Personally, I didn’t know there were that many and need to start some more reading. Over ONE THOUSAND?!? Wow. Crazy. How many are tax based?
.-= Instinct´s last blog ..Music Friday: A Delcaration =-.

I don’t want two sets of laws, not at all. I want equality – real equality – for everyone. One set of laws that are called civil unions that the state would issue as the license. period. All the benefits that come with marriage but divested of the religious inference.

Then, you can take the civil license and, if you so desire, have a ceremony performed in a church that is just that – a ceremony – and your marriage is good to go. The pastor, priest, whoever then signs saying that everything’s good and your off on your way. Or you could just have a judge do it. Whatever. All good. But still the same license.

The state could do this by passing their own laws to replace what they have with a civil union. I have no idea why they don’t – maybe it’s too simple of an idea.
.-= Instinct´s last blog ..Music Friday: A Delcaration =-.

Thank you for your comment. I’ll summarize points I’ve made at length in other posts. First, we have our own church to be married in, the Metropolitan Community Church, and do not need anyone else’s. Second, dividing marriage into civil and religious unions will require two union ceremonies, and, if the relationship ends, two divorces. What a mess! Third, there are 1,138 federal rights attached to marriage — we need it to be federal to have full equality. Fourth, if state legislatures have to keep two sets of laws for marriage and civil unions, they will get out of synch in a hurry because there always will be someone wanting to make his bones as a legislator by opposing gay equality. Civil unions seem like a great compromise, but they just won’t work in practice.

However, you are right, if religions really want the state out of their business, then they should renounce having any civil rights attached to the marriages they perform. I wonder why they don’t offer to do that.

Cynthia

I am glad that Daniel had a positive effect on someone. However, I think the strategy of going state-by-state through the legislatures is a dead end — and intentionally so, from the people who recommend it (for abortion rights, as well). The religions fighting equality for homosexuals are doing so because they are nation-building and want to get people making as many babies for them as possible. Also, state A does not have to recognize a power-of-attorney from state B. The thought of being married in one state, but not in another is just crazy. Plus, the last analysis of DOMA by the General Accountability Office determined that there are 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities attached to marriage. We need marriages that are federally recognized. For example, a federally-recognized marriage is required for a spouse of a member of the diplomatic corps or military to have privileges such as housing with their spouse and inclusion of their property in the move when they must live abroad.

I didn’t use a “No true Scotsman” argument. See my comment citing Aesop’s fables and comparing Daniel to the fox without a brush and the dog in the manger.

Cynthia

Yes!

And thank you!

Cynthia

The problem is that Daniel regularly attacks gays to curry favor with conservatives. Also, he strikes me as a dog in the manger regarding homosexual marriage equality. This post is my notice that when Daniel attacks gays or undermines the quest for homosexual marriage equality, I will call him on it publicly.

One of the arguments used against homosexual marriage equality is that we would redefine marriage to make it non-monogamous. As if. Heterosexuals do not have to vow to be monogamous when they marry, and they don’t see to do a very good job of it. Whether or not spouses will be monogamous is their business and should not be a factor in whether or not homoesexuals deserve to have full citizenship, including marriage equality.

Cynthia

I will not be approving any more of your comments that have bad language or have this level of stupidity.

The last I heard from Daniel, he was not in a committed relationship. The personal IS the political, especially when it comes to marriage. Daniel is a dog in the manger for gays and lesbians who DO want to marry AND who have the relationship skills to marry and stay married. My perception is that he is like Aesop’s fox who lost his brush who ran around trying to convince all the other foxes they didn’t need tails, either.

Daniel must man up. He has the right to curry favor in the conservative world by attacking and undermining equality for gays. And I have the right to smack him on the snoot until he gets out of the manger.

Cynthia

There was absolutely nothing passive about my approach. It was 100 percent aggressive. If you did not realize this, I will have to ramp up the aggression so you are sure of the distinction.

I will be explaining what having a vision and a narrative and an objective will accomplish. I have them. You don’t, and dress your deficiency up as “First Amendment Fundamentalism.” You are owned and pwned by trolls and proud of it. Well, I’m going another way.

You know what? Stacy McCain and I are at daggers drawn over homosexual marriage equality and have regular blogball matches over it, but we are great friends and there’s no other blogger I talk to more often. This is blogball, sweetie! Take your lumps like a man! Answer back in a post like a man! And then treat it like bidness, the way real professionals do!

Also, why would I e-mail you over this when you have not answered my e-mails in the past? Why would I e-mail you when I disagree with you for any reason? Clearly you are condescending and contemptuous of anyone who disagrees with you. This discussion is going to happen out in the open where it belongs.

Cynthia

Thanks for your passive-aggressive approach. Very mature.

You have never once emailed me or Dan with your concerns about either the issue itself or the “troll dominance” (your view).

For your readers information, we RARELY delete or edit comments (despite the human filth that leave many of them) because we want everyone to see how ignorant they are.

I am also a First Amendment Fundamentalist. Unless someone is religion-bashing or race-baiting, etc. or continues attacks on an individual for attack’s sake — they will not be censored.
.-= Bruce (GayPatriot)´s last blog ..Will Democratic Congress Kill DADT Repeal? =-.