One of the greatest strategic mistakes LGBTQ groups made in recent years was to couch things in nebulous terms of “gay marriage”, and not in specific terms of financial and legal equality for all Americans. Period.
“Marriage” is a charged term that opens up all sorts of unwanted flood gates, while attracting crazed loons like Fred Phelps (pictured above, along with Larry Craig, Ann Coulter, Sally Kern, and Pat Boone’s guitar), and simultaneously alienating good people who would otherwise support the cause of equality, but have knee-jerk reactions to what they perceive as an assault on their traditions.
“Gay marriage” is terrible marketing. “Partner benefits” is where we would have went with this issue, years ago, and we doubt we’d be where we are today with things like Proposition-8.
We ran across the above painting by Paul Richmond, who created it for a gallery show in San Francisco called “Sweet & Low: Optimism in a Pessimistic Age”, and it made us think about something that gets us in trouble from both sides of the aisle, but is worth talking about anyway: our take on the partner benefits issue.
Notice we didn’t say “gay marriage”, because we don’t want any part of “marriage”, but one day would like the right to financial and legal security, if ever any of us here ends up in a longterm relationship and decides we want the same rights other people take for granted (including those rights that allow celebrities like Britney Spears to marry and divorce in a period of 24 hours or less, because marriage is a sacred thing that should never, ever be drunkenly rushed into and annulled the next day. It’s sacred!).
Because, really, that’s what’s at stake here — and it’s a much less interesting thing to depict in paintings. It’s property and inheritance rights, as dull and colorless as that really is on stacks of legal papers. Ultimately, all of this comes down to financial planning, probate, and being able to have the same futures and opportunities that other people have just because they’re heterosexual, but we aren’t (and can never be, no matter how much some of our families want us to be).
During the primaries, Hillary Clinton appeared on Ellen Degeneres’ TV show and told the story of the gay couple in Arkansas her parents befriended when they lived in a condo there. One of the men got sick, and the hospital wouldn’t allow his partner to visit him; worse, the sick man’s family decided to use this moment to make his illness and subsequent death all the more traumatic for all those involved, by refusing to acknowledge his partner, or treat him with basic human dignity and respect. They actually banned the man from his partner’s bedside, making the last day’s of his life an absolute living Hell — all because they didn’t like or accept that their son was gay, and so they punished him to the end, making him die alone in a dreary room instead of allowing his partner to comfort him.
Because they were religious people, don’t you know.
It was a story Hillary Clinton used to illustrate the importance of equal rights for all Americans, because if your partner is sick and dying in the hospital, you should be able to visit him or her, and his or her family should not be able to override a couple’s wishes (when this would not be allowed to happen to a heterosexual pair), no matter how “religious” they are (or how woefully they missed all those parts in religion about love, decency, and treating others with grace and goodwill).
That’s what we are ultimately talking about: basic human kindness and decency winning out over ugliness and vengeful retaliation.
On this site, we’ve talked about our dear friend Lionel who is battling prostate cancer. In his situation, Lionel’s family is very accepting of him, and has embraced his partner Todd as their son-in-law (“marriage” be damned). Todd is Lionel’s caretaker and will be with him through the end. Here in Chicago, the hospital treats Todd like any other caregiver, and allows him as much access as a wife would have, if Lionel was married to a woman, and not committed to Todd. Lionel’s family does not intrude on the decisions Lionel and Todd are making for his care and treatment, just as they wouldn’t intrude if Lionel was married to a woman. Lionel’s family is, in a word, great.
And Lionel sure is lucky to have them.
There are those of us here whose families would lock Todd out of the hospital, pretend he doesn’t exist, and wouldn’t bother to invite him to the funeral, when it came to that. One of us has a mother who refuses to admit her son is gay, and instead tells neighbors, relatives, and friends he has girlfriends. She has, in fact, invented an entire annotated fantasy world in a parallel universe where everything he does is straight, straight, straight (and the lies are so strange and elaborate, that instead of doing freelance marketing work in the fashion industry, his mother tells people he works in marketing for the Cubs, Blackhawks, and Bears…because “fashion” sets off too many warning bells for people back in Cleveland and Pittsburgh, but everyone thinks sports are fabulous).
It’s crazy. It’s wrong. And it’s what we have to deal with…on a daily basis.
Though no one alive should have to deal with something like that, or imagine the horror of laying near death in a hospital bed, not being able to stop your parents from taking over the remainder of your life and locking your partner out of it…making you die alone, so your mother could pretend you have a girlfriend somewhere (no doubt so devastated by your illness that she no longer appears in public, and that’s why no one has ever met her).
Partner benefits are important for this reason — but we have a problem when it comes to “gay marriage” as depicted by the far left, as we feel uncomfortable aping someone else’s traditions.
We are officially on record as a bunch of guys in Boystown who have absolutely no desire to ever have a wedding on a beach, dressed all in white, officiated by Miss Foozie, with drag queens as bridesmaids and a labradoodle as a flower girl. Not that there’s anything wrong with that if it’s what you want for yourself, but we’re tired of people insisting we should want such a spectacle just because straight couples make Bridezilla such must-see-TV.
Growing up gay and Catholic, with most of us serving tours of duty as altar boys, we all went to plenty of over the top elaborate weddings and have to say, honestly, that one of the great perks of being gay is never having to deal with any of that drama or wedding-planning stress. Contrary to popular belief, not all gay men are big fans of the dramz (and not all of us dream of wearing Vera Wang on “our big day” either). And we certainly don’t want to imitate straight couples and conform to molds we successfully resisted and escaped from years ago.
Our lives long ago veered off the paths taken by our straight classmates. Facebook is now a rogue’s gallery of sorts, with cautionary tales of all those who repeatedly honored the sanctity of marriage, on their “big days”, and then divorced, remarried, and divorced again, sanctity be damned. Some of these people still live in Versailles, Pennsylvania or Dubuque, Iowa, on the same street their parents raised them on, or in some new pre-fab suburb that makes Revolutionary Road look like the feel good movie of the year.
That just wasn’t for us, folks. We’ll take a bad day in Boystown over a bad marriage in Dubuque any day. And we realize it actually takes a lot of guts to admit we’re secure in defying society’s expectations, because society’s a formidable thing to defy (especially when your family insists on pretending otherwise).
