Jacob Reitan: Civil Unions: Separate is Not Equal

[antonyh]

Jacob Reitan was on the EQ Ride. Check out his commentary in the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/12230276.html

[antonyh]

Good piece but I think he gets a little whiney. I'm not sure how helpful "whiney" is in the long run.

Oh my...you're a harsh critic :lol:

[Steven E. Webster]

Good piece but I think he gets a little whiney. I'm not sure how helpful "whiney" is in the long run.

U-dog,

O.K. what exactly was whiney about it. Be specific. How could it have been improved?

I agree with you that I do not like "whiney," but I'm not sure I see that here.

Is objecting to an injustice inherently "whiney"? Are we, by definition, a bunch of whiners in Soulforce?

To me "whiney" is an expression of weakness--I believe we should always show strength (non-violently). There was strength in Jacob's statement, I believe. What in Jacob's statement was whiney?

Steve Webster

[kara speltz]

Honestly, Steven, you make me work too hard sometimes. It was really just the impression the piece left me with, but here goes.

1. No, the demand for justice is not inherently whiney when it is expressed as a demand for what is right and what is consistant with community values. Jake's arguments later in the piece when he points out that not living up to her ideals hurts America and ALL of her citizens is such a "strong" argument.

2. But Jake begins by articulating this "poor me, I'm the only one in my family not allowed to marry" thing. That is whiney. Then he goes on to explore the psychological and spiritual cost to GLBT people of marriage inequality. Those costs are REAL and the arguement TRUE and RELEVANT but it walks the edge of "whiney". When it follows the "poor me" opener it seems like just MORE whining by GLBT folks. I think everything Jake says is true, but the way he builds his argument comes off as whiney. The piece would have been stronger if he had led with the idea that marriage inequality hurts America and all Americans and then maybe CLOSED with the personal cost of injustice.

Just my opinion.

U-dog

Dear Dave: I strongly disagree with you. Each time a heterosexual person is married, there is a deep sense of pain for a large number of TBLGs who know that they will probably never have that experience because of bigotry.

I experience the same feelings often when I attend an ordination because I believe that I was called to the priesthood. It is important that we acknowledge that pain, out loud so that our heterosexual allies comprehend how important this is.

I thought Jake's piece was outstanding.

Kara

[Zerbie]

1.

2. But Jake begins by articulating this "poor me, I'm the only one in my family not allowed to marry" thing. That is whiney. Then he goes on to explore the psychological and spiritual cost to GLBT people of marriage inequality. Those costs are REAL and the arguement TRUE and RELEVANT but it walks the edge of "whiney". When it follows the "poor me" opener it seems like just MORE whining by GLBT folks. I think everything Jake says is true, but the way he builds his argument comes off as whiney. The piece would have been stronger if he had led with the idea that marriage inequality hurts America and all Americans and then maybe CLOSED with the personal cost of injustice.

Just my opinion.

U-dog

Wow! I couldn't possibly disagree more. No wonder when you first wrote "whiney" I had no idea what you were talking about!

The way to get readers to keep reading beyond the first sentence or two is to lead with a personal story and an individualized personal experience they can relate to. The description of his siblings' weddings is the perfect lead-off for the thrust of the essay. It takes the reader there with him. If he had started off with 'marriage equality is important to America" he would have alienated a good 50% of the readers from the very first sentence. This way, he keeps them for at least a paragraph, and if they are enticed, maybe through the entire article.

Then after this personal introduction which got the readers' attention comes the larger framework, and now readers who have not thought of these matters before have an image in mind that they can relate to: Jake's family and Jake's feelings from which they can extrapolate a larger picture regarding the gay folks they know: 'Gee, does my gay cousin maybe feel this way? What about the lesbian couple down the street?" etc. The personal story shows the import behind the national framework of an otherwise mysterious-to-the-average-straight-person movement for marriage equality.

[Vanessa White]

Same with those above, I absolutely don't read Jake's contribution as whining of any kind. I mean, we need to acknowledge all aspects of this issue, not just the political/civil aspects of it. There is such a human, personal side to marriage equality. I want to marry my partner so that we can walk down an aisle, or a ocean pier, or a wooded path, and tell each other and those closest to us why I commit myself for life to her. I want to wear the beautiful dress, carry flowers, say the vows, dance the first dance....

....and then, there is the presents.... LOL

I watched my beautiful younger sister get married to her soulmate on the beach in FLA this year. It filled me with joy for her, and sadness for myself. I think the general public needs to know the personal and civil reasons why this is the best idea. :pray::love:

[Zerbie]

Ok... I've alienated Zerbie twice in one day... I obviously got up on the wrong side of the bed today. tomorrow will be a better day... I'm sure of it.

Oh gee whiz! :eek: Dave,:love: - we disagreed on a couple (little) things. That is not the same as alienating. :(

Grief! You haven't "alienated" me. We disagree on strategy of written argument. Big deal.

(Okay, it WOULD be a big deal if one of us were the other's expository-writing teacher, or editor, but that's about it.) :p

[inca nitta]

Hi all,

Since this thread deals with civil unions, I'd like to tell you that I heard from some people who were proposing a new law that would rename all civil marriages, whether it's a same or opposite sex, and call it all civil unions. While at the same time, retain calling religious marriages marriages, according to each specific church, synagouge, mosque, temple, etc.

I was wondering what could be wrong with that?

[Alecto]

As long as the language is the same, I'm happy on a personal level. That said, given the propaganda about "destroying heterosexual marriages", I have reservations about taking the civil rights battle in that direction (given that I'm equally happy with the other direction). Because, in a manner of speaking, that does happen: nonreligious heterosexual folks would no longer technically be "married", they'd be civil union'd.

[Daniel]

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/01/al-gore-speaks.html

Go Al!