The myth of civil unions being acceptable to opponents of marriage equality

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6383353/

While the amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon deal only with marriage, the measures in the other eight states also ban civil unions.

According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, there are roughly 2 million people in those states who live in households headed by same-sex couples and could be harmed by the amendments — including state university employees whose domestic partnership benefits could be in jeopardy in Michigan, Ohio and Utah.

end of quote

More than 20 million Americans voted on the measures, which triumphed overall by a 2-to-1 ratio. In the four Southern states, the amendments received at least three-quarters of the votes, including 86 percent in Mississippi; the closest outcome besides Oregon was in Michigan, where the ban got 59 percent.

end of quote

This only speaks to the 2004 amendments. This time, Florida banned any relationship that is like marriage. Arizona and California 'merely' banned marriage.

The simple fact is that the one and only reason civil unions and/or domestic partnerships have any influence at all on the outcome of these votes is that heterosexuals themselves avail themselves of simliar rights. The very notion that the people who hate gays to the point that they spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours to break up our families will be OK with us having all the rights of marriage but not the word is absurd. They hate our fucking guts. They want to cut funds for suicide prevention if that prevention somehow helps gays. In Arkansas they banned elderly couples who live together to keep pension benefits from even fostering their own grandkids to prevent gay couples from fostering or adopting kids. They hate our fucking guts. Domestic Partnership, civil unions, festering pile of shit, no name for those rights would be bad enough for those haters to let us have them. They hate our fucking guts.

Honestly if I thought civil unions would work, I would accept them. They won't. They hate our fucking guts. It doesn't get simpler than that. They hate our fucking guts.

Arizona and California merely banned marriage.

"Merely". Like it's just a minor inconvenience.

incrementalism as a political tactic did work here in CT. I was surprised at how quickly it did, too.

I was a bit confused when our state's rights people took that path. Why? Equality is equality, and anything less is less. But they thought they could get CUs through the legislature when they could not get marriage through. They were correct, and they did. And a few years later, the courts ruled that - surprise! - separate is not equal. And marriage equality is here. And that was greeted with some joy, and by many others, with a bit of a yawn. (All in all a good thing - no upset, other than from a few. Most took it as a matter of course.)

So I've had to admit that those who took that path here knew better than I and were right, anyway.

support from the rest of the country ie the other 70% to pass in most states. I think they would but probably not currently in the deep south.

and both passed measures banning any form of relationship by 70 and 60 respectively.

They were so ignorant that they voted against their own self interests as well as those of gay people. An election issue that educates the voters prior to the election and is not associated with election stealing may be a different story. Who knows, but hey, I think Americans are waking up. We can only hope. Peace, Kim

They want us to disappear, by any means necessary.

They WILL be defeated and this attitude will do it. Without the extremists of the KKK, Jim Crow might have survived even longer. When the worst of them come out in the open and expose themselves for what they are (you describe them well) that will bring the backlash that is needed to bring the major change that is needed. This is like the Civil Rights movement (it IS a civil rights movement) and needs a watershed moment or two, like the Voting Rights Act, the 1954 School decision, etc to break the impasse.

I am straight and admit I have been sort of unengaged on the issue. I say "well, sure 'they' should be able to..." but have not felt the urge to go "fight city hall" over it. But I am getting really, really pissed. I expect plenty like me are*. So every time one of these frothing-at-the-mouth scumbags starts (figuratively) cross-burning, applaud them. They WILL be a dying breed.

It is depressing and hurtful to hear them rant, and moreso to see them getting somewhere with their efforts, but look at it this way: you knew they were out there anyway; now they are crawling out from under the rocks where they can be stomped

*They aren't a daily event yet, but commentaries like Thom Hartman's and Keith Olberman's last week weren't happening at all before p8.

At first, I was extremely disappointed but now I'm feeling like the back-lash will be a good thing for our side.

Like they say, what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.

Why don't we change ALL 'marriages' to Civil Unions (CU). First stop in a government formalized relationship is to the Civil Union License Bureau. Next stop, a judge or certified party that can preside over the CU. The basis for all 'legal couple rights' would be here. Now if the couple wants to carry this one step further they can get 'married' at a church that agrees to do that. That would be where the god thing would come in, I would guess. I would limit CU's to same species of consenting age, other than that it is nobodies business. What am I missing? I

The simple fact is that people who do care about this issue either hate our guts and want us to have zero rights or think we deserve the whole thing. The rest just are along for the ride on this. That is why the propositions get the same vote regardless of actual wording.

For the most part those that hate, hate a whole host of folks for no good reason. Thrashing about yelling that folks hate won't get us anywhere. Calm resolve to change the situation will. I think that we need to work with the new administration to resolve the issue's including the personal safety of all Americans from hate crimes of any nature. These folks that are the doing the 'hate' need to be educated that, here in this country, their bad behavior will end them in jail. Peace, Kim

that even took away some rights of straight people. A lot of straight people even seem to be willing to restrict their own rights if it will also hurt gay people. That's hate. And it's 59%, not a minority, in a blue state.

We had the same thing in Ohio. Ignorant people only listen to the commercials they don't read the legislation. Don't give too much power to the haters.

It takes hate to say, "You don't deserve this right I enjoy."

I don't know which "we" you're thinking of, but there is no widespread support for your suggested complete overhaul of the existing civil marriage laws.

And even if we did, the same people who oppose marriage equality would oppose civil union equality.

I assume you are speaking about marriage in the US. Do you see that even an innocent suggestion is struck down with such anger. What you don't see is that if the problem is 'marriage' then why not solve it in a legal way for ALL citizens. You sell everyone short by assuming that the only resolution is getting in the face of the wacko religious rights and demanding something that may not be popular. Hey, I am female, married to a male for over thirty years and frankly I think that we should get over all of this marriage crap. If I had been aware of a way to legally commit to my husband without having to suck up to a paster that demanded marriage counsel that included sex questionnaires and the like, I would have taken that option. The bottom line is that same sex marriage needs protection under the law and whatever it is called, whatever it takes to accomplish, is what should happen. But hey, feel free to beat yourself up, put people off and alienate others. If we listen to Obama things can be accomplished when we work together. We (Americans) might try that with this issue. Peace, Kim

that furthermore the suggestion is always made by the people who aren't actually doing the work.

If you want to overturn marriage, BE MY GUEST. No GLBT people are stopping you.

Your idea may work in the abstract but it doesn't work in reality.

It ignores the fact that there is no basis of support for overturning marriage as you suggest.

And it ignores the entire POINT of the OP which is that most of the people who oppose our marriages ALSO oppose our civil unions. Can you get this last sentence, please?

It is obvious that you alone can do this. You don't see that you do not use kindness in responding and you isolate yourself. Make sure that when you are looking for solutions that you brainstorm and search for a new answer that might be successful. It is pretty obvious that the tack you are on is not working. You assume that someone like me would not do the work although I have taken time to respond here and work tirelessly for things that I believe in . Yes, please solve this on your own and assume that everyone outside the gay community is filled with hate and against you. I am sorry for your pain. I am also sorry that you felt the need to admonish me and my ideas.

I'm sorry it hurt your feelings that instead of worshiping you and thanking you for your uninformed ideas I instead tried to explain to you the problem with your idea - which you were never going to act on anyway.

There's always an "idea person" out there who doesn't want to get their hands dirty, or implement their own brilliant suggestions.

If you ever decide to get serious about the issue, look to the people who are doing the heavy lifting.

Forget my feelings I feel sorry for you and anyone who thinks like you. I will not judge the entire 'group' by your prejudice views of the people in this country. You will never solve this problem with your current attitude and that is your loss. After living through the * years I refuse to roll around in the poopy with people that refuse to open their minds and exclude rather than include others.

:hi:

A self fulfilling prophecy. Ignore it is.

rejected by the people doing the real work.

That's all we need to say about this.

regarding "Homosexual Legal Marriage" or H.L.M. as they call it, specifically discussed the need to oppose "domestic partnership" as a stepping stone to legal H.L.M.

The memo actually suggests throwing a bread crumb to legislators for GLBT's in the form of allowing hospital visitation. Not that they think we should have it, mind you, but they know that hospital visitation gets everyone's sympathy.

You are absolutely right. They hate our fucking guts. They will fight us every step of the way. Incremental may have worked in CT, but it isn't working anywhere else.

want NO legal recognition of any sort for us.

Civil Unions aren't progress, as a result. They're a foot in the door but on the other side of the door there are other feet furiously kicking us back.

against gays and the collateral damage will also affect unmarried seniors and may deprive them of visitation rights.

To be clear: their target is gays and not equality for gays, on any level.

Like pregnant teens and rape victims. It comes from being terrified of things that don't fit into a Norman Rockwell view of the world.

that's gained a lot of support. The longer it's the law, the more acceptance it gains- and the harder it will be to overturn.

Put loaded language like marriage back into the equation at this point- and how much do you want to bet that an initiative would get onto the ballot and overturn the protections same sex couples currently have in the state?