What is your view on the first article? It seems broadly correct to me in identifying the discriminatory hatred and harm caused by homophobes like the chick fil A guy which is worthy of boycotting the chain. And it notes that the silly proposition about mayors banning entry to the company is ridiculously stupid and dangerous and in defiance of core American values. I assume you must think his rhetoric is overblown?

As for the second, I will note this conclusion is quite silly: This describes the status quo, minus legal protection for gays. Churches ALREADY decide whether they deem a particular marriage licit or not. Likewise for any individual or larger social group, they can accept as valid or invalid whatever they want. They only perform the ones they agree with. And straights and gays in a few states can decide to go or not go to the government for legal recognition. You could, for instance, get married in your church but not with the state (as is often done for second wives in polygamist families in Utah).

I want to add one thing to this thread. Look, I think marriage equality is an important issue. I hope we get it and I think we will in the not too distant future except in the most reticent states if it is not a supreme court ruling. But I don't think gay marriage is the most important LGBT issue out there, not by a long shot. And I think the over emphasis on gay marriage by the LGBT rights community overshadows the real issue.

This bigger issue is that of the truly tragic situation facing LGBT in today's society. I compiled the other day (after only a brief google so don't worry too much about the exact numbers) some stats on LGBT youth and it is not a pretty picture found in the 3rd paragraph here: http://progressiveproselytizing.blog...able-anti.html

I say this simply because this is yet another gay marriage debate thread and at the very least this other issue should get a mention. Fixing gay marriage may turn out to be a positive symbol that helps them know they are living in a world that accepts them and is important for that sake.

If this country is a democracy, well sorry, the mob (majority) isn't having it. (yet?)

If it's some kind of republic with the rules basically designed for individual freedom, well chic fil a can then refuse to serve gays food, but perhaps the government can't refuse "marriage".

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms that might be relevant

Public - government owned (and/or subsidized?)

Private - other than governmentally owned

So where did I go wrong?

This same democracy as been a history of seeing numerous different types of oppression by a majority be overturned in time both by the legal structures at its core and by the ability of people to change their views over time by discussions like these. Whether it is racial or sexual or religious minorities, America has, for the most part, moved considerably forward on all of these. So to, I am sure, will it on gender and sexual orientation issues.

Well, I would say that vetoes are part of the process, but whatever.

The missing component is a sane conversation about the role of marriages with respect to the government. In all of these instances, civil unions are still "the other." The question has been "Do we give something to these other people?" It does not address the underlying issue that I've been raising (government is still involved with marriage).

Given that the conversation about gay marriage has only been a mainstream conversation for 30-40* years... probably another 20-30 years. I know that there is a sense of extreme urgency for a lot of people. And for a generation that has only understood things changing at increasing speeds (20 years ago, nobody was on the internet. 15 years ago, almost nobody had a cell phone, 10 years ago, cell phones were still JUST phones...), it's hard to imagine sometimes that things sometimes things need to take time.

*I'm being generous. I think it's much closer to the 20-30 year range.

But what we're talking about here is a sharp discontinuity in the concept of "family" (at least in the US). We're *BARELY* into the second generation of adults after the concept of no-fault divorces (early 1970s?), which dramatically shifted the structure of familial responsibility.

The same type of statement can be said about the concept of "sexual identity." That is, the strong tie of one's sense of identity as being related to sexual attraction is a relatively recent phenomenon. (This is NOT to say that same sex attraction is new, but that the strong identification of it as a central part of identity is new.)

And in the bigger picture, tax breaks on inheritance and collecting other people's pensions really isn't *THAT* important (edit: nor is being a Boy Scout). Yes, it's unfair right now. Lots of things are unfair. Women and minorities are still fighting wage gaps. That's unfair. The rich are still getting richer and the poor are still getting poorer. That's unfair. And this doesn't even look outside of the US for problems. Clean water access is an issue, as are finding sustainable farming practices is many regions.

So... I'm not just worked up over this like it's the end of the world if it doesn't happen RIGHT NOW.

I'm lost. These states I mention have all turned down the opportunity to grant same-sex civil unions, either by governor veto, failing the vote in the legislative houses, failing voter referendum, or 'other procedural issues.' Some states have made sure that their constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage also includes civil unions, something they didn't have to do (as demonstrated by the states that didn't include civil unions).

I thought you were claiming that if we make the discussion about civil unions instead of marriage, then the opposition loses their religious objections and we should achieve victory. But we're still having these failures when it comes to civil unions. So what gives?

Well I'm glad you're willing to wait for something that won't affect you. This is actually pretty important to some people.

Do you think the government will get out of marriage anytime soon? I don't. I don't see it happening even if we delay gay marriage in the US by 20-30 years. You want to put others on this long delay and I don't think you're going to get what you want from it. Unless you're not being honest with us about what you want...

Thirty years? Wtf.This is just in order to get your little word play trick implemented that you willing to let thirty years of continued harmful discrimination? When you could put in place the end to the discrimination right a way and then spend the next thirty years trying to implement your word play if you really think changing the word actually matters.

I love your entire call to apathy and indifference. Oh ya, so gays don't get the same hospital visitation rights or end of life decisions or inheriences or pensions or insurance or immigration rights or be able to join in on common social institutions we create like boy scouts or being able to proudly tell the rest of the world that they are married to the same extent that anyone else can. But everyone should just cool it a bit and not really get worked up about any of this.....for thirty years? Are you kidding me? If the "ya well it ain't as bad as it is in Africa where they don't even have clean water" is really the metric before we act then we shouldn't get "worked up" about anything.

