U.S. politics isolation tank

[Netzach]

The semantics of this issue have become a central issue in themselves, and that's a shame. Those who know much more about the issue than I may be able to refine this, but I think the French model is the most rational and it would be a useful model. In France, every couple gets married by the state. Every couple. Any couple that wants a church wedding for whatever reason, gets one. Only the state can confer legal status on a marriage.

I'm sure if we tried to borrow this model there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in certain Christianist quarters (and maybe in the quarters of a few other religious groups as well, I don't know). Those who are incumbents in a privilege tend to see oppression when others are granted even a minor variant on that privilege, so churches would likely throw fits at a perceived loss of privilege and prestige.

Now, I am not conversant in how France handles non-hetero marriage, so they may or may not be a good model in that regard. But for marriage in general, I like how they roll.

I'm not a huge fan of this "only the state" thing, I think that some legal ideas like "common law" etc. should play into things. There are people of all orientations who simply don't believe in the institution, build lives, and when they separate I don't like the idea of one person being completely legally vulnerable because they were hippies who declared love in the woods in the presence of Pan or whatever thing.

I'd like everyone to be able to have a civil partnership or an unmarried partnership or simply say something crazy like "I'm single but I want my sister on my insurance" and have all the same property and legal designation abilities, whether everyone can get married or not.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Now, I am not conversant in how France handles non-hetero marriage, so they may or may not be a good model in that regard. But for marriage in general, I like how they roll.

Opponents of France ’s proposed Marriage for All law granting same-sex
couples marriage and adoption rights staged an impressive show of force Jan. 13 by mobilizing up to 800,000 marchers against the measure. But while ruling Socialists responded to the self-described Protest for All
with vows to pass the legislation when it goes before Parliament Jan. 29, the size of the demonstration served to illustrate significant divisions within France toward the initiative. Those clashing positions also exist within otherwise united political camps — including what some observers claim is the ambivalent attitude of French Socialist President François
Hollande.

Sunday’s Paris marches attracted what organizers said were
800,000 very boisterous protesters. Police estimates put those
numbers closer to 340,000, though even that more than tripled
the 70,000 to 100,000 who participated in an earlier
demonstration in November. General momentum around
Marriage for All appears to be similarly shifting. A recent
opinion poll found 56% of French people backing the
legalization of gay marriage — about 10 points lower than
levels in November 2012. The same survey found support of
adoption rights for gay couples dropping four points to 45%.
Despite those evolving views, the ruling Socialists responded to
Sunday’s protest by vowing to pass their Marriage for All law
for the country’s own good.

 

[midwestyankee]

I'm not a huge fan of this "only the state" thing, I think that some legal ideas like "common law" etc. should play into things. There are people of all orientations who simply don't believe in the institution, build lives, and when they separate I don't like the idea of one person being completely legally vulnerable because they were hippies who declared love in the woods in the presence of Pan or whatever thing.

I'd like everyone to be able to have a civil partnership or an unmarried partnership or simply say something crazy like "I'm single but I want my sister on my insurance" and have all the same property and legal designation abilities, whether everyone can get married or not.

I don't see how an "only the state can confer the legal status of marriage" would be incompatible with "the state can confer legal status equivalent to marriage on any person who registers for it." I see the two as separate but related issues.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In other words we lesbians and gays aren't, in your world view, good enough to be married, so let us(hetero people), bring everyone down to our(lesbians and gays) level and call it a civil union. That is just so much crap. Marriage, as far as the state should be concerned, is nothing but a legal institution between two people. It is not as you seem to believe an institution, somehow blessed by someone's god.

If you want to defend traditional marriage, who's tradition do you want to defend? For us women, for most of history, even today in some cultures, marriage has meant nothing but legal slavery. I'm sure there are many men who'd like to see that form of marriage. A form of marriage that even legalized beating his wife, in some cases even to death.

We don't want marriage laws changed, nor degraded to something else. What we want is to be treated equal. To be allowed to marry, to have that marriage recognized in every State and by the Federal Government.

I am married, I have all the responsibilities, which are many, but only some of those rights. So fuck your civil unions, just make us equal.

I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and point out that's not what Homburg said at all.

I don't see how an "only the state can confer the legal status of marriage" would be incompatible with "the state can confer legal status equivalent to marriage on any person who registers for it." I see the two as separate but related issues.

This is what Homburg said, and so say I as well.

 

[Netzach]

I don't see how an "only the state can confer the legal status of marriage" would be incompatible with "the state can confer legal status equivalent to marriage on any person who registers for it." I see the two as separate but related issues.