So, you might understand when we say it rings hollow for use to want to create some weird, watered-down version of a wedding, on that beach, and say we’re “almost as good as straight people, lookit us!” by doing so. Let Susie and Billy Sunshine have their “big day”. We’ll be happy to cater it and do all their seating arrangements, admire their cake and eat a half of a half of a half of a slice, and snark on the hideous Scarlet O’Hara bridesmaids dresses later, after one two many cucumber mojito truth serums. There’s nothing else about Susie and Billy’s suburban lives that we especially covet, so their “big day” holds no allure for us either.
And we look heinous in white. Truly ghastly. So don’t even go there.
But, it would be nice to finally be able to afford to buy a decent apartment, instead of renting for the rest of our lives, and the likeliest bet of that ever happening in a market like Chicago is one day taking that real estate plunge in a longterm serious relationship, where we could join forces with someone else the way married couples do, and enjoy all the legal options and protections marriage affords them (that are currently denied to us). There’s a sense of security in what Susie and Billy get on their wedding day that’s more important and covetable than anything wrapped in powder blue and tied up in white ribbon on the gift table from Tiffany’s. The older we get, and the more challenges we face single and on our own, the more we can appreciate how much easier the world is, in practical and realistic ways, for the Susie and Billys. Especially when friends like Lionel remind us of our own mortality, and how alien the world can become when you’re too sick to fight for yourself, and the person you’ve shared everything with could so easily be estranged from you by relatives you haven’t spoken to in years.
The fact that something like what Hillary Clinton described on Ellen can happen in America, in this day and age, should give us all pause. We know it scares the heck out of us. And we honestly have families who would do something like that, if allowed by state law.
It’s frightening.
So, when we think of partner benefits and whatever you want to call the issue surrounding “gay marriage”, it doesn’t conjure up images of Ellen and Portia releasing doves into the world under showers of rainbows. It’s not colorful or in-your-face or any sort of assault on anyone’s traditions. None of us wants to put on a dress and ape the sacred and beautiful ceremonies that define “marriage” to so many.
We just don’t want to never be able to buy property. We don’t want to pay inheritance taxes straight couples get to avoid. We don’t want to be penalized in any way because we don’t date women.
So, for us, it all boils down to basic accounting, and the very boring and gray world of equal rights in all matters real and practical, extending in unfortunate cases to all matters life and death as well.
And people who get so caught up in waves of emotion over this issue lose sight of all this. Proposition-8 passed in California because Obama did not take the time or initiative to explain to his voters that voting for him but backing Prop-8 was discrimination against the civil and property rights of certain members of the taxpaying public. The emotion should have been taken out of the issue, because at it’s heart this isn’t a matter of the heart, but the pocketbook, and the estate planning portfolio. Whatever boring terms you want to put it into, because that’s what it’s all going to boil down to in the end, anyway.
So, it’s a travesty of marketing that brought us to where we are today, and unfortunate nomenclature that keeps fueling an issue that should truthfully be a non-issue by now. What happened to Hillary Clinton’s parents’ friends at the hospital took place in the 80s. Why on Earth is something like that still happening somewhere today, when most decent Americans would agree it’s just downright cruel for the state to separate two people who want to be together, just because one of their families’ doesn’t like the idea of them as a couple.
Just imagine if YOUR in-laws could do that to you. How would you feel?
And remember that the next time you’re sitting in the home you own with your spouse, listening to someone talk about gay marriage one way or the other, and realize that there are those of us who’d like to own property the way you do, and have a sense of the financial security that you do, even though we don’t ever want to pretend to be you, or ape what you have and thereby, somehow, threaten the traditions you hold dear.
We don’t want to become you, or make you become us.
We just don’t want to get kicked out of the hospital and rent our apartments forever.

February 26, 2009 at 5:40 am
“Gay marriage” is terrible marketing. “Partner benefits” is where we would have went with this issue, years ago, and we doubt we’d be where we are today with things like Proposition-8.”
There’s your money quote to a straight Repub like myself (and plenty of straight Dems as well, I suspect.)
I’ve been saying the same thing for years. I firmly believe this could have been achieved years ago if marketed as you say.
February 26, 2009 at 6:10 am
You make a great deal of sense with this, HB, and say it much better than I could have.
February 26, 2009 at 7:55 am
HB, Do you have a group like AARP that you can join who lobbies Congress on your behalf? That puts out a monthly magazine/newsletter letting you know of their stance and who – not just Congress – is supporting it? And, what is happening with certain bills.
If there is no such group, it is time to form one. Lobby groups = power.
February 26, 2009 at 8:14 am
I read this well written article and was amazed by it! It is exactly what I have been saying to people for years. My wife is an attorney that handles divorce so I have a different insight into “marriage”. It is actually nothing more than a contract these days so I think that eventually people will begin to look at the whole institution in a different light. Keep up the good work HB! This social liberal/fiscal conservative/ independent is with you!
January 23, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Wow, “Marriage is nothing more than a contract these days” yet you have a wife? Did you marry her because you loved her and wanted a family or was it a financial contract? My husband and I have been married for 23 years and neither of us have been married before. We married in the eyes of God for the reasons he put forth, not as a financial contract. Neither of us had money and we are going backwards fast under BO.
I do commend this article however. I think it is horrid that two people who love each other cannot be together when God takes one of them home. I would never do that to one of my children. I do not agree with your lifestyle but I love you guys as I know God would want me to. You should be able to buy a house together. There should be binding paperwork so one cannot walk away and leave the other holding the debt much like Married couples have. I believe a brother and sister or two sisters can buy a house together can’t they? I didn’t know you couldn’t do so. If illegals can do so without a social security number and no income so to speak, why can’t two gay guys?
I do find it an affront to my religious beliefs to have “gay marriage” as you have said. Marriage is not a contract between my husband, I, and the government. It is a contract between my husband, I, and God. Somewhere in our history, probably to protect the children, the government got involved. God is the one who will judge us if either of us stray or mistreat the other. That is what Marriage is. If it had been handled differently I could possibly find a way to support it.
February 26, 2009 at 8:33 am
Until the laws catch up to you, get a medical power of attorney, and also you can specifically exclude your parents and include your partner on those privacy forms you sign at the doctors’ offices. That should help with the medical part.
You can buy real estate together now. And you can name your partner as executor and beneficiary in your will. You can give your partner power of attorney for your financial affairs, too, in a document that is separate from the medical power of attorney.
You just have to remember to do those things that married couples don’t have to remember, but which also tends to make us somewhat irresponsible, such as failing to specify what happens to our children, for example, if we go down in a plane together and leave minor children behind.
