 by Brian Juergens
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 21 members and 962 guests online.
|
Hillary pledges to eliminate inequalities for same-sex couples in federal law on "Ellen"Hillary Clinton is on The Ellen DeGeneres Show right now pledging to fight for gay rights as President and "eliminate inequalities for same-sex couples in federal law". She then tells a story about growing up next to a gay couple who had no right to visit one another in the hospital when one fell ill. Not bad. She must have gotten word that Ellen is the most powerful gay in the country, and then some! Hats off to both these classy ladies. Submitted by on Mon, 2008-04-07 15:31. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
I love Hillary Clinton...
At least Hillary's been
At least Hillary's been consistant when it comes to her stance on gay people, unlike Obama. This is why I think we should all be rooting for her. Not only should you guys have had a Woman Leader by now (Thatcher may not have been the most successful or popular Prime Minister Britain has had, but damn was it a powerful message to all women over here when she won), but I do think you need a President that doesn't have many ties with the Church. Church and State must be separate and I don't think it will be if Obama wins.
That and she's just so damn likeable! I think so anyway...
It's because she's a troubled diva...ignore the issues.
This is why I think we should all be rooting for her.
Don't be silly...we're suppose to love her because she's a diva who is always being put upon...you didn't get the gay agenda memo?? Actually paying attention to the issues is beneath us.
Exactly!!
but I do think you need a President that doesn't have many ties with the Church. Church and State must be separate and I don't think it will be if Obama wins.
Thank you, Jason, that's exactly what I've been trying to point out.
Hillary is a member of a
Hillary is a member of a majority Republican congressional Bible group that has some very religious leanings. She has been just as open as Obama about her religious beliefs.
Know your facts, so is Obama
Hillary is a member of a majority Republican congressional Bible group that has some very religious leanings. She has been just as open as Obama about her religious beliefs.
Cadence...is it just Sen. Clinton's participation in it or does it trouble you that Sen. Obama attends it also?
And can you explain what the big deal is for either of them to attend? They're smooshing with the Republicans on their turf. Sens. Obama and Clinton are networking to them through the prayer group. A prayer group for God's sake! It's hardly cutting up babies and selling souls.
Although I'm sure they'll allow you to have your communal kool-aid.
I don't care if either
I don't care if either attends the group. I was referring to the person who said he believes that Obama's religion will have an impact on his ability to be President. I haven't seen any indication that either would let their religious beliefs interfer with the Constitution or people's rights. But the poster I was replying to seemed to make it sound like Obama is a religious radical or that he promotes his religion any more than Hillary does.
By the way, kool-aid is a lot better than the smarmy self-ritousness that Hillary supporters are pushing.
Interesting you should
Interesting you should mentioned "cutting up babies" since both Obama and Clinton support that "right."
I'll just say it: they're both liars on gay issues. If they really cared and weren't paying lip service they'd be introducing bills in Senate session after Senate session to repeal DOMA, as just one example. They can't be depended upon except to throw gays under the bus after their votes are locked up.
How has she been
How has she been consistent? She said both DOMA and DADT were good ideas when they passed. She doesn't have a visible LGBT section on her website, and the Ellen show is pretty much the first time that she's addressed LGBT issues outside of a majority gay setting.
The only consistent thing about Hillary is that she is not truthful. She will say anything to get elected, and then she will go along with whatever the polls or special interest groups say.
oh damn.
*is torn* I am all for Obama (hence my picture)...but then I see this....
...When Obama was on Ellen's show, didn't he say that he believes the states should decide about the whole gay marriage issue? I don't remember if he said anything about rights though.
hmmm. decisions, decisions.
Re: Clinton and Obama
Both candidates have expressed support for civil unions, but have not gone so far to support same-sex marriage. (saying it's a "state issue", etc.) Let's face it: Supporting same-sex marriage is politically untenable at the moment.
I'm all for Obama. The claim that an Obama presidency will close the separation between Church and State is completely unfounded. He is an extremely bright man with a background in the law.
Hillary Clinton has lost the nomination process. The only question is how much damage she will do to the Democratic Party before she finally concedes. Alas, once she started losing after Feb. 5th, any sense of her "class" was the first thing to go. The tide is turning against her, mathematically and public perception-wise.
