|
njlauren -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/19/2013 8:25:05 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
FR
Like I keep saying: It's no longer about getting gay couples their rights. That would require compromise. That's no good. What once was must be completely destroyed. Screw compromise. Let's blow out the joint!
We want what we want. We want it our way and if you don't agree, you're anti-American and a homophobe!
The preceding was brought to you by The Anti-Christ for President 2016. Her name is Hillary and she would approve this message.
Peace and comfort,
Michael
No, it is the other side who won't compromise. When someone from the right comes up with the idea to change the law, that marriage has zero recognition under the law, that the government grants civic unions and what the guy in the robes mumbling in Latin has zero to do with those rights, I would agree with you. The problem is that marriage the term has been hard coded into the law and into social consciousness, and any kind of union that supposedly grants rights, that a married couple can take for granted, that for example a same sex couple would need to fight for, it not the same thing. In 1890 SCOTUS said separate but equal was fine; in 1954, they said separate is never equal. The non compromise is on the part of the religious reich, they insist that marriage retain its legal standing under the law and that same sex couples can't have that word (even if churches are willing to marry them), and the distinct purpose on the part of the religious reich and their party, Hezbollah, is to make sure that same sex couples don't have the same rights as straight couples, pure and simple. I would love for you to show me compromise on the part of the GOP, where John Boehner comeso out and says government should get out of the marriage business, churches marriages are their business, and if anyone wants rights and benefits, they get a civic union from the government..you show me that, and I would agree with you. What you leave out is the federal government has never made an attempt to recognize civic unions, domestic partnerships and so forth that exist today at the state level, and not only that, but bans those who are legally married from getting the rights of marriage, thanks to people you claim aren't homophobes and bigots....
And if you think it isn't that, then tell me, there are churches out there who consider same sex marriages to be fully sacramental and blessed, how come they don't have the right to have the couples they married get the rights they deserve the way the RC or the bible thumpers get for the couples they marry?
As someone else said, when it comes to human rights there is no compromise, you either have them or you don't, and the 14th amendment says that is true under the law. If the government grants rights to the term marriage, as it does exclusively, then you cannot grant rights only to one group. More importantly, would you have told a white/black couple in 1967 who wanted to marry that they should be happy and get a civic union? Would you tell a black woman who wanted to ride in the front seat of the bus that she should be happy they let her on the bus at all? When basic rights are at stake, why should the bigotry of one group determine what another gets?
|
|
|
|
