Charlie

Great post..We must seek to 'win' agreements, not to win arguments..

Our mom's where right you know--never discuss sex, politics or money in polite company, BECAUSE unfortunately, not everyone has the same level of education or emotional intellegence so there is always division, followed by personal attacks..

Recently, at a social setting not a political one, I was introduced by a friend to someone as "my only Republican friend"..The person shook my hand and with a straight face turned to me and asked, "so, why are you a Republican?.."..No hello, no nice to meet you, no how are you..Just a veiled attempt to start a fight--in his mind I was already 'not valid'..

This is a great example of someone whose personal views cloud their objectivity and is daring you to move them off their ideology, the only 'valid' one..There was only one scenario in this guy's head as to what a Republican was..

There is really only one way out..Hard work..Hard work to get educated..Hard work to learn how to listen(specially, to what's not being said--and be acurate in assessing it)..Hard work in clearly articulating your opinion..Hard work in developing people skills(probably the most important app)..Hard work in teaching..Hard work in caring..

We must refine our own (human)components before we can race at Indianapolis..For some of us, just because the First Amendment exist, doesn't mean we are ready to exercise it..

Desire wins..

Desire wins..

Desire wins..

I agree with you in that if gay marriage is to legalized, it shouldn't be through a federal law but through a more evolutionary process (for the same reasons you cited).

However, you're leaving one of the key points in the arguments of the opponents of gay marriage. Besides arguing on the moral grounds, many of them (including me) are against redefining the word marriage, which carries with it a very specific connotation. Mind you, I'm not against civil unions - if consenting adults want to be together, they should. But the word "marriage" carries with it such a traditional meaning that if it is to be used in reference to the union of homosexuals, it will make the issue only more divisive, not less.

Furthermore, my view on visitation rights ( one of the key points in the arguments of gay activists) is that they should be extended to everyone, not just spouces. As in, suppose you have no immediate relatives, nor a significant other, but you would want your best friend or business partner or whatever visit you instead if you wound up in critical condition? Why should other people decide for you who's allowed to visit you and who isn't? What difference does it make, as long as the visitors are respect, and you don't get a conniption seeing them there?

Many other marital benefits are now also extended to civil unions (including gay civil unions), so the idea of gay marriage, I think, is more symbolic than anything else. I don't think it's wise to concentrate efforts on trying to promote the symbolic value, since it's so divisive right now, but rather to concentrate on more pragmatic issues. I think it is the symbolic value of two men or two women getting *married* (recognized by a traditional ceremony) that sets people off more than the idea of them living together and getting government benefits.

"Besides arguing on the moral grounds, many of them (including me) are against redefining the word marriage, which carries with it a very specific connotation."

I guess that all depends on what you mean by definition. If you look up Merriam Webster, depending on the edition, it does include same sex relationships. :) And, there's a common usage, too... I mean, if I said that two guys I knew were married, would someone not know what that meant?

And does a marriage involve love? What if two people don't love each other anymore? Is that still a marriage? What about "open marriages"? How about Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins? Are they "married"? Not everyone has a picket fence and 2 1/2 dogs.

I disagree with your argument based on how things are "defined". Definitions are subjective, no matter what the dictionary says.

And its fine to disagree. :) That makes a conversation.

Hi Charlie,I don't think it's fair of you to use such defensive, peremptory language when discussing the type of reaction you assume you will get from others because of your statements. I find it insulting and off-putting. You are certainly not the only person capable of rational, calm discussion. I know you do not claim to be, but your tone implies that you feel that way.

Just wanted to point that out. Maybe I'll respond to the gay marriage content of your post in a bit.

Judging by the other comments you've received to this post so far, it seems like you might be running one of those love-ins you mention?

Yes, it is a love-in. Its annoying. I wanted someone who was gay or much more liberal to come on and say, "Hey, no you're way of base for reasons 1, 2, and 3..." This isn't the kind of discourse I was hoping to promote.

"I don't think it's fair of you to use such defensive, peremptory language when discussing the type of reaction you assume you will get from others because of your statements."

Perhaps not in the context of just this blog post, and maybe I should have been clearer, but I've already gotten those comments.... in real life. Not on this blog, though. So, that has been my experience.

And, it works both ways. Many conservative (I consider myself socially somewhat liberal and fiscally somewhat conservative) people do the same thing to liberal people. So, I wasn't so much pointing fingers at a side, so much as I was pointing towards a real problem that there are way too few people who are open to rational, calm discussion. And, no, I didn't claim to be, and I'm sorry tone implied that, but that's not what I was saying. I'm very direct. Its much more effective just to read my words and not so much worry about my tone.

