In
Message 273 of the "What will become of marriage?" thread, bob_gray asks of me:
quote:
I'm curious as to why you don't see some sort of a compromise as a possible solution to this issue.
Because it is logically impossible to "compromise" on equality. How can two things be equal if there are differences between them?
Listen, I understand that there are shades of grey, but many things truly are black and white. Things are either equal or they are not. To "compromise" means that you are accepting something less than full equality. If equality is the goal, how can there possibly be "compromise"?
quote:
It seems to me that the political reality of our system is that compromise is necessary.
Why? Why must equality be forever denied? I readily accept that people don't want to accept equality, but that doesn't mean we stop fighting for it or don't accept the crumbs people are willing to give. I am not arguing that people shouldn't take advantage of the crumbs that are given, but the goal is to have the exact same thing.
If that means the contract of marriage is discarded for the contract of civil union, so be it. The problem is not the word that is specifically used. Whether we call the contract "marriage" or "civil union" or "rutabaga" is immaterial. What cannot be considered sufficient is for there to be inequality in whatever is decided.
By all means, people should take advantage of the options that are available to them. People have to live in the here and now. Many of the rights that come with marriage can be approximated with other contracts which can be entered into by people of the same sex and if people want or need them, they should enter into them. But that doesn't mean you stop demanding for equality.
That is one of the arguments for full equality: A mixed-sex couple can go to the county clerk, pay a few sawbucks, and suddenly they have a huge set of rights that a couple trying to approximate through things like living wills, durable power of attorney, etc., can easily spend thousands of dollars in fees to the lawyers as well as the state. Do we really want to support extortion?
quote:
I think it is pretty clear that most people in government, even if they did agree with your position, would never support gay marriage because it would be political suicide.
Tough. Somebody has to take the fall. They're the ones in power. The buck stops with them. We went through this with regards to race and somehow we managed to survive (though the fight is still ongoing and still quite intense). Why are people so scared to do it again? Where is the gay Martin Luther King, Jr.? Where are the great orators who can show that this fight goes to the very heart of what it means to be an American? That this is the Christian thing to do?
quote:
Although Rosie's opinions on the subject are not a reason to make it law, if there are sufficient people in Rosie's state who feel the same way then they will not be likely to reelect someone who votes for gay marriage.
Well, in the end it took the Supreme Court to solve this problem for interracial marriage. I don't doubt that it will probably take an act of the Court to do it for same-sex marriage. However, if everybody is scared about what might happen, nothing ever will. If those in power are too scared about losing power in order to do the right thing, then they don't deserve to be in power.
quote:
They may however vote for someone who votes for civil unions. If civil unions were the stated method for bringing equality to the system
But they don't bring equality. They establish discrimination.
Civil unions aren't recognized by the federal government. How can they possibly be equal to marriage when they don't provide the same thing?
quote:
If it were possible to enact civil unions which gave people the same benefits as the current definition of marriage would that be such a bad thing?
Because it isn't possible. Separate but equal. It has never worked before...what makes anybody think it will work now? How does one "compromise" equality?
quote:
I understand your position on "separate but equal" is impossible
Then why are you advocating for it? If it's impossible, why are you trying to claim that it is acceptable? If that's all you're willing to give, then those who fight for equality would be fools not to take it, but that doesn't mean the fight ever stops or that you're somehow being noble or just for having done so.
quote:
and I agree with it in principle but once again I think that a compromise may be possible and beneficial.
How does one "compromise" equality? How can things be equal when they're different?
quote:
Perhaps stuffing gay marriage down the throats of the American sheep would be very satisfying were it possible, but might not we further our aims by slowly changing the system in smaller steps?
Justice delayed is justice denied. Rights have never, ever been won by playing fair and being nice. If they could, then you wouldn't need to ask for them in the first place since you would already have them. They have always been one by battle and forcing those who would deny you to give up what is rightfully yours.
Why are you advocating a line of attack that has never worked? Women had to be arrested, put in jail, and tortured in order to secure the right to vote. We had to go to war in order to stop slavery and still black people had to suffer lynchings. They had to shove the noses of the white idiots in power in the crap of their racist attitudes in order to get anybody to pay attention, stand up, and do something about it.
Clinton had the perfect opportunity to do something about institutionalized homophobia in this country. He had three big opportunities and he blew them all. He could have stood up to Nunn, called him the bigot that he was, and used the presidential pulpit to actually achieve equality in military service. He campaigned on that promise and still the country elected him. Instead, he caved.
He could have vetoed DOMA or even better, used his position as president to force the Democrats to vote against it so that his veto wouldn't be overridden.
When ENDA was up for a vote, he let it languish. It only took a single senator to get it passed and Clinton said he would sign it, but he did nothing to make sure that the senator that we all knew was going to wimp out found his testicles.
quote:
Say we first move to CUs for gays and then in 10 years, when people have become accustomed to the idea, we do away with government marriage entirely and move everyone to CUs?
Right. Because in ten years people will be ready for it, right? They won't possibly say, "You've got your civil union. What on earth are you complaining about? We gave you what you wanted and now you're back demanding more. There is simply no pleasing you, is there."
quote:
If someone wants a marriage they can certainly call it that if they want but it wouldn’t appear on legal documents.
Which means you won't have all of the rights of marriage. Separate but equal.
quote:
Just put spouse and spouse instead of husband and wife.
Yep.
And have that be the definition of "marriage" according to the law.
How do you "compromise" equality?
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2