Hi Bart!

First of all, as a lesbian, I don't think marriage for anyone should be recognized legally
since it's basically a religious ceremony.  I do believe in families of choice.

That being said, as to your question about why "marriage" as opposed to "civil union" is
so important to us, do the words "separate but equal" mean anything to you?

Keep up the good work.

Regina
 

Regina, as far as I can tell, that's a phony argument.
It brings up memories of great schools for white kids and rundown schools with rats and no heat for the negroes.
But we're arguing over a single word, right?

If a genie was going to grant you any wish, but you had to call that wish "fake," would you rather have your wish
come true or would you tell the genie to stuff it unless you could call the wish "real?"

But that's why I asked this question, to get into some nuance on why gays don't want what they want,
they want what they want AND to they want to make the GOP say, "You won" and trust me - the GOP
will fight to the death to prevent the "M" word from being used. They see it as a slap in the face to God,
(but funny they don't mind Rush slapping God's face with heroin addiction on loan from God) so we can
either launch another civil war and lose the next three elections or we can let them have the "M" word.

Final Thought: I would think the gay community would want to avoid a backlash that could be so great
that the only way a Democrat could be elected is if he actively campaigns against gays.

I believe that there aren't many homosexuals who actually want this; in fact, most gays (here I mean males)
are completely indifferent to BOTH civil unions and marriage (lesbians I know tend to support/want civil unions,
at least, for economic and biological [read: kids] reasons where they differ from the men). The fact that the issue
is being raised just now smells of manipulation, and not by (or for) homosexuals if you follow me...

I'm gay, a died-in-the-wool, bleeding-heart liberal, and I'm just totally flummoxed about the gay marriage issue,
particularly the timing. I'm against it ever having been brought up- why, oh why has this issue been raised now?

I think there are many, many gay people who basically agree with this assessment: It's too soon. It cannot be won.
Why are we fighting for this issue right now?

In addition, I'm not alone amongst gays in thinking:

- Seems to me that escaping the various social and societal pressures to become married was one of the only positives to coming out.

- Seems to me that not participating in the propagation of the species (given that there are 6 billion of us on the planet) is
also a huge positive to being gay, and is constantly overlooked as a probable "natural" cause for homosexuality- d'you suppose
that some mammals are MEANT to be gay so that they won't OVERPOPULATE so badly, and why, then, is homosexuality
such a bad thing? (Homosexuality is found not just in humans, but in many other mammals, birds, and other various fauna).

- Seems to me that with the likely consequences of Peak Oil gaining precedence in the coming 5 to 10 years (and the obvious
indications that Peak Oil issues have already surfaced and are dominant even now), this gay marriage issue is a really good way
to end up turning gays into SCAPEGOATS, just like the Jews in Germany. Can you imagine, when we hit permanent recession
after 2008 (or so) due to the inevitable decline in oil production, how the right wing will paint the situation? It will never be publicly
admitted in clear terms (to prevent inevitable panic if it were revealed) that our unending economic decline is the result of the
decline of cheap hydrocarbon fuel sources, and INSTEAD, as USUAL, they will blame something or someone else.

I can hear it now- "Gays have eroded our nation's very fabric with their attacks on marriage, yadda, yadda, yadda,
and now God is punishing America because of these 'sinners'/'evildoers'/'yadda yadda'."

If someone writes in and explains why this issue is important to us gays, could you share it with, um, us gays, because we're in the dark here too.

Keep fighting the good fight,

-Mitch
 

Mitch, I believe what you say is true.
Remember, Falwell and Robertson blamed 9-11 on gays and abortion.
You and I know that's horseshit, but there are 50M voters in America who believe them

Well, most Americans aren't ready for Bartcop.
So, pack up your shit and leave.
We'll call you when Americans are "ready" for you.

Parker DW
 

Well Parker, that was cute and snippy, but it makes no sense.
I'm on your side, remember?

First, Nobody's asking you, no matter how gay you are, to leave.
It seems to me that you're close to getting everything you want, (civil unions)
but America (not me) isn't ready to give you the word.

Second, your statement implies that *I* could cost the Democrats the election.
That's horseshit , but gay marriage could throw this election to Bush.

They are already calling Dean "the gay marriage" candidate, which tells me you're
willing to die on the "word" hill even if it give Bush another four years (at least).

For some reason, the crooked Bush court is inclined to legalize sodomy and civil
unions in New Hampshire or wherever it was, but if the most radical of gays insist
on the entire loaf, you might not get any loaf at all.

If Bush wins next year, he could pack the courts with religiously-insane judges who
believe they are following God's orders to hate your f-ucking guts, so step back a little bit
and recognize who your friends are, OK?

Most of the serious candidates for President recognize that using the phrase "gay marriage" is like playing
with fire at a Shell station.  You will never hear Howard Dean call it that; as a matter of fact, his position on
civil unions is well-articulated.  GLBT couples should be allowed the same rights everyone else has.
Framed thus, it makes perfect sense.

Let the fundy whackos have the word "marriage".
Nobody's forcing Catholic priests to marry gay couples.  Let the Bushies rant about "gay marriage" as if it's a
threat to western civilization or something.  Doc's got money too, and 99.9% of his supporters have barely made
a dent in their $2000 hard-money limits. You don't get that kind of grass-roots support by being a dumbshit,
chasing issues that, while just, will get you crucified, or even worse than that, failing to defend the rights of
ALL AMERICANS because conventional wisdom says we're not ready.  A real leader challenges conventional
wisdom, and we've been starved for leadership for a looooooooooooooooooong time.