As far as I'm concerned, Obama is a far superior candidate.
Pretty amazing considering the Convention hasn't happened yet...
Hillary Clinton has lost the nomination process.
Thanks, Kevinfan, for completely invalidating and disenfranchising 39,062,499 people who haven't yet had a chance to cast their votes.
She has lost mathematically
She can't win enough votes to outright secure the nomination. At this point I'm not sure either can. However, that doesn't mean she can't be selected at the nominee in a back room deal at the convention. She's trying to pilfer delegates from Obama.
PA Governor Rendell, a Clinton support, said there's no such thing as a "pledged delegate" and that they should just pick who would be the better president and ignore the voters. This sends a great message from a party called Democratic and many who claimed Bush was selected, not elected.
Re: The True Math
Neither candidate will get the 2,024 delegates necessary to secure the nomination, so that's why the superdelegates have become so important. However, Obama leads in the overall tally of delegates by about 130, has won the most states, and is leading in the popular vote. Even if Clinton gains a net increase in delegates in these final contests (and that's no guarantee since NC and OR, among others, favor Obama), most people agree that Obama will retain a significant lead in the pledged delegates, even Clinton's campaign has conceded this.
The conventional wisdom is that the superdelegates will not lightly overturn the pledged delegate leader. If all the metrics are still favoring Obama (and they most likely will), the superdelegates will rally around him and he will secure the nomination.
Also of note: Obama has gotten about 65 superdelegate endorsements since Feb. 5, and Clinton has had a net loss of 5 (due to events like Spitzer resigning, etc.). The vast majority of her superdelegate endorsements were announced before the first vote was even cast in the first primary, when she was the presumptive frontrunner. Over the last month, more and more prominent superdelegates have backed Obama because it's becoming clearer he will be the nominee -- Gov. Richardson of NM, Sen. Casey of PA, and even Jimmy Carter has overtly hinted his support of Obama.
The "there is no such thing as a pledged delegate" is perhaps the most insidious argument the Clinton campaign has championed yet. Pledged delegates, it should be reminded, are those each candidate is apportioned according to a state's primary or caucus results. So, basically, the Clinton campaign is saying, "Why have the people vote at all? We should just have delegates choose the nominee, irrespective of who the people in their district voted for."
Disgusting. Again, the same candidate who claims she cares so much about enfranchising people simultaneously is pursuing strategies which are the absolute antithesis of democratic processes.
Of course, the reality is that Clinton is not going to get any of Obama's pledged delegates (nor he hers, not that he has resorted to such desperate tactics). Each campaign hand selects the pledged delegates, which means they are diehard supporters of their respective candidate. Even though technically they could switch sides, the chances of that happening are very very close to 0. An Obama pledged delegate remarked the only way she'd change her vote to Clinton is if Obama himself told her to.
That's a nice story Hillary
That's a nice story Hillary told... but is it true? She sure seems to have an issue with telling the truth. I'm not sure I can believe any of her stories anymore.
Andrew Sullivan had a very nice article: The Urgent, Clear Choice For Gay Voters: Obama
Obama has a Gay Pride section on his website. Does Hillary have that?
Compare what Obama said to what Hillary said during the HRC debate.
Obama discusses gay issues even when it's not convenient or expected (or even appreciated).
Obama belongs to a United Church of Christ congregation -- which is a very liberal Christian denomination, many of which support gay marriage and perform same-sex ceremonies.
In his HRC-debate response, it is clear that he supports a separation of Church-marriage & State-marriage:
It is also clear from his book, The Audacity of Hope, that he is a strong proponent of the separation of Church & State.
Go Kip! Go! Rip her up, destroy her!
I love the spirit of unity that Sen. Obama inspires in his followers. They represent him so well. When Democrats are actually quoting conservative Andrew "Bareback, everybody should catch the freedom of the bug" Sullivan to slam another Democrat something is wrong
Neither candidate is perfect on gay issues...far from it. As far as their policies go they are virtually identical. Except for the way they communicate with the gay community. Sen. Clinton goes into a voting market and gets her people active on the streets of the gay community. Sen. Clinton gives her time to the gay community by talking to local press and doing interviews with national media like Logo One on One.
