Homocon

Interesting. The only problems with this concept are: portability (when you move to another state or visit on vacation) the protections will not be the same because contract law differs from state to state, including the definition of terms, time frames, waiting periods before applicability, etc.; who does the interpreting varies from state to state; the meaning of the contractual relationship will vary from state to state; if you forget or don't have the contracts with you you are SOL; some states allow for adoption by same sex couples, yet other states do not and regularly interject themselves into that contractual relationship; and straight couples are not required to have the same contractual documents, go to the expense of having them done, or are questioned if they don't schlep them with them everywhere they travel or move to. So much for being treated equally under the law. THAT is the root issue, not some mythical concept of "universal contracts" that can be ignored, misinterpreted, lost, or taken.
________________________________
Homocon sez:
Whenever anybody starts off a reply with the word, "interesting," it's a sure bet that they don't mean it . . . but if you had bothered to look more deeply into Civil Foundation before you launched off into a half-baked critique, you would have noticed that all CF documents are scanned and filed into an electronic vault, so the documents are available for download wherever a computer is handy (such as a hospital, etc.), so being SOL isn't a problem. As per the portability of rights, it would be much the same as traveling or relocating internationally and being subject to varying interpretations according to international customs and regulations.

Again, when you live outside the mainstream, there are going to be inconveniences associated with your blatant choice to indulge in a counter-cultural lifestyle (oh, right, I keep forgetting the mantra: "But I'm a victim! I was born this way! I can't help it!"). Use whatever legal options are available. This whole, "Give me marriage or give me nothing" attitude has resulted in same sex couples having, well . . . nothing. An organization like Civil Foundation offers far more than nothing, and simply requires the parties involved to take responsibility for their lives, choices and relationships, their relocations and their paperwork, rather than expecting Daddy government to do it all for them.

I don't understand why we don't do it the way that France (God help me) does. Civil Unions for anyone that wants them and religious ceremonies for those that choose to go that route. I agree with you and this is yet another debate where the fringe on both side has muddied the water.
__________________________
Homocon sez:
Wouldn't that be great? It'd be a much more logical solution. It obviously disturbs a significant majority of the population to hear the word "marriage" applied to same-sex couples, so let's call it something else, get the legal aspects of it wrapped up, and move on.

As far as I can tell, all of the negativity here is coming from you (a la Focus on the Family or the American Family Association), not from mainstream equal marriage advocates.
_________________________________
Homocon sez:
I'm now the official spokesman for Focus on the Family and The American Family Association? Wow. Won't they be surprised to hear that.

"I'm now the official spokesman for Focus on the Family and The American Family Association? Wow. Won't they be surprised to hear that."

Oh, man... That is EXCELLENT!

Gay males pioneered contract law during the AID crisis with living wills, power of attorney, and so on, so I was alway surprised when the gay marriage zeolots made claims of being denied medical decision making and property transfers and so on. As Civil Foundation proves, sensible people who are willing to legalize their intimate relationships don't need marriage to do it effectively and cheaply. As you state, gay marriage is really about other issues then the ones discussed. The issue in my opinion is children, and it's the women who are primarily the ones who have this concern. But being a Russell Kirk Paleo-Conservative, I'm as concerned as any red state heterosexual religious conservative about the long term effects of 'normalizing' families headed up by women on our society. In my opinion, the benefits of marriage were developed with the ultimate intention of protecting the economic security of children, with special assumptions on the role of the mother of those children. It's NOT a tool to making things convenient for a handful of urban sophisticates who decide to make a life together. Civil Foundations and contract law are the answers to their problems, not redefining marriage and family.

Homocon, so are you opposed to the idea of gay marriage at some point? Personally, I like the idea of civil unions to start but ultimately with the goal of marriage equality as the resistance drops. Having a partner and son, the legal aspects are paramount, but I still want the marriage too. Not to beat the old Rosa Parks analogy into the ground, but 'separate but equal' is kinda sucky. I'm allowed to ride the bus like everyone else so I guess I'm equal, but I still think I'd like another seat. I mean, hey, I was told all my life I should shoot for marriage, until of course I came out, then everyone backtracked and said 'not for you'. I'm really not opposed to your ideas, and was very happy when the legislature of CT approved civil unions on their own, but I was curious if you were ok with gay marriage at the point when it wouldn't backlash so hard as it has.

