RAZD, let me paraphrase your position and if I got something wrong you could come in and correct me.
You think that the government should get out of the marriage business and begin distributing "civil union" to everyone, heteros and homos. You think that this will achieve the equality we have been seeking, since everyone now is "drinking from the same drinking fountain". You think that when it comes to marriage we should leave that entirely to religion and that anyone can have a marriage ceremony in a church or whereever they wish. You think that essentially marriage is a religious institution and that it should be that way.
If what I stated above is correct, read on.
Consider the following analogy. Suppose for years and years and years the position of doctor or physician has always been for men only. But as time goes on women begin to go to med schools and do well enough to obtain their MD licenses. Conservatives argue that by definition you have to be a man to be a doctor or physician. The women that have worked hard for years argue that it should be open to anyone who is qualified. People like Hoot Mon comes in and suggest that we should call the women who qualified to medically treat others as person-you-go-to-when-you're-sick and the men who qualified to medically treat others as doctors or physicians.
The women point out the obvious inequality in this "seperate but equal" institution. And this is where you, RAZD, come in. You suggest that we should get rid of the physician's lisence over all and start distributing the person-you-go-to-when-you're-sick lisence. So, when you go to the medical facility and speak to one of the healers, you refer to him/her as something like Person-you-go-to-when-you're-sick Berkes instead of Doctor Berkes. This, you argue, would achieve the equality the women have been seeking for years.
You also argue that anyone now can call him/herself as doctor or physician. So, what's the big deal with the word doctor, you ask?
There are several reasons I can think as being wrong in this scenario. The men will continue to refer to themselves as doctors, but technically the women can't. Anyone can walk right up to the woman physician and says "you're not a doctor, so shut the hell up" and she can't say a thing back because technically she's a person-you-go-to-when-you're-sick, not a physician. But on the other hand, people will still think highly of the men physicians and still refer to them as doctors.
Yes, I and my future partner can call ourselves married anytime we want. I could also call myself a doctor or lawyer or engineer anytime I want. Anybody can call himself anything he wants. That's not the point.
The point is marriage and family are concepts that have ingrained in our culture for a long long time, and people like myself are not immune to it. We want to get married, not civil unionized. I know some gay couples who have been together for years, all the while waiting hopefully that one day they could get married. You, RAZD, might be one of those that would walk up and ask "why don't you just get a ceremonial marriage?" Sure, they could do that, but it's not the same. Call it a delusion, if you will. Myself and quite a few others I know are conservative enough that we want to get married, not civil unionized.
My experience with this is people who advocate civil union can often be placed in one of the two following groups:
(1) Straight married people who have taken their marriage for granted and thus absolutely can't see what the big deal is with us gays trying to get into the institution of marriage, and that includes the word "marriage".
(2) Gay people who just don't care much about this marriage issue and can't understand why some of the other gays aren't living in open relationships like so many people do nowadays.
Speaking as a conservative, marriage means everything to me, and that includes the word. Again, why don't I just start calling myself and my future partner "married"? My answer to that is it's the same reason why I don't just start calling myself "pastor" or "doctor" or "physicist" or "engineer" or "dog" or "cat" or "chair".
If you still think I come from an irrational point of view, I give up. You can continue to advocate your scorch earth policy rather than let some of us finally enjoy something that you straights have been enjoying for centuries. Yes, the issue is very important to me, and as far as I know it is very important to many other gay couples who have been together for years. There's a reason why we aren't just pushing for civil union. The rights and protections, while very important, are not the whole picture. It's the social value that we have placed on the institution of marriage, and that includes marriage, and the hopeful/wishful thinking that our families could finally be viewed as equal and our relationships are just as important as the traditional relationship that exists in a marriage.
But I guess it's something you won't understand. It's not uncommon to find liberals who just won't understand why this marriage issue is so important to us and why we won't settle for civil union.
™ Version 4.2
