Supporters of same sex marriage only: Would you prefer

[dsc]

Poll question: Supporters of same sex marriage only: Would you prefer

Please answer this question as if you got called by a pollster and were only given the two choices outline in 1 and 2. Do not answer if you don't support same sex marriage. Thanks.

[Soft Georgia]

1. I would further answer, as if the pollster cared:

"I will be MARRIED, and have that marriage fully recognized, in my state and in every state in the union. Period. I do not accept the current state of discrimination I live in; I will not accept the second-class citizenship that a civil union would confer. I will fight for my right to marry either until it is finally recognized or until we choose to move out of the country because we won't take the discrimination anymore."

[mairceridwen]

5. I think

(this was originally a response to the OM, not just #1. thank you -mc)

I think we should eliminate the LEGAL category of marriage entirely and acknolwedge the broad range of family-types as they exist already. Why should we favor any pairings* of people when many families do not and will never reflect any narrowly defined ideal?

I am not opposed to establishing parameters when it comes to distributing resources. I don't think just anyone can and should be considered a domestic partner, just because they live together. And I don't think that any partnership situation should trump the rights of parents who do not live with their children.


However, if (for example) a grandmother is living with her son/daughter and helping to raise his/her children shouldn't she be accorded rights so long as she has established herself responsible and able to care for her grandchildren? If two single mothers/fathers (whether they are siblings or friends) want to buy a house and commit to raising their children together, I don't see why they should be "married" to enjoy the benefits that others get and that they will need to make the most of their living situation. As long as these situations do not infringe on the rights of other parties (parents who do not have custody, for example) then why shouldn't they be acknowledged?*

The fact is, despite all the "what if's" (people dying, wanting to get married, etc.) these family structures exist already, all I am suggesting is that they not be excluded as we try to construct a legal definition of what counts as family.


It sounds like a logistical nightmare, but the fact remains that families that fall outside of the ideal are the reality and social policy should acknowledge that.



*by any pairings, I meant "married" pairings, be they homo or hetero. My arguement does favor "pairings" but just opens up what constitutes a pair. Of course, one might see that as a contradiction in my argument as a whole, but I am also trying to be cognizant of the practical considerations of establishing legal domestic partnerships and the need to set boundaries. But I already said that.

[mairceridwen]

6. AND ANOTHER THING

I don't fall into the category of gay activists who are opposed to marriage. Mine is an ideal that excedes the current admin, and likely admins of the near future.

In any case, the most important thing to do now, is to hold the administration accountable by the standards that are already in place, which would be for gay MARRIAGE, not civil unions, MARRIAGE, not registered domestic partnerships, MARRIAGE, not a whole bunch of legal papers that only gays with money to afford lawyers to draw up their contracts, MARRIAGE

DAMMIT

[freetobegay]

2. None of the above

Damn it, why should I not be equal?

[sonicx]

3. i'm not gay so i probably have no say but...

i would take civil unions as a baby step to the prize that comes down the line.

[PittLib]

4. I'd have to express my support of civil unions...

at least there is some representation - what are they using the info for? But I suppose I could clarify where I stand.

[Templar83]

7. Most definately

Civil unions. I really do think that it is the best way to go. We could learn a lot from the French model of Pacte Civile de Solidarité or more commonly known as the PACS.

[ropi]

8. hear hear!

welcome to DU Templar83!

[newyawker99]

14. Hi Templar83!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[LTRS]

9. Civil unions is like getting married on back of the bus!

Civil unions are not portable from state to state, and do not confer ANY of the over 1000 federal benefits/rights that married couples enjoy.

MLK didn't say, "hey, the back of the bus is okay - after all, we're lucky to be allowed to ride the white man's bus at all!" It's the same with civil unions. Equality is equality, and separate is not equal.

[vajraroshana]

10. I got married anyway...

Me and my lover/huzband had a marriage ceremony 18 years ago coming this Sep. 20th. (about the "z" in huzband; I've only recently started liking this term; personally I don't really like the term "lover" for some reason, and I used to hate it when I saw someone write the z in huzband, but now for whatever reason I like it...).

I'm always open to new ideas about this, but official recognition hasn't altered our commitment. I think that I'd prefer all official government sanctioned unions with equal benefits to all be recognized as "civil unions" and just skip the "marriage" nomenclature. The reason for that being that I have respect for those that view "marriage" as a religious sacrament. It's fair enough for me. I don't think the government should tell any particular religion what the definition of "marriage" is. But...there are very real benefits and legal obligations of this word and government should have no place also in excluding people from those based on that word. So, I think all laws should be changed and that we should just deal with "civil unions" because that's what's really at stake -- the "civil" part of it.

I'm not sure if I'm real clear here and I hope I'm not offending anyone. I think the word "marriage" has an intrinsic religious character to its meaning and should therefore not be a part of the government's relation with those in a marriage; government should only deal in the "civil" part; the public part that involves consequences and priviledges/obligations. Leave religion out of it.

Obviously, I'm still thinking this out...

[partygirl]

11. I support gay marriage

either that or banning marriage for everyone. I would go for either option. Just as long as everyone is treated the same. It might be kind of fun to get rid of the institution of marriage altogether...imagine how the "family values" crowd would freak out!

[MsTryska]

12. You know i get into it with my gay friends all the time

but i don't think fighting for gay marriage is the answer.


imo, civil union should be the law of the land whether you are straight or gay. Wether you want to call it a marriage or not should be decided by your faith.

[xchrom]

13. i had to go w/ civil unions in this context

because there are families{gay} that can use the advantages that a civil union would confer.
but basically -- full on ''marriage'' is what i really support.

[cheezus]

15. Blacks wouldn't have right to vote had they not been emancipated first

okay, that's a terrible analogy - but

I'll take civil unions / domestic partnerships as an advancement on the way to equal marriage rights.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

16. I'm so sick of others telling others how to live their lives.

No one should be able to tell anyone how to live their lives.
Duckie