I don't see any of the bottom seven mounting a serious challenge to Bushit; they're either too conventional,
too boring, or too far out there.  Four of them gave in to the bastard on too many occasions to come to us now
saying they're better than he is.  This leaves Wesley Clark and Howard Dean.

I like Wesley Clark.  I really do, but I'm afraid his inexperience will come back to bite him in the behind should
he get nominated.  That's the thing that tips the scales for me.  Should he get nominated, I hope I'm completely
full of it, but it's not 1952, and Wesley Clark isn't Ike.

For better or worse, that leaves Howard Dean.  Sure, the Bushies can hammer him about the civil unions thing,
and the fact that Vermont has fewer people in it than Cleveland, but he's been able to assemble an army 500,000
strong who are willing to work their asses off to get him elected, and raise shitloads of money from people who,
although they really don't have very much, are willing to eat ramen noodles in some cases just to help send that
phony Texan back to his dust farm in Crawford.  That, and the fact that I can actually understand Dr. Dean when
he talks, inspires me, and convinces me that the people who say he can't win haven't been paying attention.

WTMS

I'm with you Bart, my partner and I don't care what they call it.  We want a legal civil union that gives us
our rights as a couple.  We don't want any church or religion to have anything to do with our relationship.
The gay people who do, always have the MCC, Unitarians and other liberal churches to go to for a religious union.
Keep religion out of legal matters.  This is purely a civil matter, call it whatever is necessary that will secure our rights.

Right now we have to have all these legal papers drawn up to protect ourselves should one of us get sick, or die.
My estranged family members could come in and take everything from my partner just because they're blood relatives,
if we didn't have these legal documents in place.  We should be allowed to have a legal civil union on paper.

If a man on death row, who has forfitted almost all of his legal rights, can marry legally, why can't we?
We pay taxes, we're honest and law abiding citizens, it's time we were treated as such.
Tell the bible thumpers to take a hike, this a legal matter, not a religious one.

Thanks, and I love your site, you ROCK!
Marsha
 

Marsha, good letter - it made me think about going on offense.

I think a smart Democrat could reverse the framing of the issue and say,
"I'm for fairness for all Americans, and if the GOP disagrees with me
let them stand up and explain why being unfair is a better policy."

Dean and Clark are both pro civil unions, so they can both use that.
I hope neither of them gets so "lofty" in the stump speeches that they forget how to connect.

Sidebar:
In that Fringe Magazine interview, I was asked:
FRINGE: On your site, you often joke about your lack of popularity and influence,
but clearly you¹ve got a sizeable, dedicated following. Have you ever tried to deconstruct
what makes your blog so addictive for some? You must be tapping into something deeper
than anti-Bush angst.

BART: I think most people write as if they¹re giving a speech, which is nothing like a normal
conversation. Many writers think they have to pepper their sentences with fancy thesaurus
words and it makes the writer sound phony.
 

In 2000, I kept yelling for Gore to "Use the big hammer," which meant at every stop,
guarantee the audience that Bush will appoint wacko judges who will take away abortion.
The 2004 candidate should open and close with that, along with stuff like the illegal war.
Sure, I heard Gore mention abortion one or twice, but only with a tiny hammer.

He should say, "If you're tired of reproductive freedom, if you want your right to an abortion
to go away, then vote for the man who follows thre orders of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson."

Thanks for the note. I just love a new idea :)

Bart,

I had the same question as you about civil unions versus gay marriage.
This link cleared it all up.
There is a difference.

-Ed

http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/OP7-marriagevcu.PDF

I'd like to read that, but, of course, the PDF doesn't come up.
Why can't they just use text or html if they want people to see it?

...and when you say, "There is a difference," is the difference worth giving the
Mad Murderer another four years to pack the courts with gay-hating Nazis?

Thanks for trying...

Hey, Bart,

I especially liked Gen. Clark's response to Tim Mathews last Sunday when asked about gay marriage.
The General laughed at him, and asked,

"Another gay question, Tim?" (paraphrased)

Then he reiterated his commitment to equal rights.  Of course, that didn't stop Timmy.

Personally, I'd have asked Softballs,

"With all the issues we could be talking about, why do you consider sexual orientation so important?"

Or this:

"What specific rights, Tim, do you wish to deny gay couples?"

You're right, Bart.  If dems allow themselves to be forced into defending gay marriages, we lose.
But if Repugs are forced into defending a position of bigotry, they lose.
In other words, whichever side successfully defines the terms of the debate wins.

Keep up the good fight!

Bob

I happen to agree with you, and my view is pretty unique in standing
with the rest of the gay community - but I think I can help.

"Marriage" is a religious institution.  This is a "Church thing".

"Civil Unions" is a State Institution.  e.g., my brother and his wife were married by the Justice of the Peace;
so by the Church's standards,  they're not really married.

Howard Dean is the only person who's articulated this point, that I'm aware of, and I happen to agree with him.
The Church can not, nor should not mandate to the State will it will or will not do - likewise for the State on the Church!

So, if a gay couple were on a cruiseship and the Captain of the ship married them ...
Does the Church decide if that's legal or not?

I think the real issue with gay folks is the notion of the separated terms:
That certain organizations will begin descriminating between civil unions and Church sanctioned marriages.

Mark
PS How about some of those states who still have "Common Law Marriages" on the books!
 