When I was at Fordha, there was this kid Steve Strong who worked for the Progresssive Students for Justice group. We were often on different sides of an issue, but he said to me one time, "I'm glad you're on your side and I'm on my side, because the truth is somewhere in the middle and because theres a me and a you, it comes out." That's the most open, rational thing I've ever heard anyone say in a debate and I've never heard anything even close to that since then... and that's a great disappointment to me.

If you're in much more open, insightful, balanced circles than I am, please invite me... I'd love to participate. I didn't mean to insult, but what I was looking for was not for someone to point out a love-in, but for someone to not make it a love-in. Its a love-in because no one who feels differently commented. How do I control that? Its definately not by design.

Legalize? How can it be illegal?

You write... "I don't think a national law right now at this very second as the way to get to the goal of national support of gay marriage, because too many parts of this country just aren't ready for it."

What I hear you saying is we should only protect people's civil and human rights when a majority agrees they should be protected. I worry about the precedent that sets.

Let's apply it to FGM, for example... many societies in Africa and the Middle East aren't ready to stop female genital mutilation. Does that mean we should allow the practice to continue until people in FGM-practicing societies are ready to stop mutilating the bodies of little girls? Or should we do everything we can--right now--to protect the human rights of women and children.

When I truly believe in something, I fight for it today...not tomorrow or the next day or fifty years from now. If you strongly believed in equal marriage rights, why wouldn't you support federal and state protections right now? I don't understand why you are so worried about same-sex marriage opponents becoming upset if equal marriage rights are granted. Don't you think it would be better to concentrate instead on supporting the same-sex couples across the country who are being denied more than 1,000 federal protections and rights (ranging from the ability to file joint tax returns to the crucial responsibility of making decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency)?

How would you feel if you were told to wait five or ten years to marry the person you loved because parts of this country weren't ready to accept your marriage? Would you be willing to sacrifice that right until people eventually came around and decided you were entitled to it? Knowing you, I don't think so...

You also say, "I hate division and that's why I hate politics;" but division already exists. Why do you think granting equal rights will make things more divisive? I bet the people who opposed Roe thirty some years ago still oppose it. Should we have waited to legalize abortion until abortion opponents became more comfortable with reproductive choice? I think we would still be waiting...at the expense of every woman in America. The reason we're not is because we are a country founded on rights and protections.

My understanding is that our Constitution supports equal protection under the law; and given that, same-sex and opposite-sex couples are entitled to equal rights--right now.

FYI dran isn't going to marry you until Kim and I have the same right to marry that you do. So HA!

Here's "my glitch" so to speak. I'm not holding it out as a legitimate argument, so much as I'm telling you what my stumbling block is so that you have a focus to help try to knock it down.

The reason why I "cater to the majority" now in the face of rights violation is because I don't think not being able to get married is as bad a situation as women getting coat hanger abortions, abandoning unwanted kids, or worse yet, raising them without love and support, increasing the chances there kid will become menaces to society. Nor do I think its nearly as bad as FGM. You still have love, which is the most important thing. What's holding me back is that I really do believe you could achieve federally backed gay marriage sometime during the next presidency. Giuliani would probably support it, I think. ;)

So, what I'm doing now is delaying a solution for a more peaceful implementation of it in the future. Its kind of like fighting a war and dropping the bomb. You know you can always drop the bomb now and immediately end a war (although interestingly, enough, that's kind of changing in our more guerilla/house to house type wars) but you don't because you think slugging it out with a more strategic approach, while longer, might achieve the same result with less bloodshed.

You know, its interesting, because no one on this post has brought up the legal rights issue, and that's an important separation. I think I'm for federally sponsored legal rights right now, like joint filing, guardianship, healthcare, etc.... for everyone, even straight couples that want to just register as legal parters without actually being married. Frankly, I don't think most right wing people would make as big a deal of it as they would with the "M" word. That's another "half-step" towards getting people used to the idea without doing something that incites the opposition too much.

From Evan Wolfson's book WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS:

"Consider all the different dimensions of marriage in the United States alone. First, marriage is a personal commitment and an important choice that belongs to couples in love. In fact, many people consider their choice of partner the most significant choice they will ever make. It is a relationship between people who are, hopefully, in love and an undertaking that most couples hope will endure.

Marriage is also a social statement, preeminently describing and defining a person's relationships and place in society. Marital status, along with what we do for a living, is often one of the first pieces of information we give to others about ourselves. It's so important, in fact, that most married people wear a symbol of their marriage on their hand.