PS - excellent link to Civil Foundations...
_____________________________________
Homocon sez:
Getting married would be a quick and easy way to achieve the desired legal goals for same sex couples, and who wouldn't want the quick and easy? But I'm not part of the "marriage or nothing" crowd, and I don't find it oppressive or somehow demeaning to be required to explore other alternatives.

HomoCon--

Greetings from the blogosphere. I am the queer blog operator of the Political Pillow (we're new to the block), and when I saw this post I thought I'd comment.

When the gay left pushes hard for gay marriage, I personally believe that it isn't simply about attaining the rights--it's also about creating the environment that will, over time, make gays and lesbians more "normal" society members.

Yes, it sounds looney and lefty (and perhaps it is), but it isn't unfounded. Even though I'm queer, I find two old men holding hands and kissing to be a gross visual, whereas an elderly heterosexual couple expressing their love publicly doesn't at all seem wrong to me. Why? Programming. I grew up only seeing heterosexual elderly folk, and occasionally seeing younger people who weren't heterosexual.

I'll cut to the point--if same-sex marriage becomes a reality, the next generation of Americans will grow up seeing same-sex couples getting married and holding hands. The attitude toward homosexuality will shift from perversion to normality. At least, I hope.

It must piss you off that Canada has now signed a gay marraige law into effect.

I'm sure Kenny and Karl will be just sputtering all day tomorrow.

Oh, and by the way, your idol Bush didn't look so hot tonight. Too bad, but when you kill people for a pack of lies, the soldiers doing the fighting tend to be very cynical.
________________________
Homocon sez:
God, you're so right. I'm soooooooooooooooo pissed off. How dare they?! And without our Bushies' approval (*gasp!*) -- them dang Canadians! Bomb 'em! Bomb 'em all!

From what you've said above, I think you disagree with the gay marriage activists in their tactics, their arguments, their political sensibilities, and their attempt to monopolise gay politics. They don't speak for a unified political grouping - who voted for them? Nobody. They are self-appointed committees who think they speak for you. In fact, I think you find that final point offensive. Fair nuff.

But, I am reading you two ways on the actual concept of gay marriage in itself:

2)Gay marriage is wrong and/or a waste of time


I think that the main thrust of this argument above is that there either already exists, or is politically more acceptable to introduce, an alternative to marriage - civil union/using contract law.


Hence a) these alternatives are legally the same as gay marriage so why bother with marriage - its a waste of time, and maybe also b) gay marriage conflicts with or undermines the mainstream's view of marriage, and furthermore, over time the idea that gay families, weddings etc are something to aspire to will undermine social stability and lead to a whole bunch of problems stemming from kids not brought up right.



I appreciate that this a rather vulgar summary, but bearing that in mind I would like to hear your thoughts

Perhaps I take a slightly more legalistic view of marriage than others. It is my contention that if the state grants a marriage license, which it does, then it must grant a marriage license to any two tax-paying citizens and cannot discriminate (withhold a marriage license) based soley on gender (which it does and is a violation of the Constitution under three amendments, the most of important of which is the 14th amendment).

Additionally, Article IV of the Constitution is commonly called the "full faith and credit clause." Under it, a marriage license issued in one state must be recognized in all states. That's why if you're married in Nevada, you're also married in New York.

My point is that only if the federal government and the states agree to calling the license a civil union license, and grants it to any two tax-paying citizens, is a civil union acceptable.

Since it is the state, and not the gay political activists, who first (and by first I mean before gay political activists) used the term "marriage license," there is no fault in activists demanding equal treatment under the law by demanding them for gay individuals who wish to join and "marry."

Separate but equal is only separate and not equal at all.

