would calling gay marriage ''domestic partnership'' neuter the right's continual attacks?

[yurbud]

I have no problem with calling it marriage, but clearly the right is going to keep rallying the lynch mob on this for some time to come.

Would it neuter there organizing ability and give people time to get used to the idea if we just called it domestic partnership but included all the same rights?

[Terran]

1. The only problem with the first choice is

it would tend to create a 'separate-but-equal' scheme, the constitutionality of which is doubtful. Personally, I think it would be a hell of a lot better than nothing, but a lot of people here stand on principle.

[Marrah_G]

2. Separate but equal?

Sort of the same but different?

Would they domesticpartnership for love or is it just the cold impersonal contract that it sounds like?

If words don't mean anything then why not just keep it marriage?

[DemoRabbit]

3. Legally, CALL it DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP for EVERYONE. Let churches call it marraige.

[yurbud]

5. that's the best solution, but right likes separate & unequal

[SidDithers]

18. And churches that are willing to perform marriage ceremonies...

for gay couples will be allowed to?

Sid

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Separation of church and state

as far as I am concerned the state should not care who does what religious ceremony? If the state takes over the marriage of all couples, before any religious ceremony, sure... you want to do a religious ceremony, knock yourself silly... you don't fine... the power at that point is neutralized.

But in my view we should look at Mexico and France... and how that works...

[Liberal Gramma]

4. I think the separate but equal thing has already been tried, with poor results

Seems to me that's what they called segregated schools in the south. The black schools were always separate, never equal.

[Marrah_G]

6. Bingo

[yurbud]

7. LBJ's solution cost us rise of far right

He did the right thing, but the cost was pretty steep.

[HEyHEY]

8. You can't run from what's right.

Nor can you morph it to fool people, or to give an inch to their bigotry.

[goddess40]

9. They need a "hate issue" to run on

and gays and atheists are the last two groups that are still open season.

[Chovexani]

10. My god, how clueless are you?

They will not stop until we are all back in the closet or dead, okay?

Let me repeat that for you:

THEY WILL NOT STOP UNTIL WE ARE ALL IN THE CLOSET OR DEAD.

We could call it "super happy friendship times" and they would STILL fight it. Did you not pay attention to Proposition 2 in Florida? That not only banned marriage but civil unions...and domestic partnerships.

Aside from the fact that it's fucking unconstitutional bullshit and violates the equal protection clause, it is our very existence and our audacity to love people with the same plumbing that offends them. These fundie Reich Wing bastards see us as subhuman and see even the most minimal, basic of equal rights whatsoever as an "affirmation" of our "sinful choice of lifestyle" that will lead America into the flames of Apocalypse, and it is their sacred duty to stop that at any costs. If you think I'm bullshitting you go on Dobson's, Robertson's or Wildmon's websites sometime.

Please, please refrain from posting this ignorance. It's borderline trolling at this point.

[gollygee]

15. You should copy and paste this to about a dozen threads

Not only do I think it wouldn't work, taking the word "marriage" away from EVERYONE would only cause the right-wing to think that marriage had indeed been destroyed, as feared, and guess whom they would blame?

[Chovexani]

20. Fuck it, I'm going to make it a thread.

I will whip out crayons if I have to.

[Marlana]

22. This deserves it's own thread.

You are absolutely right and you should paste this in every thread about this topic. I don't understand why more people don't understand.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. The fringe will never stop, that you are correct

but as a minority who lost 50 relatives to Hitler I know this... they will NEVER stop regardless of what you do

So you need to take ammo away from them

Take the authority to marry people with the force of civil law away from them... we have separation of church and state in this country... fine let the state MARRY everyone... period... not license, marriage.

This is a civil function, not a religious one and this is one way to deal with the fringe...

Oh and they will scream even harder AT THAT POSSIBILITY.. because they will loose an important power that they have over people... at least in theory.

What do you mean I need to go down to city hall to get married before my preacher can marry me? YEP... no licence, your preacher cannot any more marry you before the state. That will go down like a pail of cold water by the way

Oh and this means a civil union, for you, me and everybody else... with the exact same rights and duties before the state. At that point the religious freaks are out of the picture legally... and yes they will fight that... but in a secular country that will need to happen sooner or later

By the by... down in Mexico they are starting to recognize these unions... guess why it is easier in spite of the Catholic Church? The Church does not marry anybody, insofar as the state is concerned, the state does.

[jonnyblitz]

28. damn you are good. THANK YOU!

:hug: :thumbsup:

[yurbud]

29. ah! Your Florida example cleared up my question. Thanks.

[mainegreen]

11. As a straight man, I can tell you I am MARRIED to my wife, not 'domestically partnered'.

So you draw from that whether calling it 'domestic partnership' would be ok in my opinion.

[baldguy]

12. No.

It's an article of faith for the American Taliban that gays are subhuman and should be killed on sight. Defeating the recognition of gay marriage is just the fist step toward that goal.