Marriage is also a relationship between a couple and the government. Couples need the government's participation to get into and out of a marriage. Because it is a legal or "civil" institution, marriage is the legal gateway to a vast array of protections, responsibilities, and benefits -- most of which cannot be replicated in any other way, no matter how much forethought you show or how much you are able to spend on attorneys' fees and assembling proxies and papers.

The tangible legal and economic protections and responsibilities that come with marriage include access to health care and medical decision making for your partner and your children; parenting and immigration rights; inheritance, taxation, Social Security, and other government benefits; rules for ending a relationship while protecting both parties; and the simple ability to pool resources to buy or transfer property without adverse tax treatment. In 1996, the federal government cataloged more than 1,049 ways in which married people are accorded special status under federal law; in a 2004 report, the General Accounting Office bumped up those federal effects of marriage to at least 1,138. Add in the state-level protections and the intangible as well as tangible privileges marriage brings in private life, and it's clear that the legal institution of marriage is one of the major safety nets in life, both in times of crisis and in day-to-day living.

Marriage uniquely permits couples to travel and deal with others in business or across borders without playing a game of "now you're legally next of kin; now you're legally not." It is a known commodity; no matter how people in fact conduct their marriages, there is a clarity, security, and automatic level of respect and legal status when someone gets to say, "That's my husband" or "I love my wife."

Marriage has spiritual significance for many of us and familial significance for nearly all of us. Family members inquire when one is going to get married, often to the point of nagging. Many religions perform marriage ceremonies, many consider marriage holy or a sacrament within their faith, and the majority of American couples get married in a religious setting -- although the percentage of those having a purely civil ceremony is at nearly 40 percent and growing. As far as the law is concerned, however, what counts is not what you do at the altar or whether you march down the aisle, but that you get a civil marriage license from the government and sign a legal document in the vestibule of the church, synagogue, temple, or mosque -- or at city hall, a court, or a clerk's office. As a legal matter, what the priest, minister, rabbi, or other clergy member does is witness the couple's commitment and attest to their conformity with the requirements for a civil marriage license.

As ubiquitous and varied as the institution is, the word marriage and its myriad translations throughout the world also have a unique meaning that children often use in making a joke. Who doesn't remember taunting friends with a question like this: "If you love candy so much, why don't you marry it?" Of course we know now -- and I suppose we must have known then -- that the punch line was in the question itself. The joke shows that though they may well "go together like a horse and carriage," marriage is different from love. Love is a word that can be applied to anything from your favorite song and your best-fitting pair of Levi's to your parents, your roommate, or your boyfriend, while marriage signifies an unequaled commitment. And, as the childhood taunt illustrates, that's a distinction most of us have understood since we were kids.

Still, marriage is now the vocabulary we use to talk of love, family, dedication, self-sacrifice, and stages of life. Marriage is a language of love, equality, and inclusion. While recognizing that marriage should not be the sole criterion for benefits and support -- nor the only family form worthy of respect -- most of us take marriage seriously and most of us do marry.

None of this is to say that marriage is the right choice for everybody. One need only meet a happy single or divorced person to know that many people are pleased with their decision to avoid matrimony. And, of course, we've all been to weddings where we wonder how she could marry him. As splendid as the institution is in the abstract, and as revered as marriage is in virtually every society, one need only look at the divorce rate to know that there are bad marriages and marriages that, without fault, have ceased to work......------------------------------------------Fortunately, the general story of our country is movement toward inclusion and equality. The majority of Americans are fair. They realize that exclusionary conceptions of marriage fly in the face of our national commitment to freedom as well as the personal commitment made by loving couples. Americans have been ready again and again to make the changes needed to ensure that the institution of marriage reflects the values of love, inclusion, interdependence, and support.

Such a change came about as recently as 1987, when a group of Americans who had been denied the freedom to marry came before the U.S. Supreme Court. Before the justices issued an opinion in the case, Turner v. Safley, they had to determine what role marriage plays in American society. Or, more precisely, what role marriage plays in American law.

After careful consideration, the justices outlined four "important attributes" of marriage: First, they said, marriage represents an opportunity to make a public statement of commitment and love to another person, and an opportunity to receive public support for that commitment. Second, the justices said, marriage has for many people an important spiritual or religious dimension. Third, marriage offers the prospect of physical "consummation," which of course most of us call something else. And fourth, the justices said, marriage in the United States is the unique and indispensable gateway, the "precondition," for a vast array of protections, responsibilities, and benefits -- public and private, tangible and intangible, legal and economic -- that have real importance for real people.