A very interesting blog even for this Canadian who isn't either a Democrat or a Republican. My two (US$) cents' worth: my objection to not having been allowed to be married was based on nothing more than economic reasons. Sure, I could have had the same rights with respect to a partner as any straight person, but you know, all that contract law costs a lot to put into action -- a lot more than just getting a marriage license. This was all triggered for me by seeing an interview on late-night TV some years ago with the actor who played "Bulldog" on "Frasier", and his male partner, who told the world that it had cost him about $10K in lawyers' fees to set up the legal situation where he would have the right to, among other things, (potentially) visit his partner in the hospital, etc., etc., and that a marriage license in his state was $59 or thereabouts.

Well, okay, maybe not 100% economic reasons -- I must admit there was a strong desire in me to piss off religious fundamentalists by insisting on something they didn't want to give me. But most of it was just my wanting the same set of legal choices at the same price as straights.

Anyway -- we Canadians got the right to get married. I'm a fairly outgoing gay guy living in a major Canadian city. I have a large acquaintance, and I only know two guys who have bothered to get married, and that was mostly so that one of them could take advantage of the other's company health plan more easily. I'm personally not in the mood to marry anyone, because there's no one in my life right now I want to marry... maybe I need a better company health plan?

Anyway sir -- keep on blogging for those of us who don't automatically buy into the "I'm gay so I must be a pitiable victim" frame of mind. It's great to have a perspective on things that is more like mine than most of the gay press I read -- I'll be back.

Ah, another extremist hatemonger disguising his rant against equal rights as carefully reasoned logic. Sorry man, it doesn't hold up. First of all, the pretty documents available for sale at Civil Foundation do nothing to equalize the unfair treatment of gay unions under federal tax laws. Secondly, they do nothing to force companies to provide equal compensation to their gay employees. My company (very progressive) was just purchased by a larger mid-western corporation who immediately cancelled the health & dental insurance of my partner. Since health insurance is part of my overall compensation package, this means that my cubicle neighbor who is heterosexual is earning FAR MORE than I am for doing the same job with the same experience, merely because he is straight.

Your civil unions would nothing to address these issues. Gay Marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for over a year and the sky has not fallen. In fact, divorce rates (for gays AND straights) in Massachusetts are among the lowest in the country. You so-called 'conservatives' show yourselves by your every word and every action to be consumed by paranoid hatred, totally lacking in empathy, and blinded by a religious fervor that would make the Taliban proud.

As a true conservative, I am deeply embarrassed by the intolerance that has hijacked conservative circles in the past 30 years. I would like to be proud of being an American, but that is becoming increasingly difficult.
_________________
Homocon sez:
Ah, another so-called "true conservative" disguising his grumpy rants against the Republican party as anything remotely resembling substantive debate. A "true conservative" who believes that companies should be forced by the government to pay for their employees' health care? I think not. You're as much a true conservative as Tom Cruise is an expert in psychiatric medicine.

Civil Foundation is an excellent organization which offers carefully researched legal documents for unmarried couples at a fraction of the usual cost of hiring an attorney. As the government is hardly required, and should actually be discouraged, to force employers to increase wages or mandate health benefits for employees (as any "true conservative" would agree), how much you make at your job in comparison to the heterosexual across the hall is of no concern to the discussion of available and accessible legal protection for unmarried partners.

Tax laws, as well, are not meant to accommodate the latest trend in swinging sexual attitudes. As far as a tax code is concerned, two men who live together are two men paying taxes on their individual earnings. Again, any "true conservative" would have criticized a tax code which incorporates established differences in tax rates for any reason at all, instead of whining that he and his alleged partner are left out of the marriage tax-break game. In fact, a "true conservative" would have just launched into a full-scale attack on income taxation, period, you poseur.

I don't know why gay lefties come on this site and write comments as though they're Conservatives or used-to-be-republicans. You're not fooling anyone. Your big government rhetoric gives you away right off the bat, and despite the fact that I've mentioned on this site many times over that I'm not the slightest bit religious (the word "atheist" come to mind), you immediately devolved into the boring, knee-jerk lefty reaction of painting all conservatives who don't agree with you as religious, paranoid, Taliban types.

Typical.