A recurring theme in (neo)conservative attacks on liberals over the past four years has been hatred. Liberals hate America; liberals hate guns; liberals hate God; liberals hate Israel; liberals hate our troops; and so on. Democrats have been called “the party of hatred". I presume this is all meant as criticism.
So why do conservatives hate homosexuals so much? Just what, exactly, are they afraid of?
Next entry: Run!
Previous entry: They "Strengthen" Social Security Programs, Don't They?
I’m all for civil unions in lieu of gay marriage as a compromise position for now.
I concede that it is an unsatisfactory - and unsatisfying - solution, but it gives homosexuals the next-of-kin rights that they deserve while we wait for the rest of the country to do the right thing and stop fetishizing the term “marriage”.
The problem with “separate-but-equal” wasn’t just the symbolism that made separation inherently unequal; it was that the separate facilities were NEVER equal. Here, the substance would be the same and the substance is more important than the symbolism.
Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, senators from the bluest blue state, are against gay marriage. You can’t even get your own side to be on board with it and you’re going to criticize us for it? Also, gay marriage is not a partisan issue, it’s a regional one. See, Oregon winning vote margin for Kerry and the vote margin on the amendment.
The Republican party has done its damndest to make gay marriage a partisan issue, and that is what led me to couch the post in partisan terms.
However, to avoid any distracting irrelevancies, let me be clear: I have not yet heard anyone, from any party, articulate a sound policy argument for banning gay marriage. Can you?
Will there be a day when you actually address the substance of something I’ve written? I’m trembling with anticipation.
Ugarte, I think the symbolism is almost more important. Even when the seats in the back of the bus were just as comfortable as the seats in the front, Negroes didn’t have a choice about where to sit. This is about branding a group of “second class citizens”, which is against the principles I believe this country stands for.
Moreover, I don’t think civil unions are going to be an effective compromise or interim position as you suggest. To the contrary, I see banning marriage as the “interim” step. Most states already prohibit it, and some states already have banned civil unions.
Civil unions are almost certainly not protected by the full faith and credit clause, even if marriage is, and the constitutional amendment that is proposed would, if passed, essentially establish a constitutional right not to have to recognize the rights of gay people to marry. If that amendment passes (and based on the election results, which were—as much as anything else—a referendum on gay marriage, that looks likely), I believe it will be a death-knell for gay rights.
Oh, that’s so cute, Rick. You really think I read what you wrote and not just the first few sleep-inducing sentences. Yeah and all your other commenters really read the whole thing. Oh wait, what other commenters?
Karol, that is such a facile analysis. The Democrats never actually campaign against gay marriage. The Dems didn’t make it a wedge issue in the campaign, your guys did.
Schumer and Clinton don’t look favorably on abortions either. Should we be worried that they are going to try and overturn Roe?
The difference is that the civil rights battle was fought in stages also, Rick.
The back of the bus was an improvement on slavery. Civil unions are an ultimately unacceptable half-measure, but a step in the right direction. Civil unions are also certainly as far as the country is going to go right now absent judicial fiat.
Ugarte—you’re right, of course, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it
Ummm...I think we pretty much need judicial fiat even for civil unions in most states.
First of all, stop prefacing all of your comments with “ummm”.
Second of all, that is only because the party hasn’t really been trying to make the case for civil unions. A lot of cities have domestic partnership laws that confer next of kin rights and I think it is a battle that can be won at the state level. Maybe not in Utah, but probably in some states that passed gay marriage bans like Oregon or Colorado.
Also, the proposed constitutional amendment will both eliminate the possibility of judicial fiat and significantly chill the battle at the state level.