Watching the debates and feel a little kicked in the gut....

[Gennee]

I didn't watch the debate but I find that a candidate will try to answer a question depending on how the question is phrased. They may not answer it if they don't like the question. The LGBT issue is a political hot potato unfortunately. This is why local elections are so important. Washington can only do so much.

Gennee

[Daniel]

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/10/evan-wolfson-on.html

Evan Wolfson on the Biden-Palin Debate and the Freedom to Marry

This message regarding last night's debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin arrived in our mailbox from Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom To Marry, the gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide. I'm happy to republish it here.

As I've noted to some colleagues and reporters, analyzing last night's exchange on same-sex couples and marriage:

The good news is that Senator Biden expressed his belief that gay and non-gay couples should be treated equally under the law, and committed to support for the incidents of marriage, the legal protections and responsibilities that come with marriage. The bad news is that he stopped short of supporting actual equality through the freedom to marry itself, the only way to provide the full security, clarity, and protections that marriage alone brings, and failed (as did the moderator) to point out the inconsistencies and falsehoods in Governor Palin's answer. His comments garbled the distinction between religious rites of marriage, properly left to religions to decide, and the legal right to marry, regulated by the government, which should not discriminate. Supporters of gay equality should not be using the anti-gay forces' false talking-point (introduced by Governor Palin) that ending gay couples' exclusion from marriage is "redefining" marriage; marriage is not "defined" by who is denied it.

The good news in Governor Palin's answer was that she felt obliged to go out of her way to proclaim herself "tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves," a position that, if true, raises the question of why the law should then discriminate against those Americans, whether in marriage or other legal mechanisms such as domestic partnership (which she opposed in Alaska and tried to overturn by constitutional amendment).

Her assertion of non-judgmental "tolerance" is inconsistent with her chuch's hosting an anti-gay "change through prayer" program that she has refused to repudiate. And her claim that "not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties" is at odds with Senator McCain's support for anti-gay constitutional amendments such as the one in Arizona that would have impeded legal acknowledgment of gay couples and denied the range of protections, from marriage down to specific legal measures such as partnership recognition, to unmarried couples, gay and non-gay.

McCain's and Palin's actions -- nearly always rejecting pro-gay steps and measures, nearly always supporting anti-gay positions -- is the worst news.

Overall, then, the bad news is that while one party's positions are immensely better than the others, both candidates failed to support full equality for America's gay families (despite Governor Palin's invocation of "equal rights" as an American value in her closing); the worse news is that the real and immense difference between their actual positions -- one supporting actual movement toward equality and fairness, the other offering bland assurances belied by actual policy positions deepening discrimination -- may have gotten lost.

And, to end on a positive, it is good news that yet again we see that the discussion around marriage equality is moving politicians, sincerely or otherwise, to greater acknowledgment of gay families and the wrongness of discrimination against them. That one presidential ticket is indeed committed to specific legal measures to reduce discrimination and, indeed, tacit support for marriage equality, even if they won't yet embrace or explain it, is perhaps best of all.

— Evan Wolfson, FreedomtoMarry.org

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by ctozrn

So BOTH VP candidates agree that they don't support gay marriage?? I am supporting with all my heart and soul the Obama/Biden ticket so this was just a slap in the face. I know that they are the "kinder" administration to the LGBT cause but right now, watching the debate it just doesn't feel like it.

Christine

One of my co workers told me that no matter where I voted, the VP picks did not support gay marriage.

He said that even though he is Catholic, he likes me and respects me and likes my wife. He does not agree and he sees it as blessed by God if we are commited to each other.(which was pretty big for his religion I think). He seems to be having a very hard time with liking me and blalncing his religion with "those" type of people who "choose" the "gay lifestyle". Now that he knows me he can't find me as sick or a terible sinner(whatever they teach).

I was very upset about it but he said that the slaves got free, it just took time. He thinks that things will change for us. I pray he is right.

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

He said he would leave the word 'marriage' to be discussed/debated by churches and faith organizations if they wish to recognize those relationships as marriage.

I guess it does not matter if they call my marriage a "union form Hades" as long as I get the same rights and protections as straights. If it's all about that "M" word, lets get over it and pick a different name. After all, I pay my taxes, if they can't give me the same rights, they need to send my taxes back!

Maybe we need to call all marriages UNIONS only, unless they are done by a religious offiant. Then everyone straight and gay alike would be the same, if you get married by judges it's a union. Otherwise, a marriage, let the churches decide. They really need to lighten up on the "marriage" word, they are really very anal about it.

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by tymejumper

I guess it does not matter if they call my marriage a "union form Hades" as long as I get the same rights and protections as straights. If it's all about that "M" word, lets get over it and pick a different name. After all, I pay my taxes, if they can't give me the same rights, they need to send my taxes back!