Most people think those legal documents are expensive, and maybe some of them are, but a simple will is not, and there is no additional paperwork necessary to purchase real estate together. You can borrow a friend’s medical power of attorney and type it over with your name. Sometimes the hospitals even have blank forms you can have.
Estate taxes are tricky, but you have to have over $3.5 million this year to worry about it. Hope that is a problem for you!
I’m with you, but I just hope you don’t put your lives on hold while you wait.
February 26, 2009 at 8:50 am
Excellent. Much of that is applicable to single parents, as well.
Also, if there are children, be sure to appoint your partner as guardian in the event of you are missing, travel a lot, illness, death.
February 26, 2009 at 9:17 am
HB, another well written piece. You have shared so much of yourself with us. We need to work together on this one, I believe we can get it done. My grandfather used to say “Never judge anyone, as you never know what will show up at your own front door”. I believe as you we should all have the pursuit of happiness and equal rights under the law. We need to have something like this come to the floor now.
February 26, 2009 at 9:27 am
I agree with you. I’m a Republican and against “gay marriage” because I feel that the term marriage is a religious designation that shouldn’t be dictated by government. All of us Republicans can agree that we wish there would be a way to promote legal equality for gay and lesbian couples without intruding into our religious beliefs. However, the most effective example of an argument in favor of gay marriage is the 1040 tax form that every American has to fill out each year. You have a choice of single, married, or head of household. Until the government alters that form along with the tax code to include a choice of status for gay relationships, we will continue to go round and round on this legal carousel.
February 26, 2009 at 9:37 am
I think that only civil unions for anyone straight or gay should be recognized by the state and the marriage should be seperate in your church or wherever you choose. Anyone one could get married if they choose (a seperate religious or personal ceremony) but the states only recognize your “civil union” that you applied for like a marriage license of today.
That is how to be equal. The government needs to quit recognizing marriage at all and the religious bias is erased.
February 26, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Morgan, thank you so much! I’ve been saying this forever. Hillbuzz, if only we could all work together here. How can we start to change the dialogue from gay marriage to a more inclusive one of partner benefits? So few people would really want a someone to be forcibly isolated from his or her ill loved one at the very end.
February 26, 2009 at 9:40 am
I love this blog. Thank you.
February 26, 2009 at 10:01 am
I’ve been with my partner for 25 years and neither of us want the blessing of religion that comes with a church wedding/marriage, but we also don’t want our union to be denegrated as a separate but equal contract where we become a new species of pariah. Sorry guys, this is one subject where we must part ways. I do not have to tolerate the intolerance of some straight folks by allowing them to define my relationship with their version of what does not insult their heterosexual or religious sensibilities. I do not need to accept a new definition in order to gain their good queer keeping seal of approval. There is no such thing as separate but equal and if we accept a redefinition of the legal contract of marriage as the only way to equality we’ll soon find out that equality isn’t something that should be open to negotiation. This road has been traveled before, it goes nowhere.
February 26, 2009 at 10:33 am
Then I guess this is the biggest argument for defining federal and state marriage statutes down. It’s a lot easier to make “marriage” for straights and “civil unions” for gays “civil unions” for everyone.
February 26, 2009 at 7:14 pm
“I do not have to tolerate the intolerance of some straight folks by allowing them to define my relationship with their version of what does not insult their heterosexual or religious sensibilities.”
By the same token, why should the straight community have to tolerate, after 200+ years in this country, a new definition of marriage that may insult their sensibilities?
February 27, 2009 at 7:34 am
For the VERY same reason Rosa Parks shouldn’t have been relegated to a few seats in the back of a bus. For the same reason Lunch Counters in Department Stores shouldn’t have been allowed to deny service to their customers of color. For the same reason that equality in education can’t be accomplished in schools that separate out some folks for segregated education.
I’m a taxpaying citizen who doesn’t need your tolerance. You can’t deny me marriage because you dislike the makeup of my relationship while allowing every configuration of fucked up heterosexual to marry just because they meet your definition of anatomically correct.
If my relationship, which is longer amd much stronger than the relationship of most straight folks, offends you, then you need to recalibrate your brain because you’re a bigot.
February 27, 2009 at 3:22 pm
CarolynKB,
You don’t know me but I have read you for almost a year now. You are the one who intoduced me to HB. I followed you (and Yttik) over here from TGW (via a fellow gunners blog) and I wanted to take the opportunity to thank you (and Yittik, Zee, Miranda, Little Voice, Odyssey, egalia, Olives and Arrows, Republican Troll, Randy and many others) who gave me a voice to speak during the circus of ’08. You are a fighter and a survivor and I admire you for that.
Here’s wishing the best to you, your partner, your wonderful grandson who loves to play football with you and all of my heroes at TGW. May God bless and keep you. I haven’t been back there because I would explode at ABG/AB(micro)P who I am sure is gloating.
My biggest regret is that you are not my neighbor, we’d meet at the fence to visit and I would bring the Budweiser. You are truly a class act.
Well wishes from S. Texas!
KY
February 26, 2009 at 10:09 am
I am so glad you brought up this issue. If the gay and lesbian community would adopt the acceptance of legal partnerships instead of insisting on marriage, it would be passed in a heartbeat. Most Americans are accepting of their lifestyle, they just do not want to change the tradition of marriage. Even George Bush was on board for this one. Everyone should have the right to enter into a partnership that gives them the rights to medical and personal decisions, as well as property ownership. If you guys would lead this crusade, you would probably be surprised at how much support you would get from republicans. Yes, there will always be people on both ends of the issue who will never be happy, but this law should and could easily be changed by everyone in the middle, if it was just phrased “legal partnership”.
February 26, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Great post. Count me on board.
February 27, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Yeah it’s a great post, but most gays are insistant on the word marriage. I’ve always said it doesn’t make sense to me. If you want something bad enough, who gives a crap what ya call it, as long as you get it. I’ll take it being called something different as opposed to never being allowed the right.
February 26, 2009 at 10:35 am
Very nicely articulated.
When someone lies about their child/family member being gay, their friends know it. And it’s just sad, you know? It’s sad to see people purposely trying to prevent someone else’s happiness–especially their family members’ for goodness sake! Anyway, I just wanted to say you are not alone in your disappointment in this kind of behavior.
February 26, 2009 at 10:58 am
Excellent piece! What would Jesus do? I think he’d work for eqaul rights for ALL!