I used to do real estate loans in Oklahoma.
If a couple says they're married, they're married.
If you go to a party and say, "This is my wife," she's your wife so much
that I had to get her signature on the loan papers.

Not sure if the law applies to gays, but wouldn't it be discrimination if it didn't?

Pressed to give a number, I'd say maybe ten percent are "common law" marriages here.

>>I know you gays want the word "marriage," but don't you understand

America's not ready?
No, we want the THING, not the word.
 

 >>Could some gay people write in and explain it to me?
 >>If gays have civil union rights, how badly do you need the word "marriage?
 

That's the "if" that broke the camel's back. We DON'T have civil union. Too much Rush with your lunch?

ha ha

Where on earth did you get the idea that we have an alternate but equal structure that isn't good enough for us?
(I just had to hit you on that because it's a weakness to play sloppy with the facts.
Our collective strength comes through acknowledging reality and dealing with it.)

"Sloppy" is a by-product of speed.
Just guessing, but if Ivins, Conason, Lyons, Alterman etc were doing two columns per hour
with no fact checkers, no editors and no spell-checkers, I'll bet they'd look sloppy, too.
 

Anyway, civil unions aren't the issue.
The issue is that we are not going to have equal treatment until we have equal treatment.
It's that simple, as Big Ears Ross would say. Here's why: Our kids are permanently left behind, financially speaking,
by the fact that their parents can't be married. We are permanently second-class, practically speaking.
This is not a political thing, really.
My kid doesn't have the protections from disaster that my sister's kid enjoys ...whether she needs them or not.

It's my opinion that, as we move towards civil unions, it will damage "the movement" to inist on the word "marriage."
 

I don't think it's likely that the SSI survivor benefit that I will NEVER receive, regardless of whether our sole-income
family loses our provider, will be the tipping point between my kid getting her college paid for, or not...
but we'll never know because we can't be married.

I hope that we won't need the thousands of dollars we've spent on legal fees to protect our family...but we're not getting
a refund and those protections could always be overturned in court, as over 5000 adoptions were in CA in 2001.

You're also confused about the politics.

ha ha
If you keep that up, I may be forced to enjoin you with something snippy.
 

I think that a candidate who speaks the truth and calls the emperor naked could reframe this issue in liberal terms and win:
"Marriage is a state function, that's what the Mass Supremes said, and I agree. This issue is being used by my opponent to
try to impose the federal gummit's will on the states. Besides, we're not talking about a law forcing you to marry someone
of your same sex here! The only folks who will use this law are already living with their partners, and that's not very many.
What do I care who gets married, as long as they pay their taxes and raise their kids? My wife and I have been happily
married for X years and I hope that the dozens of couples affected by the MA court's clarification of state law are happy too."

It looks that way to you because you're not religiously insane. There are people who think Bush is a better president because
he hasn't been caught win an intern, and the fact that he's killed almost 450 brave soldiers for no reason means nothing to them,
but that blow job does. To them a blow job is worse than 450 dead heroes, and you think you can reason with these people?
 

Oh wait, we'd have to have a candidate with the spine to say, They want you to believe this is a threat but that's just
because their positions on the issues that actually affect your lives are so...unpleasant to discuss. They want you to fear
your neighbors because if you started looking at their policies, you'd get a strong rope and a posse. So that will never
happen; we'll never know if 'gay marriage' is actually a show stopper for a strong, decisive Democrat with ideas.

Right now, gay marriage is just a stopper for Democrats.
Trust me, they will die (or kill) to prevent that "abomination."

First off, as a gay man who's been in a stable relationship for almost four years, I can tell you that I personally
don't care if it's "marriage" or "civil union" or "queer cohabitation".  What matters to me is that I'm committed to my partner.

The reason there is so much push for the word "marriage" is because people remember that "separate but equal" really means
"different and 'bad' compared to us".  I can kinda understand this approach, but what usually ends up happening is polarization.
You push the moderate conservatives further to the right, moderate liberals further to the left, and force the majority "middle ground"
to choose sides.  And since we all know that the "right" will vilify anyone who dares to disagree with them, we end up with making
a bad situation even worse.

I, personally, think that we have to start with little steps before we go for bigger steps.  I moved to Connecticut from Texas for
my job, and my partner followed me.  He's never lived outside of Texas in his life, so in our minds we are as "married" as you can get!
I don't care if anyone else considers it "marriage", it's what we consider ourselves to be that counts.

As far as I am concerned, let's just stop the stupid idea of a constitutional amendment to limit rights.  All previous
constitutional amendments have been to clarify the extending of rights, not limit them.  (I'm not counting prohibition
as it was rescinded.)  We extended voting rights to women, we extended voting rights to 18 year olds, we extended
freedom to slaves, and we've had to fight every step of the way.  The majority of average Americans believe that
"us gays" should have the right to live our lives as we want.  BIG change from 40 years ago.  Heck, that's a big change
from 20 years ago!  Lets start with baby steps, and then work our way to true equality when we show people that the
"big evil monster" they've been told about by the so-called "Christian right" is just the same person who lives next door
or works at your office.  It’s funny how those horrible stereotypes are so far removed from the truth once the propaganda
glasses are taken off.

Keep up the good fight, and as soon as my financial status gets over Shrubs "tax cuts",
I'll be a check-sending supporter of your site!

William

To a lot of gay people, Civil Unions is the sexual equivalent of Jim Crow laws -- separate but equal.
They're not willing to accept second class status in America.