Cool. As long as it doesn't get too "must show ID to vote" ish. There are always people who are completely out of the loop of things for some reason.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Cool. As long as it doesn't get too "must show ID to vote" ish. There are always people who are completely out of the loop of things for some reason.

Um? MWY wasn't talking about totalitarian government, he was talking about pulling church authority out of secular matters.

My ex and I lived together for ten years. When we went to declare ourselves married under common law, we still had to create a marriage certificate for the federal records. That's how common law works, if a couple wants the federal benefits.

And it doesn't work if the couple is same sex. because of Christian dogma controlling the secular law.

 

[Dyslexicea]

That is not AT ALL what Homburg said, nor in any way implied, at least by my reading. Maybe you're more literate than I am.

My reading: Abolish marriage as a legal institution. Make the legal joining of two (or more) persons (of whatever persuasion{s}) a civil union. If a pair (or more) of people who have agreed to join in a civil union wish to have a religious ceremony/blessing on that union, let them find a church in which to do it... but don't make *that* the basis for whether their joining is legal.

The problem with marriage is that it historically has been performed and "blessed" by the church (whatever church that may be), and that church performance recognized as a legal act by the state.

Having everyone who wants to be joined together do so in a civil union (legal, sanctioned by the state) in no way diminishes ANYone. Allowing those who wish to have that union blessed or sanctioned by a church in no way diminishes ANYone... especially if that church sanction is not tied to the legal ramifications of the union, e.g., shared insurance, right to inherit, right to attend at one's deathbed, etc., etc., etc.

Get off your high horse and re-read what Homburg said without your kneejerk reaction that anything *you* haven't proposed offers inequity to your group. He was proposing a more equal legal footing, with no requirement for some religious sanction, for ALL of us - hetero-, homo-, bi-, tri-, a- sexual, or apples and oranges!

Gawd/ess! THIS is why I try to stay out of the damn political threads!

I do admit I did over react to what Homburg wrote. But he did tie State and Church together. Beside I'm at times a real bitch. Just shoot me!

Just so we're all clear, marriage as sanctioned by the States, meaning States of the United States, has nothing to do with any church. Nor does anyone have to be married in a church, nor by any member of any church, nor even be a member of a church. It is as far as law goes a secular institution. Unlike you Winston, as stated in your signature, I am a Attorney, big freaking deal right, but just to let you know legally marriage is secular. So Winston your point about church and state are mute.

What upsets me, and most gays I know, is the mention of civil unions, something no one ever proposed until we wanted equal rights to marriage. You all know realistically marriage laws are never going to be done away with, nor ever changed to civil unions. The truth is civil society does need marriage laws, they are an advantage to the society, not just in the privileges they grant but even more so the legal obligation imposed upon those who do get married. If you are married you may want to sit down with a Family Practice Attorney, is may just shock you just how obligated your really are.

So when someone like Homburg, instead of saying I support your right to marriage but instead proposes something that even he knows is never going to happen, he is saying to those of us who are lesbian or gay we shouldn't have the right to marriage. Even though that isn't what he may mean it is what we hear.

Further I do not see how my desire to have equal rights, denies anyone else's rights. If any of you happen to believe some other types of relationships need the legal rights and obligations of marriage than go for it. You can do what we've done, fight, most of us may even support you.

 

[Netzach]

Um? MWY wasn't talking about totalitarian government, he was talking about pulling church authority out of secular matters.

My ex and I lived together for ten years. When we went to declare ourselves married under common law, we still had to create a marriage certificate for the federal records. That's how common law works, if a couple wants the federal benefits.

And it doesn't work if the couple is same sex. because of Christian dogma controlling the secular law.

Obviously that needs to change.

When I was living with my opposite-sex ex and we were opposed to the paper, his employment had a domestic partner policy where person A just said "person B is my benefits-eligible person" and that was it, no questions, no genital match-up scrutiny.

I guess that's too chaotic federally, but it worked fine in practical reality.

 

[Dyslexicea]

Hahahaha. Okay, I've slipped officially into bizarro land. I want everyone to have civil unions gay, straight or whatever and I'm supporting inequality?

Oh my goodness, what a lovely case of manufactured butthurt.

I want traditional matriage divorced from government. My problem is with that plain and simple. Mother Jesus balls, this place has gotten insane in my absence.

Y'all have fun.

At times my dear I do think I'm insane. Yes you are right I'm sorry I jumped down your throat with both feet. I hope it didn't hurt to much.

and make up?

 

[Netzach]

I do admit I did over react to what Homburg wrote. But he did tie State and Church together. Beside I'm at times a real bitch. Just shoot me!