It’s sad to hear that some of you have parents who can’t accept and love you for who you are–most excellent men!–especially when I consider that I’d be over the moon to have any of you as my son. Heck, I’ll take each one of you. And I’d gloat about it, too, to be the biological or adopted parent of such intelligent, decent, creative, responsible, loving men.
PFLAG fairy princess forever!
Full rights for GLBTQs! Now!
February 26, 2009 at 11:43 am
Consensus does not exist even within the LGBT community on “Gay Marriage”.
Out of the 15 years, I’ve been with my partner, 13 years have been in a Domestic Partnership (NYC’s Civil Union.) At no time in that 13 years, have we ever felt as though we were “Second Class” or “Seperate but equal” nor have we ever worked ourselves up into incomprehensible tizzies about “Equality.”
I also can’t grasp the cries of “Seperate but Equal” emitting the Soi-disant Queer Crowd. Doesn’t “Queer” at its mildest mean “Seperate”? So the “Queers” self-identify as seperate; yet, condemn what Society is offering them as “Seperate”
It is all very confusing.
February 26, 2009 at 11:51 am
How is it exactly, that a hospital denies visitation to a non-infectious patient by anyone? Whenever I visit people in the hospital, the hospital staff doesn’t even look in my direction. No one questions who I am or anything remotely similar to that. Parents of gay individuals who would deny access to visitation by their child’s partner are doing an evil thing. And I suppose that legally they could require that the hospital deny access to their family-member to anyone except a legal spouse, but that is on them, not the hospital. Or am I cracked?
As a catholic, I find the depiction of Noah’s Ark as populated with strictly homosexual pairs to be illogical. HAD any of the pairs on that boat been homosexual…we of course wouldn’t know about it because they would have gone extinct in a single generation.
However, I quite agree that the marketing has been all wrong. I understand my Church’s teachings on homosexuality, and yet I support civil unions. Even though the Church is obligated to present the teachings and theology undiluted, it still promotes the importance of Free Will. And charity, and compassion. They MUST tell individuals where there is sin and why it must be avoided, but each individual has to choose for themselves if they intend to live their lives in a way that is apart from religious belief. I support civil unions because people gay or straight are protected by the Constitution and as long as Churches are not forced by the government to marry people in a state the Church considers to be inconsistent with the Faith, I support them as fellow U.S. citizens. And some religious people need to realize and accept that denying them these legal rights isn’t going to magically transform them into straights. If you know this fact and you try to deny them anyway, that isn’t being loving or compassionate.
(I’ve been a long-time lurker and I really love your blog. There are many, many issues on which we agree.)
February 26, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I have no problem w/ gay marriage and/or partner benefits. I actually think marriage (no matter whose it is) is pretty damn silly altogether. (No offense to anyone who is).
Maybe part of that is because my parents hated each other’s guts and refused to divorce, thus making me and my sisters effing miserable for a good many years…
I dunno. I’m not doin’ it, though.
February 26, 2009 at 12:19 pm
i don’t understand what religion has to do with the whole gay marriage question, period. what about the people who get marriede in vegas or in a court house? are they not legal b/c they didn’t get a ‘religious blessing’ or what have you?
i’ve never, EVER agreed with the govt. telling anyone who they can or can’t marry, and i never will.
love is not exclusive to a religious preference, or absence of preference. i can’t understand why the right to marry whomever one pleases doesn’t fall under the umbrella of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.
February 26, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Personally, I don’t think that religion has any place in a discussion of legal marriage. Marriage as an institution between opposite sexes has a long, long civil tradition as well, as it has long been in the state’s interest as a stabilizing force in and on society.
I just did my 2008 taxes. There are several places on the forms where they mention “married” but nowhere did they ask about our religion—what it was or if we even had one.
My wife was raised Catholic (I wasn’t) but had to divorce her first husband when he abandoned her. So today we’re married in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of my church, but not in the eyes of the Catholic church since she never jumped through their hoops for annulment or whatever (which seems to me to be just another revenue stream for them). Oh well, she’ll just have to go to Protestant Heaven. There are worse fates, I suppose.
February 26, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Speaking as a social conservative, I am totally with you. In fact, if I were Queen for the Day, I would develop a one step “power of attorney” law that would give all couples who could not legally marry (ie. gay couples, elderly mother & daughter, etc) the same rights as a married couple. It would take sex out of the equation and give more options to single children who want to make sure that their elderly parents are taken care of. The law would have to be carefully structured so that it would not be taken advantage of by illegal aliens or polygamists. Any tax advantages or disadvantages of being married should disappear–only breaks should be for dependents.
What most social conservatives are afraid of is the assault of their churches by gay activists and lawsuits for not performing wedding ceremonies. (See Ocean Grove, NJ) I, personally, worry about the deterioration of women’s rights due to gay marriage since it is a very slippery slope to polygamy. The law that I proposed above would take care of most social conservative concerns and make everything more egalitarian. In fact, I think I remember reading that Dobson was in favor of a law like that.
Anyhow, while I may not approve of your chosen lifestyle, I do wish you health, happiness, friendship and goodwill. And heck, I don’t approve of lots that heteros do either. I’m an equal opportunity disapprover! If you are ever in NJ or NY, I would love to meet you for drinks! In terms of Republican acceptance of gay people to the group, check out gaypatriot.net for their experiences. I’m a frequent lurker on that site. I think you will be pleasantly surprised by conservative treatment of gay people.
:) Jolyn
February 26, 2009 at 8:34 pm
ICAM Jolyn! You said everything I was thinking!
February 27, 2009 at 11:19 am
Thanks! What does ICAM mean?
February 27, 2009 at 7:40 pm
It’s not a chosen lifestyle. It’s just the way it is. Seriously, noone would chose this difficult path in life.
February 26, 2009 at 1:22 pm
This is beautiful. Thank you for expressing it so well.
February 26, 2009 at 2:24 pm
The rights conferred by marriage are so far reaching and so spread out that no partnership law could convey them all.
There are thousands of areas of law that are impacted by being married. If you are a partner you are not married and those areas of the law wont benefit you which just causes chaos.
As an example, you can be legally married in Massachusetts now. So how do you file your taxes- as a married person or as two single people? Under Federal law DOMA you are not married. Under state law you are and get tax benefits. The clash in the law has not been resolved and wont be for some time.
Its nice to think happy thoughts and feel like there are easy solutions-but there are not. Gays have to have the right to marry-its that simple. If they dont they will always be second class citizens with less rights than everyone else.
Maybe thats what you want?
