mkosbie wrote:Geeze Kevin and Jimmy, it's not like they passed a law against sodomy. Prop 8 didn't regulate what "two consenting adults do in their bedroom."
Which is not what I said. Don't change my words around.
mkosbie wrote:They're still quite free to do what they want in private. The only thing Prop 8 affected was public life.
Which is my issue. Who are YOU to tell me what I can and can't do, or how to live my life? I am an American citizen (just like you) and deserve the exact same rights
(not "similar" rights or "equivalent" rights). Period, the end.
mkosbie wrote:Oh, one more thing. Kevin, you've been claiming for the entire election cycle that there's a fundamental difference between marriage and domestic partnership other than the term. I'm aware of the procedural differences. I'm also aware of the federal differences (which Prop 8 couldn't affect in any way). None of those are fundamental. Care to share what differences you're referring too?
You're going to have to clarify your inference, since I don't quite follow you. I think you mistake this issue as an argument solely over tangible effects when it's also an argument over (as you say) fundamental concepts and perception. But I'll attempt to make a couple points.
(1) The federal differences won't be changed until there is enough support to change them at the state level. The LONG-term goal is to get a nation-wide acceptance of gay marriage; but you can't get there in one leap.
(2) In the 1950s, you would have two drinking fountains. They were the same make, same model, and issued the same water from the same pipes. Yet blacks could drink from one and not from the other. Just because the same "product" is being given, the exclusionary nature of the set up is offensive. I wouldn't care if "domestic partnerships" gave each and every single procedural right that marriage does: I would still object to the implicitly prejudicial manner in which a group of American citizens were segregated away from the rest.
(3) Hypothetical scenario: Group A has Right X. Group B is given Right Y, which is 99.9% the same as Right X. To get Right X, Group A has to fill out one form and submit it to the government. To get Right Y, Group B has to spend two extra weeks and fill out eight forms for the government. This is wrong.
That's all I can muster right now. I'm sick and my head feels like it's stuffed with cotton, so I'm not at my sharpest. I will defer the last to points to Austin Cline...
Austin Cline wrote:Civil marriages, established and regulated by secular laws in a pluralistic society, cannot be restricted by how some religions conceive of marriage from within the theological boundaries of their faith. Marriage between members of different religions cannot be legally proscribed simply because some churches consider it sacrilege. Marriage between members of different races cannot be legally proscribed simply because some groups regard miscegenation as contrary to God’s will. So why should marriage between members of the same sex be any different?
Austin Cline wrote:Political equality requires human equality - when one group of citizens is treated as inferior on a basic human level, then it's impossible for them to be truly equal on a political level. Democracy, which is based upon political equality, thus cannot fully exist then citizens are denied full human equality. That's what happens when women, gays, or others are forced to hide or deny themselves.
It may not be immediately obvious, but when women are denied the ability to reveal themselves publicly in ways that are readily accorded to men, they are also being denied the same respect and equality that is being accorded to men. This was the case when women were denied the ability to wear pants or even shorts; it’s currently the case in Muslim societies where women are forced to cover up in extreme ways.
When women’s bodies are treated as unequal, then it’s impossible to treat women themselves as equal — the relationship between the person and their body is simply too strong to pretend otherwise. When women are unable to move freely through public spaces in the same ways that men are able to do so, then their basic equality is being denied — even when the restrictions are implemented on the premise of “protecting” women. If women were truly equal, they wouldn’t be treated as though they needed constant protection not afforded to men. Equality and respect don’t mean anything if they don’t include treating people like adults.
These days, however, we do make that demand of gays and lesbians — that is, when we even go so far as to protect their consensual acts in private. Yet it seems wrong to think that society will collapse if gays and lesbians openly announce their sexuality, or even hold hands on the street in ways now acceptable among heterosexuals. One even knows places in which these things happen, and yet personal liberty has not altogether vanished. One might think that, as with female trousers, so here: what genuine democracy requires is that all citizens should be able to demonstrate their full and equal humanity.
Gays aren’t forced to cover their bodies in ways expected of heterosexuals, but they are expected to conceal and/or deny aspects of their lives which heterosexuals are able to reveal as a matter of course: their basic sexual orientation and what that means. Heterosexuals have the freedom to hold hands, hug, kiss, and engage in other expressions of intimacy without a second thought; gays, however, are often denied this liberty and can be accused of “forcing” themselves on other for engaging in such basic actions.
By denying gays to act in ways that are routinely accepted from heterosexuals, and by insisting that gays “conceal” themselves when in public, the basic equality of gays as human beings is being denied. This is incompatible with a truly democratic system where the human equality of all citizens is a prerequisite for the functioning of civic, political equality. Then again, perhaps that’s part of the point behind insisting that gays, women, and others conceal themselves in various ways.