Maybe we need to call all marriages UNIONS only, unless they are done by a religious offiant. Then everyone straight and gay alike would be the same, if you get married by judges it's a union. Otherwise, a marriage, let the churches decide. They really need to lighten up on the "marriage" word, they are really very anal about it.

Calling it marriage is of utmost importance. Otherwise, we're talking about separate but equal, and that's not ever good enough.

If we were starting from scratch, starting back on the day when straight civil marriages were synced up with church marriages, that might be a reasonable solution. But it's too late to say "Well, we're not calling them civil marriages, we're calling them civil unions." It would be a wink to the right while they tell the gays that they can't have a marriage; a pat on the head while we head to the back of the bus.

Besides which, if you think the anti-gay groups would stand for fifty-year marriages suddenly and retroactively being called civil unions, you've got another thing coming. As far as they're concerned the government is [their brand of] Christian, and moving just a little bit is unthinkable to them.

I'm not happy with the quick answer Sen. Biden gave (he'd obviously rehearsed it) the other night, but I think that's as good as it's going to get this election. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." He's still right.

[antiochian]

I was a bit disappointed that the Matthew Shepard Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" weren't brought up in the VP debate... two other very important things that affect us.

[sjbouza]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

Calling it marriage is of utmost importance. Otherwise, we're talking about separate but equal, and that's not ever good enough.

Matt,

I totally agree with you that we must have it be called marriage. However, we need to get something, even if it is separate but equal. Now don't jump down my throat just yet, listen to my reasonings.

If we can get civil unions that can have what seem to be all of the same rights and benefits then we have something to work from. You see it in Mass. Couples are married in that state, however they are still facing problems with insurance and other benefits that are guaranteed through marriage. Now this is because of the DOMA, companies are falling back on this little piece of wonderment in denying benefits and rights because the state the company may reside in does not recognize same sex marriage.

Now with that in mind, I hope you can follow my logic. It may be the logic of a confused and twisted mind, but it makes some sense to me. Anyway, if we can get nationwide "civil unions" that give us all the rights and benefits that we are suppose to have then we will have a basis in the courts when we are denied insurance or other benefits. You know there is going to be companies out there that will deny coverage or inclusion because they only recognize "marriage" and not "civil unions". So now we will have basis to use the "separate but equal" portion of the law in the courts. Once we have something to grab hold of then we can take the next step.

It seems like some in the LGBT community want to jump to the top of the mountain from the bottom and will be happy with nothing else. We need to take it one step at a time. Look how far we have come just in the past 20 years. Hell when I was in school for someone to come out was suicide. Now a days, I am not saying it is all roses, but it is a heck of a lot more acceptable. I don't mean to say that the kids today don't still have difficulty, but that society is becoming a lot more acceptant of who and what we are. Lets not deminish what our forefathers have done for us by trying to get all or nothing. I think if we take that attitude that we will see the struggle be a lot longer and have a greater chance of failure. If we can take what we can get, so what if it isn't what we want, that can be changed in the courts later.

I guess what I am trying to say is lets get something even if it is "civil unions". At least then we will have a basis to work from. Right now we have very little if anything. It is getting better and I know we will see it in my lifetime, but we just need to do it the right way. We need to stop going for the top of the mountain without taking the little steps to get there.

If you make a huge leap you are more likely to fail, it is the small steps that eventually will lead you to victory.

Peace and Love,
Scott

PS

Yes it is a shame that other LGBT issues were not brought up. But I am amazed that she did have the guts to bring up the issue of marriage. I give her many props for taking on that issue with the candidates.

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by sjbouza

you make a huge leap you are more likely to fail, it is the small steps that eventually will lead you to victory.

Exactly. That is what I was saying, I don't realy care what they call it, I want my rights. It is true that a journey of a tousands steps begin with but one. It WILL take baby steps. The heterosexual community at large is still very uptight about the whole word of Marriage. They support us having rights and such but they do not want to lose the exclusivity of that word. Silly? Of course it is, but if thet is hwere we start, then so be it.

I don't believe that we will have to go to the back of the bus, but we may have to fight as the african americans have for their rights. We at Soulforce do believe in the ways of Martin Luther King. We are going to have to follow his lead and get there little by little.

My concern at this point is am I going to be able to protect my family? Will I be able to make decisions reguarding my partners life in the hospital? Will my biologial children go to her, if I die, as their father is not involved in their lives? If she dies, will I be able to get her pention to pay off the kids college, the house and such, what if she loses her job, it's automotive, will I be able to cover her medical bills on my insurance? I don't need the word Marriage to define these things for me and my family. I ned the actual Rights and protections that go along with that particular word. The evolution of the word will come along with time.

Much Metta,
Rebekah

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by tymejumper

Exactly. That is what I was saying, I don't realy care what they call it, I want my rights.

So do we all, that is, want 'our rights'.

Something very important should not be lost here. And that is this: words matter. Very much.