February 26, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Word. Word word word.
I got into a heated argument over this with my mother (ObamaDem) trying to appeal with me on Prop 8 and “Gay Marriage.”
My stance is this: Californians need to STFU and stop screaming like holy hell about “Marriage Equality” when they have a system in place — the CA Domestic Partnership Registry — which, legally, is effectively the same damn thing.
Contrast that with, say, my home state — Michigan — a “true and blue” State on that EC Pres Election map, where “marriage” “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” are all effectively constitutionally banned.
Large swaths of America do not give gay/lesbian couples ANY sort of protection, and Californians have the audacity to argue over a word. A word. And then act me, my Michiganian-transposed-to-Illinois-self should be outraged at the overt bigotry.
It’s nonsense. Legal rights are legal rights. To wit: I told I flippantly asked my mother — in a saccharine, gayly-rhetorical fashion — if she had to blow the dust off her marriage license to my dad as proof they were married every time they referred to each other as such, or was the fact they endured 25 years of bitching and screaming enough? Answer: no she didn’t.
I have an “Operator’s License” to drive, courtesy of Michigan. *I* call it a “Driver’s License.” It still allows me to drive. The war over semantics does nothing for LGB’s nation-wide — it’s instead an egotistical circle-jerk of the worst variety.
Oy.
Quick question to HB: you good ol’ Catholic boys go to AGLO Mass? ;)
February 26, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Lots of grammatical errors, ahoy! But hopefully my point comes across. ;P
February 26, 2009 at 5:03 pm
You did just fine. A very heartfelt and sensible post. I get it. Good luck to you!
February 26, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Its a war over semantics huh?
The law is all about semantics. To you one word is just as good as another. To a judge trying to decide what the law is, it is not.
What you think is important to you and perhaps your friends but has no other impact on gay society. What one judge thinks can affect everyone.
So when you say its all about semantics you basically are speaking foolishly.
If gays want equal rights they have to seek them. If they want to be scurrying around alleys for the rest of time-well you only get what you ask for.
February 26, 2009 at 4:13 pm
That’s as bogus as Kim Zolciak’s wig from The Real Housewives of Atlanta. Straw man.
Yes, the law — and litigation cases — are all about semantics. But this isn’t about a legal case or adjudication from the bench.
HB’s post was in marketing; essentially, that in attempting to achieve legal rights akin to marriage, screaming about “Marriage Equality!” is not the best venue. The goal is getting the secular rights akin to it: retirement accounts, joint insurance, owning property, next-of-kin hospital visitations/medical decisions — the gamut.
Would I love for there to be “same-sex marriage”? Yes.
But would I love for all LGB’s to have a venue under which they can acquire legal rights protecting their families a little bit more? Hell yes.
Quibbling over “Marriage” is a non-starter, and has no basis in the legal sphere unless you’re fighting some sort of “separate but equal” case due to excessive sand in your crotch. Joyous. You feel threatened, denigrated, and second-class because you can’t have a marriage license? Boo. Hoo. In Zion, Illinois — a stone’s throw from HOPE-N-CHANGE Central — you can’t get jack all as a same-sex couple. In Fresno, California, you can get a heckuva lot under the oh-so oppressive, tragic, and insulting “Domestic Partnership” registry. And on a State-wide level, no less.
I know darn well what I’m asking for, and it’s for a system that says “Hey, you don’t want to call it marriage? Fine. Let the Churches offer the Sacrament. As far as the Government and the legal benefits of a partnership? Call it what you want.”
This war over semantics is just as silly as I expressed before, even with recognition to your straw man about “law being based entirely on semantics.”
February 26, 2009 at 7:31 pm
BRILLIANT!!!
February 26, 2009 at 4:23 pm
You had me at “partner benefits”. This is something I can get on board with.
Now we just need some smart people to write sample legislation – is the statute that establishes the California Domestic Partnership Registry sufficient? and there needs to be something written for the Federal level, so that the state/federal statutes mesh reasonably well.
we feel uncomfortable aping someone else’s traditions
That really bring things into focus.
February 26, 2009 at 5:47 pm
This just seems like so much common sense. A very liberal friend of mine cannot understand how I can be conservative because I am so reasonable. (pretty funny) Anyway, one night when talking about politics for the first time, she brought this issue up. My response contained a few of the elements you presented in this post. Also, being someone who lives with my boyfriend, I have my own partner concerns and have worked with him on settling up some legal documents as others have suggested since we haven’t been talking marriage yet. I think progress can be made on this front.
February 26, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Uhuh.
What I wanted to convey to HB is that the difference between marriage and civil unions is not a questions of pretty words vs poorly chosen words.
Marriage creates clear enforceable rights. Civil unions don’t. You have to argue and litigate every time you want to get a court to say yes-you now have this right.
And the truth is that if you enter into a civil union you are accepting you are a second class citizen. Maybe thats ok for some people but I’m not buying it.
February 27, 2009 at 7:51 pm
At the risk of never seeing gay marriage adopted in this country because of the word is worth getting nothing at all?
February 27, 2009 at 10:17 pm
That’s been my point: *Let* the traditionalists have their traditional word. End-run around them by calling it something else and you can end up with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the institution without any of the friction. Everybody wins. What’s not to like?
February 26, 2009 at 8:37 pm
When the Prop 8 debate exploded after the election, my dreamy husband said: “You know who I would hate to be? Any person that is gay, because these hatemongers on tv are giving the normal ones horrible names, by acting like idiots.”
February 26, 2009 at 8:39 pm
By the way, he also said the same thing about he would have hated being black during the election, because everyone would have assumed he would vote for THE ONE.
February 26, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Hillbuzz,
That story is very similar to one that happened to friends of ours in New Jersey.
These two had been together for as long as my husband and I have been married, which was 27 years when the one died of cancer. His family, Catholic, completely shut his partner out. He couldn’t visit at the hospital the final day, nor was he allowed to plan the funeral. The mom was in her eighties and rather confused and sort of went along with what her family and priest advised. Some of the son’s online friends intervened so that at least the partner could attend the funeral. The family was stunned to find out about all these friends from across the country.
Marriage is so intertwined with legal issues, tax issues and perhaps financial gain or immigration status there is no plausible way to make it just about religion. After all, atheists marry.
I think the way to solve this is to make all marriages civil contracts. Then, if a couple chooses to have a separate ceremony within the religion of their choice, do so in addition.