And since you mentioned it...Sen. Obama does belong to a UCC congregation...one that refused to sign on to the UCC's Open and Affirming Program.
If you are gonna try to rip Sen. Clinton apart at least be straight forward about it. Sens. Obama and Clinton are admirable people, neither is a monster and both will be a friend to the community. One more so than the other.
BTW, welcome Kip...I see you just joined to make this pro-Obama post. I hope they're not keeping you too busy...
I'm just stating the truth...
1) Please don't patronize me with your insincerities.
2) Of course Hillary goes to gay-focused groups and touts her pro-gay stances. Obama does it in front of crowds that are historically anti-gay. See the difference?
3) Hillary told a major untruth about being under sniper fire. She either did it knowingly, in which case she is a blatant liar; or she did it unknowingly in which case she has some mental problem. Seriously, what other alternative is there?
4) I used to like Hillary; and would have voted for her. But, after everything she has done in this campaign... wow, I don't see how she still has as much support as she does. One side is clearly delusional. History will tell.
Re: Hilary
I'm in the same boat, Kip. I used to like her and I even voted for her in my Feb. 5th primary. But something happened after that....She started to lose. Badly. And then the gloves came off, and we saw her for her true self: Nasty, hypocritical, say-and-do-anything-to-win power-hungry self. Her campaign has become an embarrassment and an outrage.
And the fact that she consistently elevated McCain over Obama (unforgivable) and is perfectly willing to prolong the inevitable to the point where it may severely hamper the Democratic Party's chances in the general...It's utter bullshit, and a lifelong Democrat it offends me personally so that she would be so selfish in her pursuit of power.
Sorry...Bullsh!t...they both do it...
First, they both do it in front of groups that typically have issues with gays. Sen. Obama's are more visible because the US media has a camera up his ass and reports every time he makes a boom boom. I was at a Sen. Clinton "undecided" voters rally in Kansas and there were a lot of church groups there...she took questions on social issues and spoke very honestly about gays being used as a wedge issue. Was it picked up by the media (even though they were there)...nope. CNN.com and MSNBC.com both cover the campaign rallies live on their websites...tune in and you'll see that they both address gay issues to crowds that don't want to hear the reality of life...church groups, union meetings...
Second, Lies about sniper fire...lies about an opinion on NAFTA...they both have their shortcomings with truth.
One side clearly is delusional...and if ends up being us Sen. Clinton supporters than I'd rather be delusional than destructive. I can easily support a candidate without having to destroy the other.
Name another time, besides
I already named one time above...
...and all you have to do is look at article about her run for her seat in NY and you'll see that she addressed the issue a lot in front of very hostile upstate NY crowds. Sen. Obama mentions us for two seconds in a 20 minute speech and you think it's ground breaking or more important than the actual actions of other politicians.
Both of them are on our sides and both of them address gay issues. It's a matter of who is beyond the talk and on to actions. Which politican is taking heat from the red blogs for making themselves so available to local gay press? Which politician isn't sending a mixed message about gay issues by saying they are pro-gay but then touring with an anti-gay, ex-gay phoney?
On Sen. Clinton's campaign site there are videos of her taking questions from students on gay issues like coming out and gay teen suicide.
Open your eyes...they both have issues but good relationships with us.
Plus...Ellen's audience "gay hostile" ...Ellen's .... audience .... really?
Re: Clinton
It's the Clinton campaign that has dug down into the depths of dirt and divisiveness these past 2 months. It's Clinton who's doing the most to destroy the Democratic Party by her unwillingness to concede and thereby hampering the eventual nominee's ability to unite the party and achieve victory in the general.
I have no problems with people supporting Clinton, that's what makes our democracy great. But I think I can criticize her campaign without being accused of "destruction."
Oh, and the "sniper fire" lie was much bigger than you intimate. She repeated the false sniper fire story, in elaborate detail, on no less than FOUR documented occasions. It was part of a systematic plan to exaggerate her foreign policy "experience" (the basis of her campaign, really) by saying she helped open the Bosnian border, bring peace to Northern Ireland, etc. All grossly exaggerated and ridiculous claims considering she was First Lady and not Commander-in-Chief, but it hasn't stopped her from making those insulting arguments.