The point I think everyone is missing is that Civil marriage is already different from Religious marriage.
Straight couples get married by judges every day, and those marriages are not recognized by their churches.
Gay couples get married all the time in churches, and those marriages are not unrecognized by the state.

But everyone talks about marriage like it's all one thing.
Democrats could be talking about how straight people get their marriages recognized by the state,
even when their church condemns it. Why should it be different for gay people?

Greg
 

Greg, I'm not sure if that's a question you wanted me to answer, but this discussion isn't about how
things "should be," it's about getting rid of Bush as Priority One, so we can live to fight another day.

To me, as a gay man, you sound just like the Democrats you hate in Congress who don't take on issues
that are important to you.  We're not talking about "Gay Marriage" here.  It's a basic civil rights issue.

It might be to you, but to the rest of the world it's about getting rid of The Monster. If we fight that battle
in the next ten months, and lose in November, Bush will stack the courts with Ashcroft clones and then
your "basic civil rights issue" could damn well be the victim of a constitutional amendment.

You sound like you're willing to go "all in" on ALL your rights for the next half century.
If that's true, you're a much more daring gambler than anyone I know.
 

For no civil reason, the government refuses to recognize certain rights for one subset of the population.
It doesn't matter what you call it, the Religious Right (who are neither) will do their best to circumvent any
official recognition of these rights.  They respond to this issue the same as they do on the abortion issue,
and many others.  Yet, you're advocating that on those issues we should take a stand, but on this one we shouldn't.

Again, if we, as a team, gamble and lose, it might become illegal for two men to live together.
Think I'm kidding?  Give Bush another two Nazi votes on the Supreme Court and 61 members of
the Senate, then tell me gay rights are safe. Seriously, gays might have to leave the United States.

Sidebar:
I'm so old, back in college, a man and woman living together often had to produce a wedding ring
in order to rent an apartment. They could easily make it illegal for two men or two women to live
together unless they can prove they are brothers or sisters. Knowing Bush, he'd make a landlord's
property subject to seizure if he violates the "Save Marriage" act.    I am NOT kidding.
 

The civil rights for women and minorities were not recognized as a result of polls taken of what Americans'
opinions were on these issues.  If that were the case, those rights would never have been recognized when they were.

The Bible didn't "order" the religiously-insane "Christians" to hate blacks and women.
I'm telling you, this isn't about right and wrong.
This is about telling some gun nut that his God is wrong.
He could kill you for saying that.
 

Don't allow the Religious Right to force you to make such issues political ones.  They are not.  They are basic
human issues that exist outside of the body politic.  I use the expression, recognition of rights, because governments
don't grant the rights of equality.  People are already equal.  Any government chooses to what extent it will
recognize those rights.  The extent it chooses defines that government's level of civility.

Jerome
 

I'm not gay, but I choose to use the word "we" when I'm talking about this subject.
We have been dealt a hand and we have no choice but to play it.
We can say, "That's not fair," a hundred times, but we still have to play the cards we're dealt.
Not facing the realities of the situation could cause a tremendous amount of harm.

According to Andrew Tobias (www.andrewtobias.com), gays need gay marriage because thousands
of contracts across the United States use the word "marriage" instead of something like "civil union."
Unless it's called a marriage, gay partners won't get all their civil rights.

Exactly, that's why I suggest this course:
Let's fight for the equalization of "civil unions" and marriage for contract purposes.
I think the religiously-insane nuts might accept that.
 

Of course, all of us should point out to the religious right that the marriage being talked about is a civil ceremony.
No one can force churches to marry gays because of the separation between church and state.
Therefore, the religious right ought to support the separation of church and state.

English

I’m a gay man who agrees with you 100 percent.  Yes, gay marriage is a civil rights issue and we deserve “that word.”
But I don’t think it’s nearly as big an issue for most gay people, as it is for the Republicans.  They’re trying desperately
to make this election all about gay marriage, because it’s one of the few “wedge issues” they have left.  They can’t argue
the economy, “success” in Iraq, or increased safety from terrorism, so they’re putting all their eggs in the “gay marriage” basket.

If the Democrats are smart, they will focus (like Clinton in ’92) on the economy – as Dean, to his vast credit, seems to
be doing quite well.  Gay marriage is a losing issue, and the more Democrats rise to the bait and talk about it, the more
they’ll be playing into the Republicans’ hands.

So why am I a gay man who doesn’t think this issue belongs on the front burner?  Because we’ve done without it this long,
so we can surely wait until Bush is defeated before we press the issue.  Me, I’d be perfectly happy if some version of
Vermont’s civil unions were instituted nationwide – it wouldn’t force any church to recognize gay marriages, and it’d be
a massive step forward.

But I’m willing to wait until this disastrous president is out of office before we take that step forward.  First things first.
If Bush gets “re-“elected and reinstitutes the draft, or puts through any more of his awful environmental policies, it’ll kill
a lot more gay men and women than the lack of marriage ever will.  And you never know when Bush might give Ashcroft
the go-ahead for whatever “Final Solution” for gays he’s surely cooked up in his feverish Christianoid brain.
Getting Bush out of office should be Priority One – anything after that is secondary.
Gay marriage is maybe 30th on my list of pressing issues I’m most worried about.

I think gay marriage is inevitable – it’s just that it freaks people out for the EXACT same reason that interracial marriage
used to freak people out.  But people got used to that, and they’ll get used to gay marriage.