Some preachers try to scare their congregations by saying that if gay marriage were permitted they would be forced to perform gay marriages. This is ridiculous. Churches can refuse to marry any couple right now that does not meet whatever requirements they set.
As it is, right now, there are churches that will perform commitment ceremonies for gay couples. The MCC churches definitely, as well as churches like Unity. Believe me, any gay couple that wanted a church wedding could find a welcoming church if gay marriage was made legal.
I wish fellow Christians and people of other faiths would really think about this. Ministers howl about changing the definition of marriage while we already have couples standing before altars and taking their vows before God without any measure of sincerity. It’s more about the lavish ceremony than the sincerity before God. If the religious part was separate, then perhaps more couples would take their vows more seriously.
February 26, 2009 at 9:13 pm
When I say civil contracts I do mean civil marriages. I am making church v state distinction. Since all marriages deal with stats issues, they should all be civil contracts/marriages.
February 26, 2009 at 9:34 pm
The subject of death and dying is so morbid, but one of us here set up a living will and made all his legal arrangements for death a few years back, after he had a bad car accident and it made him think about what he wanted in terms of a funeral and all of that.
Well, long story, he wanted no money spent on a funeral, and didn’t want to be embalmed or buried, didn’t want to deal with a funeral home — he actually wanted to donate his body to science after his death (and joked, “Hey, I always wanted to go to med school”), with cremation following that.
He gave his parents copies of all the documents, and about a week later his mother told him flat out that if he died before she did, she wouldn’t follow any of that. Instead, she’d do the whole funeral home thing because that’s what she wanted, and she didn’t care what he wished…she thought the donation to science was creepy, and also objected to him being an organ donor.
“Just try to stop me from doing what I want,” she said. “So, you better just outlive me, because I’m going to do what I want. I’m your mother.”
So, unless you’ve got a legal husband or wife to have the final say on what happens to you when you are either dead or otherwise incapacitated, it really does look like your family has the ability to circumvent whatever you would have personally wanted.
February 26, 2009 at 9:47 pm
This was not at all the funeral our friend would have wanted. But I carefully selected a flower arrangement that would have meaning to the couple.
While we were going through the Amendment 2 mess in Florida, we did try to tell the stories of what real-life couples were facing. Perhaps nothing will change overnight, but if we keep telling the stories, hearts will begin to change.
February 26, 2009 at 10:37 pm
This is a great dialog! My (gay) son and I have discussed these issues frequently. He can’t get beyond the word marriage as being the definitive right. I tend to agree with those of you above who think that “marriage” should be the religious ceremony that is a form of celebration with the community that the couple chooses – or not.
When I get really wound up on the issue, I think there should be different “contractual relationships” including “domestic partnerships” – which can be determined for a specific time period even, as well as civil unions which would be the equivalent of marriage in all aspects. To use an old debate term – this would be accomplished by fiat (i.e., legal magic wand).
So far Kev and I haven’t resolved the issues yet either, but if we all can just discuss things rationally, eventually we can work it out.
BTW HB – I’m willing to adopt. I’ve found gay sons beat straight daughters seven ways to Sunday. Warning – the inheritance wouldn’t be much. Our 401(k) has become a 104(k)!
February 26, 2009 at 11:11 pm
What I don’t understand is why legally binding documents aren’t being upheld. Can someone who knows more about the law explain this to me? Is it just me or does it seem that laws are not being upheld? Not just in terms of gay people’s wishes but all around. For instance, we have laws about financial regulations but we have to keep writing new laws since the ones that we have aren’t being enforced.
February 26, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Jolyn, we have all kinds of laws that aren’t being enforced. If they were, half of Congress would be wearing orange jumpsuits. Our health care and education systems wouldn’t have been bankrupted by illegal aliens. Bad people would be in prison instead of out committing more crimes and giving useless politicians excuses to take guns away from honest citizens, and so forth.
And this is exactly the way our elected slavemasters want it.
Oh yeah, it’s time for another round of “tea parties.”
February 27, 2009 at 7:28 am
This is Paul Richmond, the artist responsible for bringing you “Noah’s Gay Wedding Cruise,” which I’m thrilled to see has sparked some interesting debate here and elsewhere online. What more could an artist hope for?
Even though there’s probably not much question about my stance on the issue, I couldn’t resist throwing in my two cents after reading your well-argued essay and some of the follow-up comments. You make a good case for dropping the whole “marriage” thing to avoid getting Middle America’s panties in a bunch. However, I disagree with the implication that hetero-centric religious groups somehow own “marriage.” In a follow-up comment to your article, Lynda states that she’s against gay marriage because she feels “that the term marriage is a religious designation that shouldn’t be dictated by government.” If this were true, and marriage was governed by, say the Catholic Church, than only those who are baptized and in good standing with the church, never divorced, and who have successfully completed their requisite Pre-Cana counseling would be permitted to say their I do’s. We know that’s not the case. Marriage is a legal contract that various religions put their own spin on, but I believe it’s dangerous to let them make the rules for all of us. Why should we compromise the assertion of our rights as American citizens because some people would rather let their version of God decide what’s best? Separation of church and state, anyone?
I can’t stand behind accepting a lesser version of “marriage” (which as its been pointed out by others on here, simply doesn’t cover all the same ground) just to appease people with a misunderstanding of what the argument is even about. It would be like going back in time and telling women who were fighting for the right to vote, “Oh, sorry. There are just too many people who would be upset by this. Besides, men should be in charge. It says so in the Bible. How about you express your political ideas in another way – maybe make some pretty banners for your favorite politician?”
Although you may not see a white veil in your future, nor do you wish to stand alongside Ellen and Portia in my ark of gay love, I don’t understand your suggestion that gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage equality are just misguided conformists desperate to emulate their straight, suburbanite counterparts; as you said, “aping someone else’s traditions.” Plenty of heterosexual couples want nothing to do with the institution of marriage for many of the same reasons that you feel disillusioned by it, and being non-traditional isn’t a concept we either own nor should be obligated to. As we’ve witnessed in states where gay marriage has become (even fleetingly) actualized, there are a lot of gay and lesbian couples who do wish to take part — and perhaps not because they’re trying to fit into some societal, heterosexual mold. Maybe it really is about love and their desire to make a commitment that will be recognized, honored, and upheld by their community and governing body at large.
And yes, maybe some of them even want to wear white and release a dove. :) Shouldn’t they be allowed?
February 27, 2009 at 11:32 am
Yes.