You want the truth?
It was Clinton, not Obama who was lying on NAFTA. (I think Obama's stance is clear: revise NAFTA to include environmental & labor standards.)
You are delusional if you think Clinton is not the one being destructive
Do you read your own links?
All patries involved in the Canda article have said Sen. Clinton's campaign did not meet with them...the same cannot be said for Sen. Obama.
If you need to lie are you any better than the person you are trying so hard to destroy?
And thanks for the link to your website:
"Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers."
That's very clear...I'm lost in the details of how he's gonna fix it.
Video doesn't lie:
Really? Videos don't lie?
Not even videos put together by diehard Sen. Obama supporters? Videos that show bits of a Hardball segment that was actually (oddly) balanced and while showing quotes from people who said Sen. Clinton was pro-NAFTA also had quotes from people saying she had issues with it...but strange...they weren't included in that Tube. Odd....
Of course...videos don't lie.
And because I respect both candidates I won't post any of the anti-Sen. Obama YouTube videos that "don't lie" about him. It's just silly.
Ellen should have pressed her further on one thing...
I agree. I think
Exactly
I hold exactly the same view on separating Church and State notions of marriage. A government of all the people should only care about registering which consenting adult pairs † commit as partners in life. A union is a good thing for society because it means there are fewer single, lonely people likely to do self-destructive or more risky things or have to depend on society to care for them in their declining years.
† I know there are a handful of extremists who try to identify themselves with the gay rights movement and add support of animal or child love but I completely reject those outright.
As a Canadian citizen...
I'm very interested in the entire homosexuality issue in the U.S. We enjoy same-sex marriage here in Canada and overall, we're just more accepting of the LBGT community. Before he became our Prime Minister (for 15 years), Pierre Elliot Trudeau was our Justice Minister and I pulled the following excerpt from Wikipedia.org:
As justice minister, Pierre Trudeau was responsible for removing laws against homosexuality from the Criminal Code of Canada, famously remarking: "The view we take here is that there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."
Please take note that Trudeau said this back in the late 1960's!! Now, I'm no expert in American politics of course, but all Obama or Clinton or any other politican in the U.S. needs to do is refer to the above excerpt and take it to heart. Plain and simple.
Regards,
dgd417
Re: Hillary
Wow, I didn't realize I wielded such power. One strike at the keyboard and I single-handedly disenfranchised millions of people? How nifty. <sarcasm off>
Perhaps I should have prefaced the sentence with, "Absent catastrophe to the Obama campaign..." I thought it was impied. I've studied the delegate math and the remaining contests (have you?), and practically all informed observers agree that mathematically speaking, Hillary has an extremely low chance of winning the nomination. And winning the nomination without splintering the Democratic Party, still lower.
Ironic that your candidate speaks so highly of enfranchising those remaining voters (because she's desperate and that's all she has left), yet she is actively engaging in a strategy to have the superdelegate overturn the ENTIRE nomination process by overturning the pledged delegate leader (which will be Obama, even Clinton's campaign has conceded that).
There is no internal consistency here. Hillary is on her last legs, she knows it, and she's willing to say anything or do anything to get the nomination. It's truly sad what her campaign has devolved into.
Thank You
There is no internal consistency here. Hillary is on her last legs, she knows it, and she's willing to say anything or do anything to get the nomination. It's truly sad what her campaign has devolved into.
I always find it funny that Clinton supporters fail to see this point.
No kidding
I always find it funny that Clinton supporters fail to see this point.
They fail to see a lot of things.
But at least they're in good company - about 1/3 of Americans still think that Bush is doing a good job.
We're all losers on this bus
afhickman
"It takes a village (to make Village People)"
All of this divisiveness is incredibly sad. I really thought the Dems had a chance this year, but we always insist upon snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. If there is anyone left out there who has yet to make up his mind, you might want to consider the Republican ticket. According to CNN, John McCain may ask Condy Rice to be his running mate. Just think of it: you can vote for her because she's black (which is to say, not white), or because she's a woman (although she's a bigger man than Richard Simmons), or a lesbian (self-loathing gays should take partiuclar note). She wins the trifecta! Yeah, go ahead and make Uncle Andy (Sullivan) proud.