Just so we're all clear, marriage as sanctioned by the States, meaning States of the United States, has nothing to do with any church. Nor does anyone have to be married in a church, nor by any member of any church, nor even be a member of a church. It is as far as law goes a secular institution. Unlike you Winston, as stated in your signature, I am a Attorney, big freaking deal right, but just to let you know legally marriage is secular. So Winston your point about church and state are mute.

What upsets me, and most gays I know, is the mention of civil unions, something no one ever proposed until we wanted equal rights to marriage. You all know realistically marriage laws are never going to be done away with, nor ever changed to civil unions. The truth is civil society does need marriage laws, they are an advantage to the society, not just in the privileges they grant but even more so the legal obligation imposed upon those who do get married. If you are married you may want to sit down with a Family Practice Attorney, is may just shock you just how obligated your really are.

So when someone like Homburg, instead of saying I support your right to marriage but instead proposes something that even he knows is never going to happen, he is saying to those of us who are lesbian or gay we shouldn't have the right to marriage. Even though that isn't want he may mean it is what we hear.

Further I do not see how my desire to have equal rights, denies anyone else's rights. If any of you happen to believe some other types of relationships need the legal rights and obligations of marriage than go for it. You can do what we've done, fight, most of us may even support you.

"You all know realistically marriage laws are never going to be done away with, nor ever changed to civil unions."

So basically, if you want the entire public debate to be truly secularized, GFY.

The objection is that you don't want teh gays to call it a marriage?

Fine, let 'em object.

Go object in your church, on your street corner, wherever, but your objections now have no bearing on the rights the government is granting.

When it comes to your ownership of your stuff and your parenting of your children here's a slip of civil union paper for you too.

Take every whiff of social romantic biblical ANYthing out of the legal aspect. Let them complain that God is shut out of government some more, who cares.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Netz? it's kind of hard to tell what you mean. Or maybe, who you are talking to.
Who the "you" is.

 

[Dyslexicea]

"You all know realistically marriage laws are never going to be done away with, nor ever changed to civil unions."

So basically, if you want the entire public debate to be truly secularized, GFY.

The objection is that you don't want teh gays to call it a marriage?

Fine, let 'em object.

Go object in your church, on your street corner, wherever, but your objections now have no bearing on the rights the government is granting.

When it comes to your ownership of your stuff and your parenting of your children here's a slip of civil union paper for you too.

Take every whiff of social romantic biblical ANYthing out of the legal aspect. Let them complain that God is shut out of government some more, who cares.

I'm sorry luv but you have me confused. Being confused of course seems to be my norm. But please could you clarify for me?

 

[Netzach]

Netz? it's kind of hard to tell what you mean. Or maybe, who you are talking to.
Who the "you" is.

Sorry more "they" than you. Opponents to "redefining marriage"... to include everyone outraged because it's government "telling the church what to do" insert semantic excuse to be homophobic here.

I'm saying, fine. Call what the government does something dry and sterile and else. Not because I have any issue with any adults being married and calling it married, but because I don't want the government as an arbiter of what that means. In my ideal la-la land, anyway.

I actually like the idea of taking gov't completely out of the non-secular and relationship identification sentiment game and calling what it does legally, something else, for everyone across the board.

Then everyone who feels married and can find a group of people who agrees and any or no deity to smile on it, is married. The end. What happens to their stuff is where courts step in.

 

[DVS]

I do admit I did over react to what Homburg wrote. But he did tie State and Church together. Beside I'm at times a real bitch. Just shoot me!

Just so we're all clear, marriage as sanctioned by the States, meaning States of the United States, has nothing to do with any church. Nor does anyone have to be married in a church, nor by any member of any church, nor even be a member of a church. It is as far as law goes a secular institution. Unlike you Winston, as stated in your signature, I am a Attorney, big freaking deal right, but just to let you know legally marriage is secular. So Winston your point about church and state are mute.

What upsets me, and most gays I know, is the mention of civil unions, something no one ever proposed until we wanted equal rights to marriage. You all know realistically marriage laws are never going to be done away with, nor ever changed to civil unions. The truth is civil society does need marriage laws, they are an advantage to the society, not just in the privileges they grant but even more so the legal obligation imposed upon those who do get married. If you are married you may want to sit down with a Family Practice Attorney, is may just shock you just how obligated your really are.

So when someone like Homburg, instead of saying I support your right to marriage but instead proposes something that even he knows is never going to happen, he is saying to those of us who are lesbian or gay we shouldn't have the right to marriage. Even though that isn't want he may mean it is what we hear.

Further I do not see how my desire to have equal rights, denies anyone else's rights. If any of you happen to believe some other types of relationships need the legal rights and obligations of marriage than go for it. You can do what we've done, fight, most of us may even support you.

Speaking of ties, have you seen Homburg's fancy rope work photo thread? OK, just thought it was time for a little levity.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Sorry more "they" than you. Opponents to "redefining marriage"... to include everyone outraged because it's government "telling the church what to do" insert semantic excuse to be homophobic here.

I'm saying, fine. Call what the government does something dry and sterile and else. Not because I have any issue with any adults being married and calling it married, but because I don't want the government as an arbiter of what that means. In my ideal la-la land, anyway.

I actually like the idea of taking gov't completely out of the non-secular and relationship identification sentiment game and calling what it does legally, something else, for everyone across the board.

Then everyone who feels married and can find a group of people who agrees and any or no deity to smile on it, is married. The end. What happens to their stuff is where courts step in.

Well, there's a world of issues about how people need, not merely want, to feel social validation and shit. Its pretty much built in to all primates. That's why the battle over the word itself. It gets top billing.

 

[Stella_Omega]

More on gun regulation;

"I snapped, shot three people, I'm sure."

 

[intothewoods]

More on gun regulation;

"I snapped, shot three people, I'm sure."

Terrible.

So what did folks think of the inauguration? In the beginning, I felt a bit like he was phoning it in. Yes, expectations for an Obama speech are always high! I also found the part about a girl growing up in poverty to be hollow. On the other hand, "Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall" -- eloquent and historic. That was the highlight.

Also, I was totally grooving on the choices of Schumer, Beyonce, Kelly Clarkson...Other than James Taylor, it was pretty freaking hip and urban! I mean, Schumer isn't hip but, well, he's hipper than some. LOL.

 

[midwestyankee]

Terrible.

So what did folks think of the inauguration? In the beginning, I felt a bit like he was phoning it in. Yes, expectations for an Obama speech are always high! I also found the part about a girl growing up in poverty to be hollow. On the other hand, "Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall" -- eloquent and historic. That was the highlight.

Also, I was totally grooving on the choices of Schumer, Beyonce, Kelly Clarkson...Other than James Taylor, it was pretty freaking hip and urban! I mean, Schumer isn't hip but, well, he's hipper than some. LOL.

I was quite moved by portions of the speech and there were chunks that felt a little bit like a typical State of the Union address. It's probably telling that I had to google Kelly Clarkson while she was singing to find out why she was there. I'm still not sure I know the answer, though.

It was amusing to see some on the right try to make hay out of the fact that the crowd in the Mall was smaller this time than four years ago. They seem to have conveniently not noticed that yesterday's crowd was larger than the crowds for BOTH of GW Bush's two inaugurals combined.

Instead of watching coverage of the inaugural balls last night, we went to see Lincoln.

 

[intothewoods]

I was quite moved by portions of the speech and there were chunks that felt a little bit like a typical State of the Union address. It's probably telling that I had to google Kelly Clarkson while she was singing to find out why she was there. I'm still not sure I know the answer, though.

It was amusing to see some on the right try to make hay out of the fact that the crowd in the Mall was smaller this time than four years ago. They seem to have conveniently not noticed that yesterday's crowd was larger than the crowds for BOTH of GW Bush's two inaugurals combined.

Instead of watching coverage of the inaugural balls last night, we went to see Lincoln.

I was surprised to see Kelly Clarkson but I thought she did a good job. I was thinking maybe B.O.'s daughters asked for her! She's had a legit career after American Idol so it wasn't too crazy.

I didn't hear people talking about the size of the crowds but of course there will be less people for the 2nd one. I was shocked it was over a million. Something I liked -- seeing ordinary families and folks on the mall. After so many years of hearing about Obama's elitist base, I guess I forgot that his entire voting block isn't, like, Dan Savage and Eva Longoria or rich spoiled urbanites. I saw people in fleece, bad hairdos and pajama jeans and I was like, HELL YEAH, THOSE ARE SOME MOTHER FUCKING AMERICANS!

And yes, I know, we douchebag urbanites get a vote too, but I liked the full range -- the racial and socioeconomic diversity in the crowd.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-bill_n_2541894.html

 

[Netzach]

I guess I should be horrified and outraged and dumbfounded.

Just another day in Dumbfuckistan.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I was going to link to her facebook campaign page-- but it blew up and looks like she's deleted it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Also;

 

[rosco rathbone]

Timeline: Who Stole The American Dream?

http://hedricksmith.com/timeline-who-stole-the-american-dream/

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Timeline: Who Stole The American Dream?

http://hedricksmith.com/timeline-who-stole-the-american-dream/

The tipping point, I think, is in the entry "1973." It was at that point, IMNSHO, that the lever shattered on the point of the fulcrum and any chance of regaining some sort of equilibrium was forever lost.