February 27, 2009 at 11:50 am
Your comments are dead on. I only read the first few sentences because you made the point clearly. Marriage is something between one man and one woman. Period. Marriage should be a religious thing only. Domestic partnerships, whatever you want to call it is a government thing and can be recognized by the govt.
February 27, 2009 at 1:00 pm
When I was in Hawaii a few years ago the debate about gay marriage was raging. There was a sign on a pretty little building near the beach (Queens beach no less)that said something like “Gay Marriage Center”.
Being endlessly naive I went up to it to see what it was-it was a toilet.
There is no working with these people. The only reason they are willing to go for civil unions is to avoid gay marriage itself. Ten years ago they would have been as adamant against civil unions. You can’t accommodate hate-you have to push against it until it backs down or you do.
February 27, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Hillbuzz,
check out your state’s laws on Advanced Health Care Directives (living wills) and Patient Bill of Rights. They (especially living wills) address who has the final say in your healthcare, who can visit, who cannot, who has POA, etc.
Vinidictive families/spouses can only watch from the sidelines. Also, this applies to straight, gay, single parents, etc. You may think marriage allows diecisions but not necessarily. You may think marriage allows automatic bequeathment, only after probate (6 months to a year).
Everyone, get a living will. They have pushed that so hard since I have been in school. It protects you and your loved ones, giving them a voice in your care as well as funeral arrangements. They do not cost much at all (there is even software you can buy inexpensively).
April 18, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I just found this posting today and I thank you for it. Isn’t it unfortunate that the far-Left would have America believe that the LGBT community all wish to force gay marriage on the country? I will always support the work at HB and your position on partner’s rights. I hope that God can direct you towards a path that brings your position on this issue further out into the open. God Bless.
May 6, 2009 at 4:41 pm
[...] http://hillbuzz.org/2009/02/26/were-sure-theres-something-in-this-to-upset-everyone/ [...]
August 5, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Wow…this site is an incredible find for me. I am a huge Sarah Palin supporter and I have quite a few liberal and gay friends. I’ve always felt that they should have the same rights as married people but it was that word “marriage” that I was rather defensive of…I too am a Christian and think of it more as a commitment before God of my faith to him as well as this man I was marrying. But I digress…I honestly didn’t think I would ever find a gay man that even remotely liked Sarah Palin and I can just see the look on the liberals faces when you all show up to some Sarah rally…holy crap..that would be priceless.
I am definitely bookmarking this site and will be supporting your efforts in whatever way I can.
Very cool!
November 11, 2009 at 10:13 pm
You know, I’ve always thought that marriage is a religious ceremony to be celebrated however you, your partner, and your religion dictate.
The only thing we need to worry about legislating is what constitutes a domestic partnership – the sharing of property, income, taxes, benefits, inheritance rights, etc.
I don’t want government dictating my religious ceremonies, and I think a domestic partnership should be granted equally to any segment of the population that wishes to participate in one.
I’m a happily married, fiscally conservative Texan. It seems to me that when reasonable, rational minds prevail, a great deal of common ground can be found.
I wish you well – I hope that in sharing your stance, you’ll find more of that common ground, and make progress in your goals.
November 13, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Okay…still a new poster here (having been wowwed by your Thanks to the Bush’s a couple of days ago) but I have to say that is one of THE BEST posts on “gay marriage” I’ve ever read. And I am a southern, conservative, flaming heterosexual man.
AMEN to the “not having to put up with” the wedding stress. I’ve run a multimillion dollar business for nearly two decades now and my wedding was the most stressful time of my life. (Note: the business is mine, and is big…I, however, am not a millionaire – it takes a lot of money to make only a decent amount of money in my busines)
But I came to realize that even as a Southern Baptist, that I could not genuinely be *against* same-sex unions during the “marriage penalty” argument when it came to the IRS and Federal Taxes…I and my wife wanted it done away with (married deductions were only 50% more than singles, instead of 100% more as it should’ve been). So, trying to be the dutiful non-hypocrite I try to live as, as well as a 7 year stint in Chapel Hill NC (large G-L population) and being exposed to lots of G-L folks that I came to like – a lot – I decided that same-sex couples should be extended the same rights as opposite-sex couples. Period. Certainly when it comes to benefits, insurance, taxes, you name it. I still believe and espouse this today to anyone that will listen – even if they are in sheer disbelief of whom it is coming from…since us Southern Hillbilly Rednecks are *all* supposed to be rabid anti-gay folk.
But the whole reason for my drivelous post is this: you are spot on about “marketing”. I think most religous types like myself, simply have an issue with the word ‘marriage’. I don’t, really, but lots do. Civil Unions, Benefit Partners, whatever, may be a better road to pursue in order to gain the literal benefits of being a couple in the eyes of the government (and therefore the IRS, and therefore, most employers). And how, as a religous “believer” can I support homosexuality? Simple. My God directs me to not be judgemental. If a Bible Thumper ever gets in your grille over how wrong it is to be gay or lesbian, ask them about how many of them or their evangelical friends committed fornication, or adultery, or coveted their neighbors’ wives? Or stole? Or took the Lord’s name in vein? Selective hyprocrites…that’s what I call them.
Just beware to be careful of what you wish for tho. When the day comes that same-sex couples can form a legal union equal to marriage in the eyes of the law, then there will have to be a provision for divorce – and ALL THE NASTINESS that goes with that. While as gay folks, you (rightly!) relish the lack of dealing with a wedding, you will not be able to get around the squabbling, lawyers and everything negative associated with a ‘divorce’ instead of a ‘breakup’. Sorry. Just being the good conservative that I am, which means I try to follow all ideas to their logical or possibly eventual conclusions…lol
November 13, 2009 at 7:00 pm
You had me at hello.
I am brand spanking new to this site, and I think I need to bookmark it. I too think that the “gay marriage” question would have been resolved ages ago if the word “marriage” had been dropped from the equation. I’m all for equal rights — I just don’t want even the possibility of religious rights being trampled on in the process. I understand the argument that non-religious people get married all the time — but loads of non-religious people celebrate Christmas every year too, and I don’t think the government has any right to change that definition either.
The sad part is that I’ve been called homophobic for the above viewpoint. People keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
December 2, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I’m a traditional Catholic, RINO conservative Libertarian who thinks the government has no authority to be in the “marriage” business.
A marriage is the joining of souls. Last I checked, there’s no rubber stamp that can accomplish that.
The government exists to regulate contracts between consenting adults. As such, the government cannot and should not discriminate against parties who choose to legally bind themselves to one another.
The only criteria for those contracts should be the age of consent and the determination that any previous contracts have been deemed null and void.
If a man and woman, or man and man, or woman and woman, or two sisters, or an adult child and his/her elderly parent, or three friends without families, or whoever want to legally bind themselves together, there should be no issues.
December 15, 2009 at 12:09 am
As the rightwing-inest rightwinger whoever wrought rightdom (stuck here in fiat-stricken Massachusetts), I’m on board with the partner benefits logic. You should be able to make legal arrangements regarding property with anyone you please. That’s an issue of personal liberty that extends beyond demographic specifics.
But “gay marriage” has been nothing but a foot in the door here for lawsuits and religious discrimination. The Gorenographers, Race Industry, and Rainbow Mafia employ the same kind of tactics, all you do is substitute the victim’s politically correct identity.
I can only imagine how much mail you get about self-hatred and treason to “the cause.”
December 16, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Hi Guys,
I gotta say Bravo. IF the debate was framed as you guys frame it I am sure most center right folks could support it. Of course there are the people who would not.
I am opinionated but my opinions are changeable if given enough time and reasoned arguments are made.
You may think it strange, coming from someone as “right” as I am, but I support everything that I have read on your site. We may not always agree on policy, but at least you are reasonable people who are willing to say it in good faith and dont just scream epithets and slogans shrilly until you win or tire out your opponent. Things I have posted on my blog may offend you; if you visit, and they do, please comment. I blog with two other people on my blog, and they may not always agree with me, but I would welcome you stopping by
January 2, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Charles Winecoff over at BigHollywood.com has an exceptional piece posted on this subject.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cwinecoff/2009/03/19/love-war-and-gay-marriage/#more-76946
It seems to me that he hit the nail on the head, that the big ‘issue’ with Gay Marriage is, for many in the gay community, about a mandated legislated acceptance. Not tolerance, mind you, but acceptance. After speaking to many people (mostly ‘breeders’ like myself, as I was once referred to by an openly gay associate) I have found that many people on the anti-gay marriage side of the fence are afraid of government mandated “fairness” that ends up discriminating against hetero-sexuals. Thanks but no thanks, we believed the lies about Affirmative Action being short time and necessary, and now whenever discrimination against white people is mentioned we are pilloried for being Rrrraaaaacist!. Similarly, we are accused of sexism whenever we make the observation in that a 110LB female cannot lift and carry like a 190LB male, or that there are innate differences in male and female brain structures, since now we must willingly suspend all rational thinking in the pursuit of ensuring that males and females are treated completely equally in the workforce or the military. Instead we are told that we must ‘embrace diversity’ and make amends for 1000′s of years of white male supremacy. Indeed, we are told that ‘tolerance’ requires us to take the act of marriage and redefine it at the behest of a vocal minority who (mostly) do not want it, simply because they want to lash out at people they falsely feel have wronged them, by dissaproving of their lifestyle. The Perez Hilton / Carrie Prejean fiasco spring to mind, and do not even get me started on the “queering of the schools” Czar appointed by Dr. Utopia.
On the whole, I wish more people would speak about thi issue with a willingness to hear each others side of the issue. But as a member of a ‘group’ (and you know how the democrat machine loves to pigeon hole people into groups, so again please don’t get me started) who was assured that civil rights legislation could never be used to discriminate against white people, that tolerance for ‘gay pride’ is acceptable (and mandated), but wearing a shirt that advertises ‘hetero pride’ is a hate crime, why in God’s name would we want to further slit our own throats?
As for the argument that ‘civil unions’ are semantically equal to ‘gay marriage’ and so, therefore my argument is moot, I respond: If there is no substantive difference between the concepts, then why the extreme actions taken against prop-8 supporters in CA, the land of extremely equitable civil union laws? If there were a way to be sure that “gay marriage” as a policy would not adversely impact my right (and responsibility) to portray to my 21 month old son the desirability of a traditional monogamous mixed gender marriage as being the optimal pattern for human happiness and fulfilment, I might very well have a different feeling about the whole idea. But the vibe most of us heteros get (my opinion is based on anecdotal, non-scientifically gathered opinions) is that if gay marriage becomes a fact of law, that it will rapidly become punishable for our clergy to refuse to marry same sex couples, that schools will be forced nation wide to adopt a curricula that continues to degrade traditional marriage and christianity, while glorifying ‘alternate family structures’ with parents being required, by force of law, to allow the state to indoctrinate their children into the moral relativism required in order to openly approve of ‘gay marriage’.
I do not mean to offend anyone with this post, and I welcome discussion of any of the points/opinions I expressed in it.
January 17, 2010 at 9:48 am
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/the_curious_case_of_the_incuri.html
Pretty good article on some of the problems we could see about GM.
January 29, 2010 at 1:30 pm
The funny thing is, in California we already have domestic partnerships. According to the Secretary of State, there are some 42,000 people who have taken advantage of the law to register as such. And still we have Proposition 8 and efforts to force those of us who believe, as you do, that Brittany Spears makes more a mockery of marriage than any two gay men have, trying to force us to use the word marriage to describe same sex partnerships. Sadly, in the campaign, the no on 8 folks pretended that domestic partnerships did not exist. They, teary eyed, talked about getting shut out of hospital rooms. Well, if they took advantage of the domestic partnership law, which has been on the books here for a long time, that would never happen. I am glad to have found your site and want to encourage you to (in honor of Hottie McAwesome) keep on truckin’.
February 19, 2010 at 8:23 am
Hi! I am an evangelical Christian and hope my post here is not locked out for that! What I want to say is that I LOVE what you have to say! I think it is one of the most honest pieces I have ever read and I love it because it MAKES SENSE. I am exhausted from arguing with my large group of liberal friends about the inanity of their views re gay marriage, tax and spend, abortion. I have all the respect in the world for you. Am posting links to your blog everywhere!!!
On gay marriage, redefining marriage would be like redefining the word “children”. There are lots of folks out there who are a little nutty about their dogs, cats, squirrels, what have you … but those things ARE NOT CHILDREN. They are “pets”. Now a movement for “pet rights” might make headway but insisting on redefining “children” to include pets will run into so many walls!
May 26, 2010 at 1:25 pm
My daughter’s partner Jojo is not her ‘wife’ but Jojo is my adopted daughter anyway. I love them both. And yes I am a Christian although I am not ‘religious.’ I just love Jesus a whole heck of a lot!