Sorry to say this
but my faith in the american voters is not very deep.
These are just the pre-elections, and as much as I would like to see Hillary (or even Obama) as the new president of the USA I doubt that the average american is going to vote for either an african-american or a woman. I'm scared that in the end they'll vote for the republican no matter who it'll be. So I'd just be happy to see a democrate as the next president.
Quote:Hillary is a member
Yeah but Obama has been focusing a alot on the bible belt, which tells me he will have to pander somewhat to them if he wins.
My name's Jason thankyou very much. Er...talk about reading too much into what I said. Nowhere did I say that Obama was a religious radical, but from what I've seen, which is from an outside perspective,is that he does promote his religion more than Hillary. What about the homophobic pastor he had on his campaign team huh? I don't think Hillary would allow that on hers.
But anyway you guys seem to know a lot more about the background dealings than me, so I'll just bow out of this discussion lol.
Federal Civil Unions = Marriage Equality
There is a myth that marriage has more rights than civil unions. That myth is born from the fact that civil unions have only been passed by states which have no power to grant the 1138 federal benefits of marriage. However, a federal civil union policy would. Senators Clinton & Obama support a federal civil unions policy. 48 million votes cast in 29 states, 32 million against same sex marriage, we lost 2 to 1. According to Jennifer SookneMizell of Marriage Equality USA, “Actually, we get more benefits in California in certain areas with domestic partnerships than the same gendered marrieds(sic) in Massachusetts get.” 45 states have laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. The choice is clear, federal civil unions are achievable, federal same-sex marriage is not. Federal Civil Unions=Marriage Equality
Federal Civil Unions <> Marriage Equality
Will opposite-sex couples be required to supply the same sort of proofs of their relationship that those aplying for a federal same-sex civil union will be under Hillary's plan? Unlikely.
Will a federal civil union give a couple access to the legal benefits, protections and responsibilities provided by their state? Not without a HUGE fight over states' rights.
Will a federal civil union be treated as the equivalent of a legal marriage by public policies and those of business? Ask the folks in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island how equal their civil unions are with respect to those issues. Apparently you haven't seen the report from the New Jersey commission that found a difference between the way same-sex marriages in Massachusetts were treated as compared to couples in other states with civil unions - including Vermont, where civil unions have been around even longer.
Nevermind that the enforceability of this "equality" is highly questionable without the backing of a non-discrimination law.
Federal civil unions aren't equal to anything. They're just another smokescreen to make us feel better while continuing to treat our marriages as inferior and to keep us marginalized as if we were 'other' and outside the rest of society, instead of an integral part of it.
It's appeasement that only confirms the influence of anti-gay religious views over civil matters.
It's inefficient and unnecessary when the same thing would be accomplished by expanding marriage recognition instead of creating a new, separate institution.
As for achievable - don't believe everything a politician tries to sell you. Especially if their last name is Clinton.
Marriage/Civil Union Realities
Okay, I know full well that I will be flamed for saying this. I know that I will be accused of being a self-hating homo, a Republican sympathizer, an Ann Coulter lover. But here it goes
No federal level same-sex marriage law is going to get passed in the United States anytime soon!
There, I said it. Go ahead and hate me. Truth hurts. It doesn't matter if Hillary is elected, or Obama is elected, or if McCain is elected or even if Ralph friggin' Nader is elected!
There are many sadly deluded folks out there that think that this is an either/or proposition and that we have a choice to accept Civil Unions or true Marriage and that the matter is really up to us.
It isn't.
The structure of our nation makes this a considerably more difficult legal matter to resolve compared to the other countries that have legalized same-sex marriage. Federal legislation, which even a Democratic Congress is unlikely to pass, would immediately be challenged by the states. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court would side with us on this issue. Likewise, as noted, there is only a small minority of states willing to legalize same-sex marriage at this time. A clear majority of state governments have demonstrated considerable will to oppose it (as evidenced by something like 37(?) states explicitly banning it).