Sorry to interrupt, but Clarance Thomas having a white wife innoculates the mixed-race marriage issue. :)
 

When you corner “rational” (i.e. non-Biblically based) opponents of gay marriage, they can’t argue for their opposition
logically – you can easily shoot down their points one by one, and they eventually have to admit that their opposition
comes down to an instinctive emotional reaction – the idea of gay marriage just makes their stomach turn.  But as Robert
Heinlein so eloquently put it, your stomach is a poor judge of what should be made legal or illegal for everyone else.

People will surely see that in time.
But not with the GOP making gay marriage their “Willie Horton” issue for 2004.

Hope this explains the way one gay man sees it!  Keep fighting the power!
Buck

As a gay man in a long term relationship I am horrified that our community leaders (who elected these guys?)
have focused so obsessively on having our relationships defined as a legal marriage.

The word marriage has religious/social connotations that could result in aggressive blowback. (no pun intended)
Marriage as a concept evokes a very specific set of mental images that have been ingrained in all of us since childhood:

    Mother Father, kids.....divorce, lawyer fees, weekend visitation... sorry...went off on a         tangent there.

The politics of gay marriage must change.

I have a solution; Let the heterosexual community keep the word marriage.  I don't care if the act of legal recognition
is called a "union," "domestic partnership," or a "cohabitation contract" I want the same benefits as a heterosexual couple
without spending thousands in legal fees for living wills, power of attorneys, and last will and testaments.

Chris.

PS Personally I like "Cohabitation Contract." It takes the religious aspect out of the equation and defines marriage
for what it really is, a legal agreement between two people for mutual support.

I've been told by some of my friends locally that I'm just making them hate us more, because I've written numerous
'guest columns' and 'letters to the editor' against the wingers on numerous issues and for gay rights including gay marriage.

And I haven't been another hand-wringing gay begging to be treated fairly.  I've been very hard-hitting.  As much as the
editors would allow, anyway.  This is a very right-wing area.  Winger-country.  So my friends tell me I'm just making them
hate us more.  But I tell them that the ones who are going to hate us are going to hate us no matter what we do.
And nobody respects a wimpy argument. Besides, that's not my style to be begging.

I've eviscerated and backed them down, man.  I wrote a blistering 'letter to the editor' about, "The Republican Party's
Iraqi War"  a couple of weeks ago that would have in the past garnered me a least five negative response from wingers
around here but it didn't get one.

Regards

Steve

Hey bart,

I'm gay and I don't know what the big deal about marriage is.
I mean, if you want all the ceremony, then there are civil unions.

If you want rights, then go to a progressive state to get domestic partner benefits.
Personally, I don't need a piece of paper to tell me I'm held in higher esteem by society or something.
I would like to get all the presents though.

ha ha

A lot of gay people get stuck on one activist bent, just like a lot of other human beings.
Like only caring about one cause etc.  I believe we have to make this world a better place for everyone.
The un-legacy'd, the families who are living in poverty, the striking grocery workers here in Cali.

It would be great if we live in an ideal world but we don't.
So I vote to put all our collective energy into defeating the BFEE.
Victoria M.

I've been with my girlfriend for nearly 23 years, and we don't give a crap if we're "married" or not.
Not anymore.  We committed ourselves to each other (alone together in the backyard doing some chore,
and we stopped and had our own little ceremony right then and there).  It'd be nice to be able to have it
recognized by the government and rack up on the benefits that straight folks get, but we're pretty used to
being on our own when it comes to taking care of ourselves.  We do get screwed out of benefits that
rightfully should be ours, though, simply because we can't get "married."

I don't get all the fuss about the use of the word "marriage," either.  Although I don't see what damned
difference it should make either way.  If gays want to get married, then who cares?  Straights aren't doing
such a bang-up job upholding the "sanctity" of marriage, so I don't see how we could do much worse.

And if a couple wants to have their relationship recognized by some organized religion, that's cool, too,
if that particular religion can deign to bless what's going to be a tough journey.

People are getting all freaked out by the use of the word "marriage" instead of concentrating on working
on their OWN unions.  Marriage is just a shorthand term that makes it clear what a couple is intending to do together.

And I'd hate to see Moron left sitting in the White House because there's such divisiveness over the use
of one stupid, simple term.  Grow up, people!

Your huge fan,
Sofie

Fifty years from now, we’ll have same-sex marriage (pretty much around the world), and the anti-gay-marriage
contingent will be viewed with the same contempt that we currently view George Wallace, Orval Faubus, the
Aryan Brotherhood, and those who wanted to deny women the right to vote in the 1920s.

But not next year.

The GOP and the B.F.E.E. will perform EXACTLY as they have in the past – on issues from interracial marriage
to civil rights for blacks to women’s suffrage – and lie, fear-monger and terrorize America in the name of the
Invisible Sky Being – to keep from giving marital equality to gays.

What DOES seem evident is that the tide for gay “civil unions” is so much more acceptable than gay “marriage,”
and that one or the other is virtually inevitable, that the Democrats’ acceptance of “civil unions” may not be as
damaging as people assume. And, as Andrew Sullivan’s Washington Post column points out, this issue can
ultimately be far more damaging to the GOP than to the Dems.

But you’re absolutely right. The GOP and the religious right are already making “gay marriage” the big litmus test
in next year’s elections, which promise to be even uglier than their illegitimate takeover of this country in 2000.

yowsa

I'm not gay, but don't you think that the idea of gay marriage would kill the
conservative lie that gays are rampantly promiscuous child molesters?

