Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake Dun
If you talk to a lot of the opponents of gay marriage, they'll tell you point blank that they would cheerfully extend all the same rights that married couples get to gay couples in civil unions, just so long as the state doesn't consider it a marriage.
|
*shudders*
"Separate but equal" is a long-discredited method of balancing constitutionally protected Civil Rights with social attitudes. I really hope we aren't staring at the beginning of a kind of Jim Crow for gay people. That would really, really suck. My family did not bust their asses in the Civil Rights movement only to see the rights of others taken away.
Quote:
|
Having some mechanism for bundling rights is fine, but the institution of marriage is tangled up with too many other issues religious, personal, etc. What I suggest is civil unions for couples of all kinds, and that "marriage" be left to people to define for themselves.
|
Removing the term "marriage" from civic law and replacing it with " civil unions" strikes me as a simple, yet useful way to eliminate the religious aspects of that institution from law and policy. It might even help to pull the moral discussion out of the public domain and put it back in people's homes where it belongs.
Quote:
|
I agree with what you said about progress, actually, and I don't think it's incompatible with what I said. I just focused on the negative side of the coin because I was in a mood.
|
Completely understandable. Our history can be such an ugly, bloody thing, that what little progress to be seen is usually tarnished by the negatives.
- Heretic
