Replies

I live in a gay ghetto, so I hear these conversations all the time. "Republicans won't let people choose who they love." It's such a crock. So when I bring up the fact that civil unions are legal in our state, they come back with "Civil unions aren't a marriage." What's the difference? I ask. "It's not a marriage in the government's eyes." But you get all the government sanctions in a civil union that a married couple would. What's the difference? "You can't call it a marriage." You can call it anything you want. Why are you so intent on having it be called a "marriage" when you are getting all the same benefits that a married couple would? "Because people don't see you as being married." Oh, I see. In other words, you don't care one whit about being sanctioned by government. What you want is to be able to force churches to sanction your union. "Blink. Blink. :::steam rising::: What are you, a f&8$#& Republican??" And that's where the conversation usually ends.

Yep. It has never been about marriage, gay or otherwise. It has always about forcing churches to change their definition of marriage in a way that it becomes meaningless.

Sort of like the ACLU wanting to establish atheism as the defacto state religion by driving all competiting version out of the public square.

"What you want is to be able to force churches to sanction your union."

Nicely played. I think it's not even that complicated. It's more about forcing everyone else -and particularly Conservatives- to use the term 'marriage'.

I'm in the rag biz, so do business with lots of gay guys. Politics comes up from time to time. All I know would be voting Dem, but none care about this marriage nonsense.

"Civil unions aren't a marriage." What's the difference?

They are free to get a civil union contract and then have a private marriage ceremony that isn't a legal issue. I have several gay friends who did this. Private "Marriage" ceremonies at a Unitarian church then a separate legal contract like a civil union. It isn't much different in a straight couple getting a marriage license then going to their church for a private ceremony. The only difference with the first example is the two don't legally relate.

“Because people don’t see you as being married.”

Back in the day, “gay” activists acknowledged that marriage was a heterosexual relationship and they were not interested in marriage because they were “gay”.

Then they started movements to obtain laws granting “gays” “civil unions”, and every attempt and success at that idea was slightly different and measured a little more or a little less in terms of legal rights equal to the rights of a married couple.

Then something changed and civil unions were no longer “good enough”; good enough to whom, “gay” persons or the activists and their laweyers; I suspect it was the latter not the former.

And now? Now the activists’ legal assault is not for “equality under the law”, is not for tolerance; it is an attempt to use the law to have the law mandate social acceptance.

It’s a false goal. “Gays” don’t need it and it does not really work, because true acceptance cannot be taken, is must be given, willingly.

Everyone, including social conservatives and “gays” should have accepted the separate institution of civil unions, with equality in legal respects therein, as a solution befitting the use of law, and leaving marriage unchanged, in law and socially, and leaving “acceptance” where it belongs - with those with whom you seek it in your own life, period.