Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Gay marriage is an affront to many who believe that marriage is and always has been between two members of the different sexes. Even those who don't base their beliefs on a religious/Christian foundation see the joining of a man and woman and raising of the traditional family as the American standard.
   This is not to say that same sex couples are undeserving of many of the same benefits. They are. The difference in the couples cannot be changed, and is this: Male & females marry and have the ability to procreate. Same sex couples become joined in a civil union and are bestowed virtually all the same benefits of married couples, but can never procreate in and of themselves. There will always be that disctinction, hence that difference. And difference is not a bad thing here. To the exent that same sex couples can equate to married couples, civil unions fulfills that, bridges that gap.

   Posted by: Stephen | Mar 28, 2007 7:51:59 AM

   
   

2. "And it will just replicate some of the negative aspects of marriage-the idea that married people are just more important and better than singles-the 'smug married' syndrome."

   Funny, I think gay marriage and I think of having the right to visit my partner in the hospital on his death bed.

   But I guess I haven't given enough thought to the greater issue of smugness.

   Charles, if you're making the argument that civil unions are just as good, then fine. I won't complain if they pass civil unions in this country, as long as I have the same protections as straight people.

   But when you think that the word marriage is just a religious concept that gays shouldn't be concerned about, explain to me this:

   How would you argue that separate but equal in the 1960's was justified for keeping black and white children separate in the school systems?

   Or would you even make that argument? Because many of the same points were brought up then regarding marriage vs. civil union. When you segregate a community you marginalize it. There's no way around that.

   Posted by: mark m | Mar 28, 2007 11:17:06 AM

   
   

3. Stephen, when the government officially states that the purpose of marriage as defined legally in this country is based on the ability and the practice of making babies, your argument will have been made.

   However, that is not how our government makes the distinction between being married and just being coupled in this country.

   So you're just flapping your gums in the meantime.

   Posted by: mark m | Mar 28, 2007 11:20:45 AM

   
   

4. Once one accepts the difference in the physical unions of the different sexual relationships (same sex vs heterosex) and their inherent ABILITY, then one cannot help but agree that there will always be that uniqueness to the same sex union and the heterosexual marriage (This assumes the couples want to 'legalize' - for lack of a better word - their relationships). Both would be unique in there own way.
   No one is 'marginalized.' As for smugness, that's YOU seeing it that way and NOT necessarily at all how the accused married couples see it.

   Posted by: Stephen | Mar 28, 2007 11:29:37 AM

   
   

5. >
   > see... this is why I hate living in Indianapolis. :(
   > --- Evan

   Evan, if you can't maintain a stiff upper lip when a mere 1000 a-holes show up, what American city are you going to move to? Even SF or LA or NYC --- do you think there aren't one thousand homophobes in SF? Do the gay and lesbian couples in SF have marriage equality yet? (And I'm not knocking SF --- it's a fine city. Expensive, but otherwise very fine.)

   Considering that GLBTs are such a small percentage of the total Indiana population, we matched them admirably when about 400 opponents AGAINST the amendment showed up at the rally on February 19 --- an encouraging feat here in the middle of the Bible Belt. I only wish we would have counter-rallied last Tuesday.

   Two questions:
   (1) If you think living in Indianapolis is oppressive, what do you think the gay men and lesbians living in the little Indiana towns (and farms) have to put up with? I live in one of those little towns, and I find that a trip to Indy is quite a joy!
   (2) Not to be at all ugly, but if you don't like living in Indianapolis, what stops you from moving someplace you think is better?
   

   Posted by: Al | Mar 31, 2007 5:44:20 PM

   
   

6. Right = Reich

   Posted by: vince | Apr 4, 2007 11:01:26 AM

   
   
« Previous

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: