Gay Marriage

[Larv]

It all comes down to the word "marriage". What is already on the table, for the gays, is equality under the law, but with the requirement of using another term such as civil union. Citizens do not have equal access to all words, in terms of lawful gain. I can not use the word Microsoft to gain extra benefits which Microsoft currently gains. Separate but equal applies. I can do everything Microsoft does, if I use another term...

Exactly! It’s not about equal rights; it’s about calling something pink because it smells like clover. T. S. Eliot (1935) was right:

 

Words strain,

Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,

Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,

Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place,

Will not stay still. Shrieking voices

Scoling, mocking, or merely chattering,

Always assail them.

[InfiniteNow]

Exactly! It’s not about equal rights; it’s about calling something pink because it smells like clover.

What relevant secular difference is there between same sex and opposite sex couples which should inform our decision to call their relationship by different names?

[modest]

Did you read the article? Here’s quote from it:

 

Both bills are sponsored by Sen. Ed Murray and Rep. Jamie Pedersen, both Democrats and openly gay.

Vested interest, that’s all.

 

This is completely irrelevant to the context of the quote.

It's nice though that Larv agrees that gay people have a vested interest in passing gay marriage legislation over domestic partnership legislation.

 

I agree with you on that, Larv. Gay people do have such a vested interest. Passing legislation which allows gay people to marry and to be part of the marriage franchise is very much in their vested interest.

 

~modest

[Larv]

What relevant secular difference is there between same sex and opposite sex couples which should inform our decision to call their relationship by different names?

Good question, IN. The relevant, secular difference is that all three of Washington's branches of government agreed that homosexuals can gain all the rights accorded to married couples without calling it "marriage."

[InfiniteNow]

Good question, IN. The relevant, secular difference is that all three of Washington's branches of government agreed that homosexuals can gain all the rights accorded to married couples without calling it "marriage."

 

Well, they haven't done so yet, nor do their rules apply at the federal level, and you have yet again evaded the question put to you with a diversion.

[Larv]

I agree with you on that, Larv. Gay people do have such a vested interest. Passing legislation which allows gay people to marry and to be part of the marriage franchise is very much in their vested interest.

Then more gay people should come to Washington, because we give them all their rights. We don't give out marriage franchises, though. Marriage here is not a commodity.

[InfiniteNow]

Then more gay people should come to Washington, because we give them all their rights.

 

You simply can't keep saying this. It's simply false. The state of Washington is certainly heading in that direction, but you're not there yet, so stop lying and pretending that you are. :hihi:

[modest]

all three of Washington's branches of government agreed that homosexuals can gain all the rights accorded to married couples without calling it "marriage."

 

Can you please support this claim? I find it highly unlikely that any such official position has been offered by any branch of the state's government.

 

You previously made the claim that domestic partners in Washington have all the rights and benefits of married people. That was shown incorrect by Craig, myself, and others yet you repeated the claim at least a half-dozen times ignoring any request for backup. You're now starting the process over with a new claim. This can't continue. Please cite a source backing up your claim above. It's a site rule.

 

~modest

[Larv]

You simply can't keep saying this. It's simply false. The state of Washington is certainly heading in that direction, but you're not there yet, so stop lying and pretending that you are. :hihi:

If you keep slapping yourself in the forehead like that you're gonna hurt yourself. You need to tell me what rights the gays are not getting out here in Washington. And don't tell me they're not getting their federal rights, because Washington state is not the federal government.

 

What your line of argument tells me, IN, is that you hold your personal opinions higher the those of all three branches of the Washington state government. Please tell me you're not that arrogant.

[Larv]

Can you please support this claim? I find it highly unlikely that any such official position has been offered by any branch of the state's government.

 

You previously made the claim that domestic partners in Washington have all the rights and benefits of married people. That was shown incorrect by Craig, myself, and others yet you repeated the claim at least a half-dozen times ignoring any request for backup. You're now starting the process over with a new claim. This can't continue. Please cite a source backing up your claim above. It's a site rule.

 

~modest

WA Governor Chris Gregoire Signs Everything-But-Marriage into Law.

[TheBigDog]

Then more gay people should come to Washington, because we give them all their rights. We don't give out marriage franchises, though. Marriage here is not a commodity.

There often comes a point in these debates that you reach an impasse where you may be satisfied with the information you have, but those debating with you are not. It easily degenerates into "yes it is!" "No it isn't!" like the old Monty Python argument skit.

 

My recommendation when you reach that point is either to trust that not everyone, but many of those who are reading will understand the point you are making, so there is no point in continuing to repeat what you have already said, or to find a fresh perspective on the topic and begin again.

 

You have reached that point.

 

Backing off is not a concession of defeat. It is a sign of wisdom in knowing that there is only so much that needs to be argued. Readers will find their truth in the arguments presented.

 

Bill

[modest]

You need to tell me what rights the gays are not getting out here in Washington

 

The domestic partner of a retired military personnel in the state of Washington does not receive benefits such as pension benefits that the heterosexual spouse of said person does. In Washington a domestic partner will not receive social security benefits when their partner dies the way a married spouse would.

 

There are state laws which would conflict with federal law if they made allowances for domestic partners. In these cases, the state must defer to the federal government which is why this amendment was put into the law you're talking about.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

WA Governor Chris Gregoire Signs Everything-But-Marriage into Law.

 

And here's a story from today which shows why you're being given such a hard time on this issue:

 

 

 

Referendum 71 signatures turned in - Elections - The Olympian - Olympia, Washington

Sponsors of a campaign to overturn the state’s recent “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law turned in their petition signatures Saturday and said they believe they have enough to force a public vote.

 

The signatures for Referendum 71 were turned in to the Washington state Secretary of State’s Office Saturday afternoon.

The new expanded domestic partnership law was scheduled to take effect today, but is delayed until the signatures can be counted.

 

To qualify for the November ballot, they must have 120,577 valid voter signatures, and election officials have suggested that referendum sponsors turn in about 150,000 as a buffer.

 

If they have enough signatures, the law will be delayed until the outcome of the election.

 

The signatures were turned in a day after opponents of the new law announced a final push to force a public vote, calling their effort so far “too close to call.”

 

“We feel OK,” said R-71 organizer Gary Randall. Randall said at least 135,000 signatures were submitted, and more signatures were expected to be turned in before the 5 p.m. deadline.

 

The process of counting and verifying them begins next week, and verification could go until the last week of August, said Brian Zylstra, a spokesman for the secretary of state’s office.

 

If they don’t have enough signatures, the domestic partnership expansion will immediately take effect. If the measure does qualify, voters will be asked to either approve or reject the new law.

[modest]

WA Governor Chris Gregoire Signs Everything-But-Marriage into Law.

 

Please notice the site rule:

 

Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion.

 

~modest

[lemit]

Exactly! It’s not about equal rights; it’s about calling something pink because it smells like clover. T. S. Eliot (1935) was right:

 

Words strain,

Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,

Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,

Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place,

Will not stay still. Shrieking voices

Scoling, mocking, or merely chattering,

Always assail them.

 

 

 

Larv,

 

Are you, in the middle of your defense of the word "marriage," suddenly deciding words aren't that important? If that is the case, you probably shouldn't have used a poem tortuously written over a span of years, in some cases a single word submitted to many different colleagues for approval before it was included. And if you didn't want me to come down on you, you probably shouldn't have used my favorite mystical poem, Eliot's Four Quartets. And finally, you shouldn't have used lines about the power and durability of language when I don't think that's what you were talking about, although I'm not sure what you were talking about, maybe haying?

 

I think it would be safe to say that gay people aren't the only ones to have attacked the word "marriage" in the last couple hundred years (a word they aren't attacking; they like it so much they want to be able to use it every day). Is the institution dead? Is the word dead? Both were pronounced so as far back as the 1840's.

 

So, which is it you really care about, the institution or the word?

 

Over the years, in the millions of times that same question has been asked, I don't think the ensuing conversation has generally followed this track: if it's the institution, apparently everything's all right. If it's the word, then we seem to have a problem. I firmly believe people have a right to be called whatever they wish to be called, within the limits of my ignorance of what people now want to be called. I hope in that respect ignorance does not imply guilt. (Actually, I know enough to use GLBT; I'm sorry I haven't.)

 

So, if our problem is with a word, the word "marriage," let's do away with it altogether and get a new word.

 

We could try that great simplifier of language, Esperanto. It turns out to have 11 (eleven!) words for marriage, including polygamous variations and a slang term for same-sex marriage which I won't use here so as not to offend all the GLBT Esperanto speakers reading this. It also has a more mainstream non-gender-specific term, "nupti."* Would that be all right?

 

Or, since Esperanto is always controversial, we could make up our own word, assuming (as it's not at all safe to assume) social scientists haven't done so already. If we could create a term, say "Co-unization" (or "Co-unisation" in Canada), and we would call all legally binding cohabitation agreements, including those sanctioned by religious institutions, by that name, then you'd be happy, right?

 

That word, "Marriage," so battered and bloodied in the 20th Century, could be buried with honors in the 21st.

 

That's what your concern is really about, isn't it? Or does it have something to do with the word "clover?"

 

--lemit

 

*Esperanto--including the actual slang word for same-sex marriage--courtesy "Sonja's English-Esperanto Dictionary."

[modest]

C

all three of Washington's branches of government agreed that homosexuals can gain all the rights accorded to married couples without calling it "marriage."

...Please cite a source backing up your claim above. It's a site rule.

 

WA Governor Chris Gregoire Signs Everything-But-Marriage into Law.

Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion.

I apologize Larv. I was being terribly lazy and probably quite rude. I was holding off on reading your link hoping you would comment on it, but I've read it now as I should have earlier.

 

Your link is a news article which says: "Gov. Chris Gregoire on Monday signed legislation giving registered same-sex domestic partners all the rights and benefits that Washington now offers married couples."

 

It seems I should concede the point. Civil unions can (or, could, ideally) receive all the rights and benefits which the government gives opposite-sex couples. I would only say (and I think I'm repeating TheBigDog here) that you should mention the federal exception. Saying "domestic partners have all the rights and privileges of married couples" is missing an important exception and this would be more accurate: "domestic partners have all the rights and privileges granted by the state of married couples" as they don't yet have federal rights and benefits.

 

Is this OK?

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

Modest - You should note that those benefits are not yet available to same sex couples in Washington, and that they are NOT equal with opposite sex partners (not yet, anyway).

 

The equal granting of these benefits and privileges to same sex couples under the "Everything, but Marriage" legislation is currently under challenge with Referendum 71... which appears to have gained enough signatures to force a vote (and leave subject to the tyranny of the majority/mob rule) whether or not same sex couples should, in fact, be allowed these protections/equality.

 

Referendum 71 (2009) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia