Gay Marriage

[The Jays]

The point is pointless on whether it is discrimination or not, though it plainly is.

Like I said two pages ago, all a civil union is, is simple a version of the 1950's "seperate water fountains". While both provide almost similar things, they wanna keep it seperate from eachother.

They don't want fags and hetero people to be considered equals.

The most specific biased is the one I mentioned where they can't have an actual ceremony in a place of worship like "normal" people and that as of today their union is only recognized in vermont.

The benefits and such things are basically the same thing as a marriage but the moral majority doesn't wanna see gay marriage on and equal level with straight man and woman marriage.

It really is that simple, it's common day segregation.

The gays just don't have their own version of Dr. King... or in their case Dr. Queen.

It is not the "seperate water fountains" thing. It's not a physical seperation between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

It is different but equal. There IS a difference between heterosexual and homosexual, and there is nothing wrong with that difference, and a united gay couple should be equal with a united straight couple, equal rights, equal privileges, equal benefits.

Now, see how I stated the difference between the two couples by adding an adjective in front of each word. If i take them away, "a united couple should be equal with a united couple."

A black man should be equal with a white man. "A man should be equal with a man."

There is no problem pointing out the difference between the two, as long as that difference is fact.

By calling the unions of heterosexuals and homosexuals the same thing, it does not make the two the same thing. One couple is still heterosexual, while the other is still homosexual. They are both different, but they both receive the same rights.

Calling one a marriage defines it as being a union between a man and a woman.

The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

Calling one a civil union is calling it a union between, simply, two people. You don't receive any more rights from getting married as you would from getting a civil union (if, hypothetically, civil unions received the same rights and privelges as a marriage).

If we call them both marriage, then we will still use the adjectives of heterosexual and homosexual to point out the difference. There's no value gained from changing the definition, and no value gained from leaving it the way it is. The only reason to leave marriage as being defined by a man and a woman is because it is the definition we have agreed upon for the last couple thousand years.

The one state in which civil unions are recognized, Vermont, used to have a governor, who recently dropped his bid for president. Here is an article regarding Howard Dean's position on civil unions, at least when he was governor.

December 23, 1999
Governor defends 'different but equal'
By Diane Derby Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER -- Amid growing criticism that a domestic partnership law would create a "separate but equal" status for same-sex couples who want to marry, Gov. Howard B. Dean disagreed with critics and defended his legislative approach Wednesday.

Dean said the "separate but equal" claim, with its inherent reference to the black civil rights movement, suggests that gay and lesbian couples would somehow be segregated or offered a different standard of benefits.

"That is not the case," Dean said, adding that in order to meet the court mandate, the domestic partnership bill would have to extend the same package of benefits to same-sex couples as are offered to married partners.

"I think it's not 'separate but equal.' It's 'different but equal,'" Dean told reporters, illustrating how important the semantics of the case have become. "There are many, many instances (in) statutes everywhere, including in Vermont, where things are different for different groups of people as a way to protect their civil rights."

"This is a civil rights issue as far as I'm concerned. I think many Vermonters see it as a civil rights issue," he said, adding that he saw no contradiction in the "different but equal" approach.

"People are different," he said. "Sometimes you have to do different things to guarantee people's civil rights in a different way, and I don't have a problem with that."

Dean and legislative leaders are looking to craft a "domestic partnership" bill in the coming session that would extend all of the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The move comes in response to a Vermont Supreme Court decision issued Monday that said the state was constitutionally required to do so.

"Whether this takes the form of inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' system or some equivalent statutory alternative, rests with the Legislature," the court said.

It appears there is little political will to pass a law approving gay marriage, but lawmakers are already working on the domestic partnership approach, which many view as a more moderate and more publicly acceptable approach.

While gay rights' advocates hailed the court's decision on Monday, many have since made it clear that their ultimate goal is to win recognition for gay marriage. Some are already vowing to challenge a domestic partnership approach.

"I'm having a really hard time letting go of not getting an entire 'yes,'" said Barbara Dozetos, editor of "Out in the Mountains," a monthly newspaper that covers the gay and lesbian community. "There's a lot of good about it (the court's decision), but my bottom line is 'separate but equal' is not 'equal.'"

"It's time for us to put on our armor, because it's going to be a fight," she said earlier this week, echoing a sentiment that appears to be growing since the decision was issued.

Dean would not answer the question of whether or not he would veto a gay marriage bill if one came to his desk.

"It's not going to come to my desk. It's a 'what-if' question and I think the chances of a gay marriage bill passing the Legislature are very close to zero, so there's no need to get into that," said Dean, who has repeatedly declined to spell out his thoughts on gay marriage.

"I think it (a gay marriage bill) is inadvisable for a variety of reasons, which I'm not going to go into," he said.

Asked why he wouldn't elaborate, he added, "Because it's my personal business and I don't feel like I need to share it with anybody."

It is not segregation. Segregation implies a physical seperation between two things, and that is not what happens when you call one a marriage and the other a civil union. It is discrimination, and discrimination itself is not a bad thing. Discrimination is knowing the difference between things and being able to use that knowledge.

The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

Prejudice is an incomplete form of discrimination; one judges the merits of one over the other without knowledge of all the facts.

I form my opinion of tomatoes as poisonous because they are red (scary) and belong to the same family as deadly nightshade therefore i will not eat tomatoes because i know they will kill me

There is no prejudice here. A marraige and a civil union are the same except for one fine distinction. A marriage occurs between a man and woman. A civil union occurs between two people. Other than that, the two are equal.

Now, it doesnt matter what the moral majority wants, because the two WILL be equal except for the fact than one will always define a union between a man and a woman, and the other will always define a union between two people.

If, as a society, we have decided that there is no problem with the fact that there are homosexuals and heterosexuals, then why should there be a problem if we define marriage as being the union of a man and woman, and civil union as the union between simply two people, if both provide the same benefits? We would simply be stating the distinction. And there is no problem with stating distinctions.


A short time ago in our country, a black man did not have the same rights as a white man. Now, what the country could have done is said "That black man is now a white man, and all black people should be recoginzed as white people from now on." That would give the black man all the rights of white people, but it doesnt change the fact that he has dark skin, and white people have light skin. And there's nothing wrong with that difference. Instead, we just recognized that a black man and a white man are equal, in terms of rights, benefits, priveleges, etc. The only difference is the color of their skin.






Now, in terms of the civil union in church thing, that is not something that the state can interfer with. It is the church's own decision on whether or not to allow for a civil union to take place. I think, though am unsure whether or not, that there are Christian denominations that allow for civil unions in their churchs. I do know that Catholics do not allow that, because they believe homosexuality is sinful. That's not the state's problem. Nothing is stopping them from starting their own religion, building their own church, and having a ceremony in there.