[Liberalynn]

13. The Fantic Fringe

doesn't care what you call a union between gay individuals. The religious nuts will only be happy if they can dictate how everyone else lives their lives. They want us all to bow before their narrow interpretation of what they think Jesus wants us to do.

Convenient how they always forget "judge not less ye be judged."

That's reality pure and simple, and we ALL need to quit making concessions to them, and excuses for them.

If people want to claim its not the majority of religious people who are the fantics then they need to start standing up to the nuts, and take back their churches.

I am a straight ex Catholic who stood up right during the middle of a sermon and walked out, when they started preaching their fudie stuff, and I said loudly "This is crap." I haven't been back since. Maybe if more did that, and they had to close the doors due to lack of attendance, and few donations, then maybe they'd get the message, to quit trying to screw with the seperation of church and state.


Lip service to Constituttional principles is not enough.

[hunter]

14. How about we just call it marriage?

And then we can call the relationships of prop eight supporters "domestic partnerships" and stamp "NOT GAY!" on their domestic partnership licenses.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. I was thinking about this in the morning

very technically when any of us goes before the county judge... what we are engaged in is a CIVIL UNION... why? It is performed by a civl officer of the state...not a preacher.

So one way out of this mess is one applied by our neighbors to the south.

Basically have a system where you are required to first marry down with the Judge... justice of the peace, what have you... and that is the one that counts for all matters of civil law.

This means every citizen in the country needs to go before the civil magistrate and be married by the state... lets call it a civil union, and only then they can proceed, if they so choose, to marry through the church, et al. This also means that my rabbi needs the marriage certificate in order to perform the religious ceremony... not a license.

This would remove the religious component and would make every civil union the same before the eyes of the law... regardless of what the insert religious people want to say. This is the way it is also done in many european countries... and given that we do have a separation of church and state it will take away that power from insert church here.

And for the sake of the right wing nutsos... lets call it civil union... very technically it is.

[gollygee]

19. "Marriage" means "joining togther"

not "religious union"

The word isn't even just used about people, let alone just religious people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Yes, but the state can call what it does a civil union, since by definition

that is exactly what it is.

Takes the language away and takes the freaks away from the civil part of marriage

And without that CIVIL UNION no preacher can or should carry the religious ceremony

In fact, under CIVIL COMMON LAW a couple that lives together for iirc 10 years, is considered married... by default, Well changing the name to civil union and using that for EVERYBODY creates a pretty equal civil system... you and I have the same rights BEFORE the state... which is what matters for things like hospital visitations, property and inheritance.

By the way down in Mexico it is called a civil union, the one performed at the equivalent of city hall... even if most people call it a civil marriage

Also people get it... the church cannot marry me until the state has.

It has allowed for same sex unions to start to go ahead... and trust me the catholic church is powerful... same shit, different language

[originalpckelly]

17. Domestic Partnership?

Sounds like a cleaning service run by lawyers.

[Juche]

21. George Lakoff recommends calling it 'freedom to marry'

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

Or take gay marriage, which the right has made a rallying topic. Surveys have been done that say Americans are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Well, the same surveys show that they also overwhelmingly object to discrimination against gays. These seem to be opposite facts, but they're not. "Marriage" is about sex. When you say "gay marriage," it becomes about gay sex, and approving of gay marriage becomes implicitly about approving of gay sex. And while a lot of Americans don't approve of gay sex, that doesn't mean they want to discriminate against gay people. Perfectly rational position. Framed in that way, the issue of gay marriage will get a lot of negative reaction. But what if you make the issue "freedom to marry," or even better, "the right to marry"? That's a whole different story. Very few people would say they did not support the right to marry who you choose. But the polls don't ask that question, because the right wing has framed that issue.





Basically, ask people this question: Are you for or against the government limiting a citizen's right to marry the person of their choosing?

The concept of 'gay marriage' becomes a referendum of gay sex. By changing the frame to become a referendum on freedom of association instead of gay sex the dems may do better. ie, frame the issue in a way to ask them 'are you for or against government limiting freedom of association' rather than 'are you for or against gay sex'.

In an ideal world we would not care if people choose to live their own lives. But the gay rights movement is still (in my view) about where the civil rights movement was in the late 70s. There is progress, but there is alot to go. I fully support gay marriage (like alot of people under 30) but the reality is this country is full of people who are in their 60s and who didn't even know about the concept of gay rights until 10 years ago. It'll be a hard prejudice to shake loose.

Lakoff is also the guy who back in 2004/2005 said Obama was basically the only dem candidate who understands how to talk with values and with frames. Howard Dean is a huge fan of his. Now a few years later and Dean is head of the DNC and Obama is president. Lakoff knows his shit.

[TrogL]

25. The RRR's won't be satisfied until every LGBT person is dead

[4themind]

27. Delete-nt