I live in NY and have only to look west to NJ where civil unions are being held. Guess what? There is much litigation in NJ regarding civil unions. Why? Because companies say they don't have to recognize civil-unioned couples and give them health benefits etc. Why? They aren't married.

Do straight couples have to go to court and sue for their rights under the law. Nope. It's just taken for granted.

Marriage is important.

[Matt Algren]

If there's one thing we can learn from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s, it's that assurances of equality in all but name aren't upheld by the assurers. And that's what this is. We're not talking about gay marriage, we're talking about Civil Rights.

But there's a practical aspect as well. There's a host of legal ramifications involved, and by changing the name to civil unions or whatever, the government would be creating a billion new problems. We're not just talking about getting the tax benefit and property rights, there are ancillary considerations as well.

If my (wholly theoretical ) husband is in the hospital, who is allowed in the room? Who has access to medical records? Who has automatic POA or POA HC? What kind of enforcement is standard, and is it the same as married couples?

Current US law prohibits federal funding for sex education programs that don't teach abstinence until marriage, therefore there is no expectation of sex ed for LGBT kids. (I'm not making that up.) Will that law be changed to 'abstinence until marriage or civil union'? In which case, will the funding be expanded to include sex ed for LGBTs?

If my employer has a program that recognizes spouses (I once worked at a company that sent out Wedding Anniversary presents), am I assured that my civil union will be given equal treatment? If my employer automatically sends flowers to a funeral of family members including spouse and spouse's parents, am I guaranteed to find the same treatment if my spouse's parent dies? How about if my parents are a same-gender civil union? Will both fathers be covered?


I'm not trying to be greedy or petty, but if we're going to call it equal, you better believe I want somebody making sure it IS equal in every way. And that's exponentially easier to do and more likely if we don't have to comb through the law books and re-codify every instance of every law that pertains to marriage.

[Matt Algren]

I'm totally ripping off myself from another forum the other day, but what the heck. It's germane.

This article from Andrew Sullivan touches on the social aspect of gay marriage rather than the legal, but maybe it'll help illustrate the problem. I'm only posting the last half, so click over to read the whole thing.

Originally Posted by Andrew Sullivan

The political theorist Hannah Arendt, addressing the debate over miscegenation laws during the civil-rights movement of the 1950s, put it clearly enough:

Note that Arendt put the right to marry before even the right to vote. And this is how many gay people of the next generation see it. Born into straight families and reared to see homosexuality as a form of difference, not disability, they naturally wonder why they would be excluded from the integral institution of their own families’ lives and history. They see this exclusion as unimaginable—as unimaginable as straight people would if they were told that they could not legally marry someone of their choosing. No other institution has an equivalent power to include people in their own familial narrative or civic history as deeply or as powerfully as civil marriage does. And the next generation see themselves as people first and gay second.

Born in a different era, I reached that conclusion through more pain and fear and self-loathing than my 20-something fellow homosexuals do today. But it was always clear to me nonetheless. It just never fully came home to me until I too got married.

It happened first when we told our families and friends of our intentions. Suddenly, they had a vocabulary to describe and understand our relationship. I was no longer my partner’s “friend” or “boyfriend”; I was his fiancé. Suddenly, everyone involved themselves in our love. They asked how I had proposed; they inquired when the wedding would be; my straight friends made jokes about marriage that simply included me as one of them. At that first post-engagement Christmas with my in-laws, I felt something shift. They had always been welcoming and supportive. But now I was family. I felt an end—a sudden, fateful end—to an emotional displacement I had experienced since childhood.

The wedding occurred last August in Massachusetts in front of a small group of family and close friends. And in that group, I suddenly realized, it was the heterosexuals who knew what to do, who guided the gay couple and our friends into the rituals and rites of family. Ours was not, we realized, a different institution, after all, and we were not different kinds of people. In the doing of it, it was the same as my sister’s wedding and we were the same as my sister and brother-in-law. The strange, bewildering emotions of the moment, the cake and reception, the distracted children and weeping mothers, the morning’s butterflies and the night’s drunkenness: this was not a gay marriage; it was a marriage.

And our families instantly and for the first time since our early childhood became not just institutions in which we were included, but institutions that we too owned and perpetuated. My sister spoke of her marriage as if it were interchangeable with my own, and my niece and nephew had no qualms in referring to my husband as their new uncle. The embossed invitations and the floral bouquets and the fear of fluffing our vows: in these tiny, bonding gestures of integration, we all came to see an alienating distinction become a unifying difference.

It was a moment that shifted a sense of our own identity within our psyches and even our souls. Once this happens, the law eventually follows. In California this spring, it did.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

I'm totally ripping off myself from another forum the other day, but what the heck. It's germane.

That is, steal from themselves (and others too!)

Guys like J.S. Bach and Handel. They were famous for it.

So- you are in good company.

Steal from the best! That's what I say.