So this debate is largely an academic one. Nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage is not in the near-future. No amount of screaming, shouting or whining is going to change that simple fact.
Now, while are some are willing to stand on principle and argue "Equal marriage or nothing at all!", in doing so they are denying the immediate needs of gay couples that right now, at this moment, not in some time years down the road need things like to be able to cover each other with health insurance. In accepting compromise in the short-term they are branded "traitors" by radicals for whom the cause itself is the most important thing.
No, civil unions are not full and equal marriage. And the federal versus state divide is a legal hurdle that will have to be surmounted. These are the very arguments that carry the discussion forward even in those states which have civil unions or domestic partnerships.
But it is not an issue that will be decided in this election regardless of who wins. Until and unless a strong majority of Americans are willing to support us in this then legislative action is not likely to occur. The (currently Right-leaning) Supreme Court is not likely to be a matter of immediate succor either, which is why we must not let McCain win the election and be in a position to appoint conservative Justices, because that would be the cheapest and easiest bone that he could throw to the GOP conservative base.
I have spoken to gay people from a number of countries (the UK, Sweden, Denmark and Germany) that offer civil unions/partnerships, but not full marriage. The ones I've apoken to are of the opinion that what they have is better than nothing and that they are happy to have it as they work towards full marriage equality in the future. Even the Netherlands, one of the most liberal countries in the world, went through several years of civil unions before deciding that it was silly and went ahead and legalized marriage equality. But they still needed that adjustment phase before they were ready.
Personally, I'm inclined to say that it's better to take the path through civil unions. Historical precedent suggests that this is like training wheels for straight people's minds, to get them to realize that God isn't going to rain destruction down from Heaven for recognizing gay people's human rights. And it becomes a stepping stone towards marriage equality, as right now the various Scandinavian countries are considering upgrading their civil unions to full marriage, and opposition parties in several other countries are proposing similar acts should they form governments.
So getting one's guts twisted up in knots over who will legalize same-sex marriage in this election is a waste of energy. The issue is not even on the table so there's no point in pretending it is. The real goal is to determine whether we can move forward or backward with the next administration. And that's what motivates me.
The voice of sanity, at last
Thank-you, Psionycx.
Contrary to the impression my post above may give (Federal Civil Union <> Marriage Equality), I actually agree with most of what you've said here. I'm amazed that so many people have bought into the idea that we'll have recognition of same-sex marriages nationwide in 5-10 years. DOMA and the amendments to state constitutions are part of a much bigger obstacle: states' rights. They only way one gets there in such a short time frame is through a ruling from the Supreme Court. We won't get there legislatively without a long, hard fight to repeal those amendments and DOMA.
Even so, I think the legislative approach is the better one. I think if the court were to act, we'd see efforts made to erode its independence and power - things I don't care to see sacrificed just to obtain recognition of our marriages. I believe 20 years is being optimistic for this to happen legislatively. I think it will take longer, and I don't necessarily expect to see it in my lifetime.
I am less than convinced by the civil unions as stepping stone argument, though. I'm torn here, because I do recognize that people are desparate for something, anything that will give them some practical relief, even if it's not full equality. But I am not keen on the further codification of the alleged inferiority of our relationships in law. I think it could even end up delaying attainment of full marriage equality, rather than hastening it. The danger is twofold - complacency on the part of same-sex couples willing to accept less-than-equal status if they get enough from it personally, leaving those who don't with a weakened base of support. Similarly, there's bound to be more than a little noise from the "we gave you civil unions, why do you need more" crowd if we continue to push for full equality after their adoption.
You said above that "getting one's guts twisted up in knots over who will legalize same-sex marriage in this election is a waste of energy." I agree, but I also think obtaining passage of a federal civil unions bill won't hinge on who gets elected either - because I don't think it's going to happen within the next 4 years. The makeup of the Senate matters just as much if not more, here. Without major change there, a civil unions bill will be dead on arrival.
What can be done
Thank you F'losrix!
I admit that I am less threatened by the notion of civil unions derailing the process because I do business in the UK and Europe and have spoken to people there about the topic. Indeed, many of the folks I've spoken to think that we're being too extremist in the U.S. insisting on "marriage" without any compromise.