The Supreme Court of course understood, as we discussed above, that marriage has other purposes and aspects in the religious sphere, in business, and in people's personal lives. The justices knew, for example, that for many people, marriage is also important as a structure in which they can have and raise children. But when examined with the U.S. Constitution in mind, these four attributes or interests identified by the Court are the ones that have the legal weight. And after weighing these attributes, the justices ruled -- in a unanimous decision -- that marriage is such an important choice that it may not be arbitrarily denied by the government. Accordingly, they ordered that the government stop refusing marriage licenses to the group of Americans who had brought the case.

That group of Americans was prisoners.

Seventeen years after the Supreme Court recognized that the choice to marry is so important that it cannot be arbitrarily denied to convicted felons, one group of Americans is still denied the freedom to marry. No matter how long they have been together as a couple, no matter how committed and loving their relationship, and no matter how much they need the basic tools and support that come with marriage, lesbian and gay Americans in this country are excluded from the legal right to obtain a civil marriage license and marry the person they love.

Who are these same-sex couples and how does the exclusion from marriage harm them and their families?

They include Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin of Butler, New Jersey, a committed couple ever since they met more than thirty years ago during their junior year in high school. Maureen works part-time as a parish administrator for Christ Church in nearby Pompton Lakes, where her job includes entering the names of married couples into the church registry. Cindy, meanwhile, is the director of Web services at Montclair State University. The women wish that one of them could stay at home full-time to help care for their two children, Josh and Sarah. But because they aren't married, neither of them is eligible for family health insurance through her employer, so both of them have to leave the kids in order to stay insured.

"We are good citizens, we pay our taxes, and we are caring parents -- but we don't have the same equality as other Americans," Maureen told the New York Times. "We're tired of having to explain our relationship. When you say you're married, everyone understands that." More than anything, Maureen and Cindy told the Times, they want spousal inheritance rights, so that if one of them dies, the other one can stay in their home without having to pay crippling estate taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. That security comes with marriage.

Alicia Heath-Toby and Saundra Toby-Heath also live in New Jersey and have been a couple for more than fifteen years. Alicia is a deacon and Saundra an usher in the Liberation in Truth Unity Fellowship Church, an African-American congregation, and they regularly participate in church cookouts, picnics, dances, and family activities as well as services. The women have children and grandchildren, bought a home together in Newark, and pay taxes. When Alicia had surgery, Saundra took weeks off from her work as a FedEx dispatcher to take care of her. Denied access to family health insurance and required to pay two deductibles instead of one because they are not married, Saundra and Alicia want to enter a legal commitment to match the religious one they already celebrated in their church.

"If two complete strangers met each other last week and got legally married today, they would have more rights under the law than our relationship has after fifteen years of being together. That's not fair," Saundra and Alicia told their lawyers at Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund. "We pay first-class taxes, but we're treated like second-class citizens." They worry about their kids and each other, and they want the best legal and economic protection they can get for their family. That protection comes with marriage.

Tony Eitnier and Thomas Arnold have been life partners for more than ten years, but until recently they faced every day with the fear that it would be their last together. That's because Tony is from the United States and Thomas is from Germany. Unlike most of America's close allies, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, our country discriminates with policies that do not allow gay citizens to remain together with committed partners from other countries under the family unification principles that normally apply in immigration. "It [is] a mental battle not to go crazy, never knowing if your partner is going to have to leave tomorrow," Tony told the Associated Press. "You become paranoid."

Because Germany is one of more than fifteen countries with an immigration policy that treats binational same-sex couples equally, Tony and Thomas moved to Berlin, where they can live together without fear of a forced separation. That's little comfort for Tony's family in San Diego, California, though. "I'm very close to my family, and it was extremely traumatic to have to leave," Tony said. "My parents are bitter at the government." The couple holds on to the hope that they can return to the U.S. and live openly and legally as a couple in Tony's own country, America, the land of the free. That right comes with marriage.

Chris Lodewyks and Craig Hutchison of Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, have been committed partners since they met when they were freshmen in college, more than thirty years ago. As is the case for many middle-aged couples, Chris and Craig have spent a good part of the past decade looking after their aging parents. When Chris's mom was battling cancer at the end of her life, Craig took time off from work to help care for her. And now that Chris is retired, he can spend time helping Craig's elderly mother. The men also are active in the community. Chris has spearheaded a town cleanup day, with businesses donating prizes to hundreds of volunteers, and Craig serves on the board of a YMCA camp. "Gay and lesbian topics are in the news every day," Chris told New Jersey's Bergen County Record. "This is an emotional time, and some people may be looking at this like it's going too fast. But it's not going too fast. It's time for us to have the same civil rights as everyone else."

