When political leader and others say they don't want gay marriage but are ok with civil unions, is it the same

Question

Is it the same as back in 1955, when blacks and whites had seperate bathrooms and schools?Or when racists didn't mind blacks, as long as they didn't date their kids? Or for those of you who hate to compare black civil rights with gay civil rights, are people who only want gays to have civil unions and not marriages the same as someone who invites you to a party but tells you not to act gay or bring up the fact that you are gay? Is giving us only civil unions the same as telling us to lie down and accept second best and be happy? Examples are Illinois Senator Barack Obama and Presidental candidate John Kerry, who don't want gays to get married, but are okay with civil unions or domestic partnerships?

Answer 1

The Religious Reich insist the term "marriage" cannot refer to anything accept a religious ceremony in which all parties are in strict conformity with fundamentalist Christian principle. Since the Bible forbids male-male homosexuality two men cannot marry, and since marriage is a transfer of property, the woman, from one owner, her Father, to a new owner, her Husband, women cannot marry because as a piece of property themselves they cannot own anything. Women have made tremendous strides in terms of civil rights, as have people of color, but these were the result of generations of work and education, not education of the oppressed, but of the oppressors, so they could see the wrongness of their actions. That is what we of the LGBT community need to be working on now. Confrontation and protest have their place, but reasoned discourse and mutual open mindedness are what will carry the day, and that can never happen between groups who do nothing but scream slogans, lies, insults, and obscenities at each other. Leave the fundies alone, we can never reach them, fortunately they are in the minority, the only reason the have so much influence is that people of opposing viewpoints deny themselves a voice by not voting. If everyone in this country who supported same sex union, call it marriage or whatever as long as the legal ramifications were the same, started making it known they would actively oppose the office holders and candidates who do not, both in terms of contibutions and votes, then you would see changes start to happen. As long as all we do is sit at home and whine, we deserve what we get.

Answer 2

I say in a way you give a valid point, but to tell you the truth, if a Civil union or Domestic partnership gave the same legal benefits as a Marriage, I wouldn't care what they were called. But as far as I know the rights they give are limited, and not the same as Marriage. I think allot of people would be OK with something that was legally the same as marriage, but was called something else. If that were the case, like I said I don't care what they call it. I know that Domestic Partnerships (which we have here in California) are less than a marriage, but I was under the impression that aside from the name, Civil Unions and Marriages were the same thing. I think I might be wrong though, as I don't live in a state that allows them.

Answer 3

The gay marriage has nothing to do with racism in the 50's. Absolutely nothing.

Basically a civil union and marriage have the same rights and privilages. The conservatives are making marriage into a holy thing and saying civil union for the heathens.

Who cares? Just give us the rights of people who are married. I don't give a crap what they want to call it.

This is not a racial issue in ANY way. Nor does it have any similarity to what happened to the blacks in the 50's. That was awful in so many ways. We are only going for marriage. Blacks could always do that.

Answer 4

I think that many (though not all) of these people see it as a passable compromise wherein everyone SHOULD be happy, and where at least we've got something and that's progress. Fact is, regardless of the vast differences between the black civil rights movement and the queer rights movement, seperate-but-equal was a concept that was thrown out in court. This concept is unacceptable in our law, then. Incidentally, I don't think it's AS bad as "come to a party, but don't bring a partner and don't be gay", but I do think it's unacceptable simply because it's ineffective. Even IF "civil unions" started out actually equal to marriages, there's nothing to say they'd stay that way. Each new tax law, new marriage statues....every little tweak that has to happen, it'll be an OPTION to change both sets of laws instead of just one.

Answer 5

After going to Widi for the definitions of both marriage and civil union I cannot find any differences at all. Although some US states try to regulate the benefits of same sex unions.

Answer 6

Agreeing to civil unions is their way of trying to appease the people who want gay marriage rights, while keeping their constituents against it happy. It's a cop out. It should be allowed. No one has the right to deny someone else marriage. It's just stupid.

Answer 7

Then we have to vote them out of office. They work for us. I'm very sorry that Obama in particular feels that way. I really like him and had great hopes that this young man would influence the future. But you can't be conditional on human rights. You can't say, you can ride the bus, but you have to sit in the back. Did he think that Rosa Parks courage was just about where one sits on a bus? Shame on him and Kerry. Have some balls, boys, do the right thing.

Answer 8

Seperate but Equal is NOT EQUAL.

It's that simple.

Yes, it's exactly the same as the Jim Crow laws. It's still an attempt to seperate one group from another and restrict access to freedoms to all citizens.
I've heard the argument that gays and lesbians are attempting to fight for "special rights" because all citizens are allowed to marry as long as it's someone of the opposite gender. But when you turn that argument around and make a forinstance of all persons allowed to marry as long as it was someone of the SAME gender, then they get all upset and huffy about it.

They try to argue that gay/lesbian relationships don't matter because they don't last anyway, but they don't see that by their refusal to accept our relationships as meaninful they only perpetuate the problem.

Answer 9

i think of that marriages would desire to no longer be seen a civil union. and all human beings has to pass to city corridor and have a civil union in the event that they choose to be legally seen kinfolk companions under the regulation. If promise ceremonies via church homes and monks who do no longer recommendations transforming into a member of homosexual couples, do no longer count variety, then why would desire to some church homes marriage ceremonies count variety?

Answer 10

First, there is no law against gays getting married. They have exactly the same rights I have. They are asking for special rights.

Second, this behavior is detrimental to society. Hetero sex is the only way the species is propagated.

Third, this behavior is risky, it engenders health risks far greater than hetero sex. A perforated rectum is only one of the many dangers that can happen due to gay male sex. Since moral standards are obviously tossed out the window in order to participate in this behavior, lots of other standards go with the willingness to do what is considered amoral. Promiscuity is at a much higher rate in the gay community for example.

Fourth, second class is a relative term. Gays thrive economically, socially, and politically in the U.S. and Israel. Where gay marriage has been accepted as the same legal and moral standing in society, marriage has all but disappeared. Look up marital statistics for Stockholm.

http://judgeright.blogspot.com

I do not hate and am not afraid of gays. I have worked with many both male and female to recover from their learned behavior patterns. I welcome gays into my church and have no difficulty with sharing meals and workstations with people who participate in this behavior. My concern is for our society and for my family. The birthrate for middle class and wealthy nations are declining and legitimization of gay lifestyle can only add to this deficit,