For them civil partnerships/unions have been a positive thing firstly because they conferred immediate benefits. Secondly because the resulting legally-recognized ceremonies have been causing straight people to become more adjusted to the notion of gay "marriages". The Netherlands went from civil unions to marriage voluntarily after deciding that the former was insufficient. Iceland and Sweden are currently moving along the same line of reasoning, with Norway and Denmark coming around as well. The Socialist parties in France and Germany are also leaning towards expanding their respective countries civil partnerships to full marriage should they manage to form governments in the coming years.
So I don't see a lot of international precedent suggesting that the idea of gay marriage goes away if civil unions are accepted. As for delaying it, well that depends heavily on the politics. In many countries outright marriage simply would not have passed any sooner had they not been through the civil unions phase. In some cases the question of same-sex marriage might not even be as far along as it is without civil unions.
U.S. precedent certainly backs this up as well. Direct attempts to impose marriage by judicial action in Hawaii and Alaska were slapped down in both of those states by the passage of constitutional ammedments explicitly banning same-sex marriage. Fears of other state court attempts to force same-sex marriage resulted in further bans in nearly three dozen states and the passage of the federal DOMA. We simply tried to move too far, too fast, and provoked a backlash.
But the states where we are currently the most likely to win state-level marriage are, interestingly, also the ones that currently offer civil unions/domestic partnerships: California, New Jersey and Vermont. That doesn't square with the idea that same-sex marriage being delayed and denied by civil unions. Partly I suspect this is because it is less daring of a political act to legalize civil unions than to legalize same-sex marriage. But once civil unions are in place and shown to be unequal then discussions focus more on rectifying that rather than performing a single massive legislative action that provokes a popular uproar.
I don't believe that we could win in the current Supreme Court and a defeat would be devastating. This is why most of the big lobby groups have backed away from pushing for Supreme Court challenges, especially since Bush put Roberts and Alito onto the bench.
We all have our opinions here and I know it they can't all line up. But look at it this way, I remember not that long ago that the gay rights movement was dominated by sexual liberation radicals that were contemptuous of gays that wanted to live "hetero-normative lifestyles" like marriage as opposed to the free sex culture of the 60's and 70's. We ourselves are still adapting to this issue.
Thanks for the dialogue! It's fun!
Just a couple of notes
I'm going to be brief and to the point here because it's late at night and I'm tired. So please don't take that brevity as meaning that I'm ignoring salient points or just being combative for the sake of having a fight.
1) The United States is not Europe. The balance of power between our federal government and the states doesn't really have an equivalent in Europe. It's a factor that is going to make achieving our equality a lot harder.
2) What about nations that have bypassed the civil unions step? Canada, Spain, South Africa. Why is it different in these places, and how did they do it without going the civil unions/domestic partnership route first? And why won't any of that work here? I think we both know the answer - every nation has unique factors that make a difference to how the issue succeeds or fails, and the U.S. is no exception. This is why I'm not so encouraged by civil unions here.
3) With some states now considering replacing civil unions with marriage, why try to pass something we already know doesn't work? I'll remind you here that New Jersey has had civil unions only briefly. The U.S. is falling behind when it should lead, and civil unions aren't a means to catching up.
4) I agree that the push for marriage came too fast. But now that the horse has left the barn, I'm not going to argue against what I believe in - that our marriages deserve full recognition for what they are. Civil unions are a wilted carrot - they won't coax the horse in some of us back inside. But will enough of us fall for it that the movement toward marriage equality stalls? I think it's a real possibility.
5) I agree with you about the court battle - it's one we wouldn't win with the current makeup, and even a divided decision in our favor would weaken its impact.
7) I think people need to understand that even passing a federal civil unions bill will not be a cakewalk compared to the push for marriage. In reality, I think we'll count ourselves lucky if it turns out to be only slightly less bruising and frustrating. It's still a single, massive legislative action that will provoke a popular uproar. Which brings us back to fighting this battle one state at a time. I don't expect a bunch more states to pass civil union laws. What I instead expect is for us to end up in an entrenched patchwork of differing state laws, where a handful of states will have civil unions or same-sex marriage recognition, while most will continue with bans or only a piecemeal extension of rights. Right now, civil unions aren't even always portable from one state to the next. Will we have to carry our papers everywhere with us - similar to the proof of power of attorney that we have to carry now?