Michelle
 

Another good point.
For decades, statistics have shown that child molesters are primarily straight,
but the vulgar junkie and FOX News can make more money by blaming gays.

I say, "Fuck them and their lies."

Bart,

You asked, so here goes:

There's two parts to this.  First, what's going on by denying gays marriage amounts to legislating morality.
"These group of people can do this, but that group of people can't, because we don't think they should be able to."

The only reason that people have is A) ewwwww....  gay people having sex! (except us gay people. It's just FABULOUS!)
and B) "God says in the bible it's an abomination".  Yeah, well, it also says in that OLD part of the bible that you should sell
your daughters into slavery, you can kill your children, etc, etc, etc....  You can't just skim off the top and take what you want.
You want to use that part of the bible to discriminate, you have to use it all.

Secondly, since it's that bible morality that is being used to discriminate, isn't that a HUGE separation of church and state issue?!?

I've been with my wonderful "husband" for almost thirteen years.  If something were to happen to him and his mom and I
weren't on the best of terms, I could lose everything that he and I built together.  I could be refused to see him in the hospital
because we're not married.  Many gay people who lost partners in the 9/11 terror attacks weren't compensated by the
Victims fund (were any, gay or straight?!?!) because their relationships weren't recognized.

Who has more rights? A gay couple who have been together for 10, 20, 40 years, or a guy who hits it big on a slot machine
in Vegas, grabs a waitress, runs off to a drive-up wedding chapel and gets married?

Excellent point.
 

I equate gay's Civil Unions just like black's segregation, "Separate but equal" of the 1950s/1960s.  Separate is not equal.
All Democrats have to do is show how discriminating the Right Wing is, and they have it made.  And people like Al Sharpton
and Carol Moseley Braun can and should work with the candidate who's chosen to run against Bush to do this.

I probably didn't respond the way you wanted me to....
I just hadda say something 'cause I can never keep my yap shut anyway.

Walter

Hiya Bart,

On Bartcop for Tuesday, Dec 9th, you asked: "If gays have civil union rights, how badly do you need the word "marriage?""

Well, you're hearing from a gal who's had the privilege of all four permutations currently available.  I've co-habitated with
a man (1), and later I married him (2).  Sometime down the road, after an amicable divorce, I co-habitated with another
woman (3), and later we became as 'married' as two people of the same sex can be, given a good attorney and California's
rather progressive domestic partnership laws (4).

Here's the deal Bart.  Yes, there are some of us who'll get hung up on that word 'marriage', but I'm not one of them.
What it really comes down to, what we really want is -close- to what you hinted at when you referred to 'civil unions'.
What we want are the same rights, perks, and privileges as hetero married couples have -- and yes, also the responsibility.

You'd be amazed at the stuff married couples get in the U.S., just by being
married (whether in a civil union or in a church, temple, or synagogue):

- The right to tax-free survivorship and inheritance, as well as presumption of an "everything to my surviving spouse" Will
- The right not to be compelled to testify against one's spouse
- The right to hospital visits, as well as the right to make medical decisions affecting one's spouse
- The right to adopt the opposite-sex spouse's children from another marriage (as well as co-adoption of orphaned children)
- The right to health and life insurance, in instances where the spouse has it available to them, as well as other benefits
- The right to our spouse's pension, should we outlive them
- The right to implied power-of-attorney in all matters, should one of the partners in the marriage be unable to do so
- A tax code skewed towards married couples with children

There's more, but that's where it all starts.  For myself and my partner of seven years, we feel we are married -- and that's
pretty much how all our friends see us.  If it wasn't for CA's domestic partnership laws, our union would mean NOTHING,
in the eyes of the law.

I myself am willing to take whatever name they want to call our thing -- just as long as it doesn't repeat the old "separate
but (un)equal" mistake. Where there's a separate category of jurisprudence, it creates an opportunity for those right wing
theocratic assholes to ram their morality down our throats, simply by saying, "Married couples get X, those icky homo
Civil Unions instead get Y (or nothing at all)."

This is the crux of the argument.

Frankly though, I'd live out the rest of my days without 'gay marriage', if those assholes currently running Washington
(and trying to run everything else) would just leave us the hell alone.  Better still if we can replace them with people who
aren't power-mad lunatics and war criminals.

Hope this helps...
A loyal reader,
Becca

Becca, remember old Bob Dole in 1996? He always kept a copy of the Tenth Amendment with him, which is the
"states rights" amendment. But when it comes to gay marriage or the right to die or smoke the best flowers God gave us,
they put the Tenth away and scream, "but that's not how *I* think it should be."

The lying bastards can't remember which side of the argument they're on.

Hi Bart -

    Why isn't "civil union rights" good enough?  Because it's not marriage.  It's not equal.  The Supreme Court ruled
long ago that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional, yet this is what the "civil union" people want.

    Let's do this:  Let there be civil unions, but, for a year or so, the heterosexuals get the unions and the gays
get the marriages.  If they're the same, I doubt there will be any problem whatsoever. Uhhh...yeah.

    You say we're talking about the "politics of gay marriage".  Only as much as necessary.  The right wing wants to
make it illegal. Remember, what the Mass. Supreme Court did was to rule one of their laws unconstitutional.
How long do you think it'll be before other state Supreme Courts take a look at the issue?

    Maybe you can explain something to me, Bart.  What the hell are the heterosexuals so damned afraid of?
The spectre of gays marrying arises, and they pass a law "defending" their institution, which of course is a model
of happiness and marital bliss.  Now, they want a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to defend their set of
assumed privileges and rights.  The gay community wants only equality - and equal rights are not special rights.