Chris and Craig have shown the personal commitment to each other, have done the work, and have undertaken on their own many of the family responsibilities of a married couple, including caring for each other's parents. Now they want the full legal responsibilities and protections that the government bestows on married couples. "After thirty years of commitment and responsibility the government treats our accomplishments together as worthless," Craig said. Full protections and legal responsibility come with marriage.

Julie and Hillary Goodridge of Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, have been in a committed relationship for sixteen years and are raising a young daughter together. One day the women played the Beatles song "All You Need Is Love" for their daughter, Annie, who was five years old at the time. When Hillary asked Annie if she knew any people who loved each other, Annie named several of her mothers' married friends. "What about Mommy and Ma?" Hillary asked. "Well," Annie replied, "if you loved each other you'd get married." At that point, Hillary later told Newsweek magazine, "My heart just dropped."

It wasn't the first time that the freedom to marry would have helped clarify the Goodridges' family relationship for the people around them. The most dramatic illustration of how exclusion from marriage harms their family took place after Julie's caesarean delivery of Annie, when Hillary was denied entry into the ICU to see her newborn daughter. "They said, 'Only immediate family,' and I had a fit," Hillary told People magazine.

Who wouldn't have a fit? And who should have to go through an ordeal like that, especially at such an important, trying, and hopefully joyous time as the birth of a child? The Goodridges want assurance that they won't encounter similar obstacles the next time Julie, Hillary, or Annie is hospitalized or in need. That assurance comes with marriage.

In fact, exclusion from the freedom to marry unfairly punishes committed same-sex couples and their families by depriving them of critical assistance, security, and obligations in virtually every area of life, including, yes, even death and taxes:



Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to get bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security payments of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts or to the legal and financial guidelines in times of breakup, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or to protect the weaker party and the kids.Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized as a family and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or to bypass the hassles and expenses of probate court.Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or nonbiological children in their health insurance plans.Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for nonbiological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.Privilege: Unmarried couples are not shielded against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime-victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes, and rules regarding the distribution of property in the event of death or divorce.Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRAs and other retirement plans.Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to each other and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.And, again, virtually all of these critical, concrete legal incidents of marriage cannot be arranged by shelling out money for an attorney or writing up private agreements, even if the couple has lots of forethought to discuss all the issues in advance and then a bunch of extra cash to throw at lawyers.....

----------------------------------------Gay people have the same mix of reasons for wanting the freedom to marry as non-gay people: emotional and economic, practical and personal, social and spiritual. The inequities and the legal and cultural second-class status that exclusion from marriage reinforces affect all gay people, but the denial of marriage's safety net falls hardest on the poor, the less educated, and the otherwise vulnerable. And the denial of the freedom to marry undermines young gay people's sense of self and their dreams of a life together with a partner.

Of course our country needs to find ways other than marriage to support and welcome all kids, all families, and all communities. Marriage is not, need not, and should not be the only means of protecting oneself and a loving partner or family. But like other Americans, same-sex couples need the responsibilities and support marriage offers legally and economically to families dealing with parenting, property, Social Security, finances, and the like, especially in times of crisis, health emergency, divorce, and death. And gay people, like all human beings, love and want to declare love, want inclusion in the community and the equal choices and possibilities that belong to us all as Americans.

Marriage equality is the precondition for these rights, these protections, this inclusion, this full citizenship. The freedom to marry is important in building strong families and strong communities. What sense does it make to deny that freedom to Maureen and Cindy, Alicia and Saundra, Tony and Thomas, Chris and Craig, or Julie and Hillary?

How many more young people have to grow up believing that they are alone, that they are not welcome, that they are unequal and second-class, that their society does not value their love or expect them to find permanence and commitment?

How many non-gay parents and family members have to worry or feel pain for their gay loved ones? What mother doesn't want the best for all her kids, or want to be able to dance at her lesbian daughter's wedding just as she did at her other child's?

As Americans have done so many times in the past, it's time we learn from our mistakes and acknowledge that lesbian and gay Americans -- like people the world around -- speak the vocabulary of marriage, live the personal commitment of marriage, do the hard work of marriage, and share the responsibilities we associate with marriage. It's time to allow them the same freedom every other American has -- the freedom to marry."

It's not right to only allow the states that want freedom to have freedom - that is tyranny of the majority and leads to abuse of minority groups (like gays, or blacks, or irish). Without strong action from the courts, saying that freedom for women and blacks must be protected, that never would have happened.

Unfortunatley, many civil union instances don't have the same level of rights as marriage.

I would like to see the idea of the marriage removed from our government's vocabulary - a very clear distinction could be drawn - the state supports civil unions (or whatever) for people of any gender that entails the same rights and responsibilities as marriage does now - and the concept of marriage is left for people to define on their own (or with their church, etc.)