Civil unions are just a bad, wrong solution, and I just can't support the push for a law that codifies my relationship as inferior. Some things shouldn't be compromised. I'm not fully persuaded that something really is better than nothing in this case. Maybe one day I'll feel differently - if/when I get the opportunity to have a civil union, but living in a state that bans not only marriage but ALL forms of same-sex relationship recognition regardless of what they're called, I don't expect that day will come soon.
And I don't expect that having to prove my relationship in order to get that recognition at the federal level is going to make me feel all warm & fuzzy either.
Thanks for hearing me out.
Gay marriage is already here...in every state.
You crawled up on the cross first thing in the post but it never materialized...Ann Coulter and the Republican don't understand reality...any rational gay person knows nothing major will happen with gay marriage as far as the POTUS is concerned. What's there to argue with other than your assumptions on what people want?
However, without a doubt...there will be some major moments in the SCOTUS and at state level.
Polls in all the gay magazines and major gay websites show that the gay community is willing to accept CU/DP on the road to marriage equality. A slight minority are even willing to stop at Civil Unions IF it grants all the benefits and keeps the title.
The sanctity of marriage crap is what gets me.
The thing is that gay marriage is already here. A gay couple in any state can find a church that will give the sacrament of marriage. We can walk down the aisle, register at Pottery Barn, rent 100 halls and celebrate with the world...game over, we won...we have gay marriage. What we don't have are the benefits that other Americans have...hundreds of rights and benefits that other Americans get but we don't...even though we pay the same taxes and hold the same patriotism they do.
The next Democratic President won't have a magic wand and they won't be granting us same sex marriage. It is important to know where they stand on the issue though...how important it to them? How will it influence their selection for the SCOTUS? What kind of message will they be sending to the nation as a straight person...will it be one that gay are equal in all ways or that they are close, but slightly less than straight Americans?
Unrealistic Expectations of Marriage
Over the years I've heard a lot of gay people make fairly ridiculous statements about what they think would happen if we were finally allowed to get married.
My all-time favorite was: "If we could get legally married then my parents would have to accept my partner."
Oh the delusions....
I know straight people whose parents despise their spouses and can't be bothered to hide the fact! The idea that acceptance of one's relationship (or sexuality) will come just because it's legal is naive in the extreme. Even decades after miscegenation laws were struck down there were still plenty of people that disapproved of interracial marriages, and still do. Heck, my own mother (whose liberal facade occasionally slips to reveal 50's attitudes underneath) once remarked that "mixed racial children aren't usually very attractive".
I asked where she was keeping her Klan robe. We had a fight.
Likewise, those that think that same-sex marriage will ensure happiness and acceptance are caught in a vain fantasy. People who hate gays will continue to do so. The Netherlands has legal same-sex marriage. They also have a growing gay bashing problem, driven mostly by Muslim immigrants. Bigots don't vanish just because you can marry your partner.
Now it is true that civil unions do often functionally fall short of the rights of marriage. Right now this is partly because DOMA blocks federal acknowledgement of any kind, and because states don't have to recognize other states' civil unions. Unfortunately, as long as DOMA is in place they don't have to recognize other states' same-sex marriages either so it is clearly a major obstacle in any event.
But for this election we need a Democrat that can beat McCain because the Supreme Court will be critical going forward regardless of what happens. Even if DOMA were repealed (unlikely to happen if McCain is president) a conservative SCOTUS (very likely to happen if McCain is president) could still rationalize a way to deny Full Faith & Credit of same-sex marriages between states. Scalia excels at the kind of logical gymnastics required and GOP justices would probably play along.
Since we aren't likely to win nationwide same-sex marriage within the next few years anyway, I think it's a waste of time to agonize how insufficient civil unions are because nothing better will be forthcoming for a while even if we dig our heels in over the M-word.
There's hope in the future, as polls show younger people are more accepting of the idea of same-sex marriage than older ones. But it's going to take time for that mindset to become a dominant one in our national political discourse.