    Howard
 

Howard, I think it all boils down to insecurity and fear.
It's why they want forced public prayer for others.
It's why they hate "foreigners"
It's why they hate African Americans.

They're just so afraid that they can't make it without a gang,
which is why kids join gangs - to feel like part of a group.

That's how Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly and Laura the Unloved got so f-ing rich,
by offering the bigot bastards a place to assemble and meet other like-minded people.

Bart,
  I may not be gay, but I can see the problem between the words "marriage" and "civil commitment".

Here's one EASY way to put it:  "separate but equal."  Stop for just a few seconds and remember
what African Americans had to endure for so long thanks to such a doctrine.  It was wrong for them,
and it's wrong for people of different sexual orientations.

-Luke in Minnesota

P.S.  I'd have given up on this world if it weren't for your work and your site.
 

Luke, sure, it's "wrong," but I'm trying to make America Monster-free.

Hi Bart
Have to agree with you in this homophobe religously insane country,
I hope they will accept a union with rights.

Hell who are they better off with us or them??????????

joe b (straight) from Toledo, OH
 

Joe, well put.
I like it when a lot is said in a few words.
Good job.

Dear Bart:

You have lost a regular reader.

Phrases like "America's not ready" are what kept slavery and school segregation alive for so long.
It's about equal rights and protection under the law, regardless of skin color, sex, or sexual orientation.

No, it's about getting rid of Bush.
 

Talk about cowardice!
Leave hypocrisy to the fundamentalist religious right.

- Carl O, former Bartcop.com reader
 

Carl, you want me to lie and say "America is ready?"
I've been fighting fascist pigs for almost eight years, and you think I should start lying?

Do you know how rich I could be if I was a willing-to-lie "coward?"

Bartcop:

I read you daily and even though I'm gay and have been living a gay life for 30 years I absolutely agree with you on this issue.

I've been with my partner for 20 years. We are married to each other in the only way that matters,  we've both lived up to our vows.
We have made some elaborate legal agreements to protect ourselves as a couple and to protect our right to each others property.
We have managed to give each other almost everything that heterosexual couples have. The real issues for us are  health insurance
and survivor Social Security benefits.

If the question of Gay Marriage was merely "Should gays be allowed to marry", of course the answer is yes,
but sadly our country isn't there yet   (You hear that, Carl O?)   and I don't want this issue to get in the way of
getting rid of George the minor. HE MUST GO!!!!

I love my Country Bartcop, I believe in our Constitution, I believe that as a citizen and taxpayer that I am entitled to execute the
contract of civil marriage but I am also realistic enough to understand, to even admit, that it won't happen anytime soon (at 57 years
old I don't expect it in my lifetime). I know that the RepugnantCons will and are in fact using this as a wedge issue to scare the hell
out of the folks who are morally and emotionally retarded.

As a gay woman I understand better than most that the defense of marriage isn't  the real issue, the real issue is to create a
"Us - Them" attitude among the flock. If defending marriage was the real issue they would be insisting on legislation that made
divorce nearly impossible and monetarily consequential. Instead they are supporting a Constitutional Amendment that would
effect less than 10% of the population. With the divorce rate at 50% an Amendment banning gay marriage is analogous to
taking a BB gun on an elephant hunt.

So let's put Gay Marriage on the back burner until after the election.
We've waited for 230 years we can wait a few more if it helps the Democratic Nominee to defeat President Nincompoop.

Thanks for all of your hard work Bart, keep hammering.
Carolyn

Bart -

I'm a big fan, and a dedicated (and longtime) reader.

What I say may not speak for any of your other gay readers, and you may not have time to read or respond to it,
but I thought I'd take a second to send this anyway. Al Sharpton, of all people, made an important point about this
issue on an election special I saw recently when he said, "Progress is not always made when people are ready,"
using the civil rights movement as an example.

But I do worry that gay marriage is a caustic issue, and the Republicans will make a huge deal out of it to sink Dean or any
other hopeful - and I know that at least some of the gay rights movement respects that we must look beyond our community
to the well being of the nation and say, "Our first priority is making sure we don't have to deal with another Bush presidency."

So while there is a reason to worry about gay marriage helping Bush, you should know that there are many of us in the
gay community that are aware of this - and we don't plan on pulling a Nader.

- emk
 

emk, thanks for that.

It is a simple matter of equality, Bart.

Did Rosa Parks NEED to sit at the front of the bus?
She was made to sit at the back because Whitey thought she wasn't human enough to sit with him.
She could still ride the bus and get from point A to point B, but how do you think that feels?
To know that the government that's there to protect you is labeling you a lesser being?

Sure, gay couples can still live together, but unless you're in a state that allows "civil unions",
there's no way to protect that marriage in the eyes of the law.

Perhaps it's not an immediate need, and definitely not as urgent as getting the economy back
on track and basically getting the Unelected out of Gore's house, but it's no less important.
How can America call itself a free society when it makes such arbitrary distinctions?

Jay
 

Jay, Bush suspended the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Torture and murder are legal now, if your name is Bush or Ashcroft.

America is not a free society.

Read the recent Alan Dershowitz column on gay marriage - I believe it should be the last word in the matter.
He believes we should accept the religious right's argument that marriage is a completely religious act and
therefore the state should not have any role.  The state should sanctify civil unions for ALL couples gay or
straight and then they could be "married" in the church of their choice

John

Okay, BC, I'll give it a try.

