights afforded to the others who choose church ceremonies. I don't think that Civil Unions would be that much of a compromise as long as we are given those same rights.
All I want is the right to enter into a union with my partner and have both of us guaranteed the same rights that any straight couple has. If the term "Civil Union" does not appeal to people, let's find a new term. I dont care what we call it. I just want the same rights.
In my opinion, the discrimination that we face in other aspects deserves more attention than the marriage issues.
2006-07-03 00:38:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds more like you might need to try changing hospital policies than to try to change the constitution, don't you think? do the terms "in god we trust" or "one nation, under god" ring a bell? this is a country based on Christianity, god would never bless such a union. this is a country where a man can walk down the street dressed in a evening gown and wearing high heels saying he's a woman "trapped" in a mans body and have all his the parts god gave him replaced, while if a man walked down the street in robes and sandals holding a bible and saying he was the second coming of Christ, he would be locked up and put away as being insane. these are the decisions that we've been conditioned to think in an effort to maintain human rights. but, how far do you go? should the right to commit adultery also be added into a marriage if both partners agree? over the years we have agreed to prenuptial agreements,divorce, living together without marriage, abortion, and now this. I'm no bible thumper but the bible speaks of Satan trying to undermine the constitution of marriage.
2006-07-02 19:11:59 · answer #4 · answered by charles r 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
To the two people who answered just before me---allowing gay marriage has nothing to do with changing the constitution. It is those who want to ban it that want to change the constitution. Nor would it have anything to do with marrying a house or tree, use a little bit of logic here---Can a tree consent or sign the marriage license. DUH. At least come up with arguments that have a little intelligence to them. As far as being allowed to visit your partner in the hospital being a problem---that can be avoided by having the proper paper work. Its just that we don't think of it usually until it too late. Yes push for Gay Marriage. If it comes down to civil unions or nothing then take what we can get.
2006-07-02 23:39:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm leaning toward pushing for gay marriage all the way and maybe we will be at least allowed civil unions. Kinda like mom said, ask for twice what you're willing to settle for. I know its a touchy situation.
2006-07-02 18:30:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why should we have to settle for Civil Unions because society is closed minded? The American Constitution clearly states that, regardless of majority rule, the rights of the minority can not be taken away. Our rights shouldn't be taken away because it makes some people uncomfortable.
2006-07-02 18:41:50 · answer #7 · answered by holidayspice 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am not being negative. I am sure legislation should be kept orderly. Imagine if Gay marriage found its way to constitution, whats next? There will be other group who will fight for rights to get married with animals, tree, house etc. It will be chaotic!
I personally think that we dont need to change. We need to design. For the case of your friend or may be the rest of gay couple, what we need to do is put additional clause to our hospitalization sub policy in visitation. Add in clause stating a name so and so should be allowed to visit in case. I dont think that is hard to do.
I have experienced myself denial of a visit to an old lady I knew at the hospital while attending to my mum in the same ward. The lady was so sick and there was no other to take care of her. So what I did was write a petition and get the lady and a doctor to sign. With god will, I did manage to attend to her until she passed away. I was even granted right to bury her after no claim from her relatives.
Sometime we dont have to fight. All we need is just 'nice words' and 'diplomacy'.
2006-07-02 18:58:35 · answer #8 · answered by ed s 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
My Atheist boyfriend says it isn't organic. From a clinical attitude, it isn't. The sex section, besides. Marriage is only a criminal bond and is a shaggy dog tale lately. enable them marry, they're only going to get divorced like this kind of huge volume of contained in the hetero international. No distinction, extremely.
2016-11-30 04:39:44 · answer #9 · answered by dahle 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay what is a gay couple not capable of doing that a traditional couple wouldn't be allowed to marry over?
2006-07-02 18:24:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