Why does it matter?  That's easy.  Marriage instantly confers a whole host of rights and responsibilities.
Same sex couples want those rights and responsibilities.  Some of them are so basic it's hard to believe
they don't already exist - for instance the right to make medical decisions for your partner when he's hurt
in a car accident.  Your wife can do it for you, no one questions her.

I have to prove to the hospital I can do it for my boyfriend.  If my boyfriend dies, his family can actually
lock me out of our house - unless of course I have all the legal documentation to prove I have rights of
inheritance and survivorship and that costs a bunch.  That's the why - same sex couples want the protections
and obligations of legal marriage.

After 1218 issues, you have to know I want that for you, too, right?
 

The part of my brain that says what matters is getting the rights not what they're called says call it whatever
you have to win those rights.  Part of me can't help but wonder at the long term value of fighting for the
relationship version of Jim Crow.

So what do you call it?  Civil Unions.  Fine.  Domestic Partnerships.  Fine.
If it would get it passed and give me the rights and responsibilities, the wingnuts could call them Sodomitical
Legalized Unhealthy Relationships (SLUR).  I don't care as long as my relationship has the same legal protections
and obligations as anyone else's marriage.  One system for straight people and a separate system for gays and lesbians.
Separate but equal.

Though, somehow separate but equal doesn't work out to be equal, although it seems to work out to be very separate.
That's the problem, that's the fear. The word "marriage" matters because of what is says about my relationship.
A union sounds like a business agreement.  It has to be explained.  But everyone what makes a marriage.
I am a citizen, a tax payer, a voter.  I should be treated equally by my government.  If the government treats
my relationship as some sort of consolation prize that's not equal treatment. The separate path says same sex
relationships and by extension gay and lesbian persons are second class citizens.

This struggle is not an easy one.  Even gay-friendly heterosexuals have a challenge seeing same sex relationships
as equal to their marriages.  But to me, my partner is my husband, my friend, my lover and our relationship is in
every way that matters a marriage.

That's the best I can do . . .

Sincerely,
GBB

BC:

You're right (for once, ha, ha).

The Rethugs will use the "gay marriage threat" to bash Dean's head in.
That is why I choose Clark (other reasons also).

As with Bill Clinton with "don't ask, don't tell" and the military,
the Rethugs will get great mileage out of this one.
The best hope for Dean is to have Clark as his VP.

Clark says he'd take Hillary as his VP.
I don't care for her myself, I think she is the best example of  a so-called "progressive", who really isn't.

Look at Diane Feinstein now--totally regressive.
Hillary would be the same.

Dean-Clark; a good bet.
Best, Neil in VT
 

Now is not Hillary's time.
The first presidential election after 9-11 will be all about national defense.
Well, that and why the "fag democrats" can't be counted on to save us.

It's another reason why I think Clark should be the nominee.
It's not right and it's not fair, but Dean has a "gay past."
Meanwhile, Clark has military deniability with a "civil unions" answer to this.

Hey bart,

First of all, you're right about the dems not endorsing gay marriage.
Sad to say, it would be political suicide.

The reason gays want civil unions is the same reason that African-Americans wanted
their kids to go to the same school or drink out of the same water fountin as white kids.
Civil unions are akin to the old Sepreate but Equal bull-shit.
They were seperate but they sure as hell weren't equal.

Dean has it right,
Bushco. uses God, guns, and gays to divide us so we can't see
the real issues like education, jobs and needless wars.

Chris

I'm not gay, but I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

Consider: Until 1967, the federal government allowed states to define who could and could not be married.
However, in Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967), the court held miscegenation laws to be unconstitutional
under the 14th Amendment.  In effect, the court held that states could not define a marriage in terms of people
belonging to a singular racial/ethnic group because it violated their rights under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

So, suppose in the wake of Loving v. Virginia, states began passing "Domestic Partnership" laws.
These would define "domestic partnership" as an agreement between two people of different races to have
the same legal rights as those "married" in a "church."  But they wouldn't be "married."  I'm reluctant to bring
this up as I am sure there are lots of people in South Carolina that might bright such legislation forward.
Would that be acceptable to you?  Would it be acceptable to the biracial marriages?

All the same arguments are being forwarded toward same sex marriages that were used to defend miscengenatation laws.
The purpose is EXACTLY the same: to maintain those who are in those relationships in a second-class status.

What many are not considering, however, is the implications this might have on hetero couples.  If gay couples can get
married in civil ceremonies, then there must be NO distinction in civil ceremonies.  In other words, we wouldn't have a
civil "marriage" ceremony for straight people and a "civil union" ceremony for gay couples--they would both have to be
civil union ceremonies.  Suddenly, heteros become exposed to all kinds of discrimination because they have children
"out of wedlock."   If, for example, a school district had a "morals clause" in teaching contracts that allowed people to
be fired for having children "out of wedlock" they would now be vulnerable because they were only in a "civil union."
Certainly private schools and private companies could get away with this.  Certainly, private companies would be
allowed to provide insurance only to "married" companies.

In short, civil unions and domestic partnerships still provide an unacceptable tiering of rights under the 14th amendment.
We wouldn't tolerate such difference in relation to biracial couples and we cannot tolerate it in relation to same sex couples.

Tim "Not Gay" the Hun
Let me at Tally the Weather Vixen and I'll Prove It.

ha ha
I predict that line will elicit a Woo Hoo from Tally.

There were more, but at some point I had had to hit "send."
 

  back to  bartcop.com