Of course, some of the problems like the rich/poor gap and clean water access globally are really tough, challenging problems. But gay marriage isn't. It is an almost trivial change in a law that fixes in one swoop all the problems. Now if you could actually articulate an actual harmful consequences or long term problem for why you are let this harmful discrimination persist for a generation then fine. But you haven't actually done this.

Your willingness to ignore and downplay and minimize the genuine harm caused by this discriminatory policy is, frankly, disgusting.

I said that you're most of the way there, and that was in reference to the public opinion poll at 60% "civil unions or more". The fact that it's getting all the way to the very last step in several of those cases (governor veto) shows how close it is. That means something like between 50-67% in favor at the LEGISLATIVE level. That ratio probably lags BEHIND public sentiment.

I don't deny that it is.

It depends on whether anyone with actual power makes any real attempt at it. As things stand, you're right that I don't see it happening. But that's because the conversation is off somewhere else, with people banging their heads against the wall.

I don't see gay marriage working out for at least another 10-15 years, if not longer. As I noted before, this is very different politically/legally compared to interracial marriage. You're not finding landslide victories in the courts. You've got all sorts of battles to fight at the state constitution level. This battle is very different.

Came in here to write almost exactly this.

It comes down to "the host people aint haven' it." How are you going to parasite off of all the redneck farmers if they're all pissed and huntin' gays.

You were disgusted by me before the conversation even started, so I find this to be no loss at all.

You have chosen this hill to be the one where you plant your flag and fight. I get it. Go take your stand.

Until it is 100% resolved in every state in the US? Probably not unless a supreme court decision.

However, every single election cycle for years now there has been ballots in some state or other to legalize it. Many have been close and has already legalized gay marriage. The discrimination has already ended there. The problem is already fixed. The harm is already stopped.

Now if you don't live in one of those states, then fine. But when I posed the question to you way it was a vote today, where you are the deciding vote. And you said you would vote no. It seems like you are now saying you are willing to vote no for 30 years! And what happens when those thirty years are up. If gay marriage is still not there yet and looks like it is another 10-15 years? Are you going to then want to tag on another 30 years?

So you would vote against gay marriage in order for us to wait 30 years for your idea to not even happen? You claim that you support gay couples having equality here, but you would turn down such equality now on the grounds of an idea you are admitting won't be manifested in under 30 years. This just screams incredible dishonesty in your argument. If you're that willing to deny equal rights, I don't understand how you are actually in support of them.

Let us not pretend you are above the fray. Let us not pretend that YOU have not chosen this hill to stand on and have planted your flag.

I told you at the beginning that I had not heard of a rational argument against the position. I heard you out to see if you could present one. But you have consistently failed to demonstrate any reason why we should adopt your idea. If you had given a clear case as to all the harm caused in the future then sure...maybe waiting 30 years while the discrimination continued could be a good idea. But you didn't.

All of this over a difference of a word.

If I were in position to actually vote against it, I would be in position to try to change the conversation. From that position, I could more realistically assess the ability to shift the conversation and actually have an informed decision about the likelihood of various conclusions.

But in the meantime, I vote against (with my pretend vote that doesn't actually have any bearing on any actual votes) on the principle that there is a much better approach to the situation that is worth exploring. And I think that voting yes is antithetical to the advancement of that more sensible position.

Edit: I should add that when the question was posed to me, I was viewing it from the point of view as a legislator, not as voting on a voter referendum or something like that.

When I asked you, I was implying (although don't remember my wording) that you were the swing vote that determined the outcome in an election. It is a thought experiment unlikely to occur, sure, but an illustrative one.

But does it actually matter? Does the context of being a legislator or a swing voter or a not swing voter changing your voting? Is there some contexts in which you decide that ending the current discrimination IS worth it opposed to waiting thirty years more for your word play solution?

Ya I should have pushed back when you said I was disgusted before. As my original blog post shows, I am quite open to considering the idea and find it interesting and was more that willing to hear you out. People who don't support an egalitarian solution of any kind I am supportive of, but your solution is egalitarian. Unnecessary, not pragmatic, and has bad symbolism, but it is egalitarian. And I don't find you disgusting because of intellectual disagreements on, say, the tactical efficiacy. I don't think you have demonstrated any meaningful reason why your solution actually is better and have truly failed to speak to these long term consequences you can only allude to. But that is fine too. The problem was your callous disdain for the very real problems facing LGBT members today. It was filtering through much of your posting, but really came out in your post apologizing for waiting thirty years before ending the harm to these people. That is the part that is disgusting.

That's a lot of detail completely absent from the presentation. You can understand how one might not think you were asking that when you simply asked

----

Yes. Different levels of power and authority lead to different considerations.

Sure. If it's a light switch, and it's the ONLY switch in the room, I flip the switch. But in reality, no such switch exists. There's an entire collection of things to maneuver around along the way.

Also, don't get too hung up on "thirty years" as if I meant that to say that I vote "no" for 30 years in a row while nothing else is happening. That would just be a gross mischaracterization of what I said. I said I would be willing to wait 20-30 years for something that you agree may already take at least 15 years to happen.

Yes. I don't think you fully appreciate the power that word carries.

I just checked, I explicitly said "swing voter"
I guess there is a difference of legislator vs normal voter but I have no idea why you would say the former or not qualify if you were confused.

So let me rephrase because you still have not answer the question and I suppose with you I have to hammer down EVERY detail otherwise you will equivocate and not answer the question as you just didn't. If you are a normal voter in a state with a legalizing gay marriage initiative put to vote that is known to be very close. Do you end the discrimination now? Or do you wait what you seem to think might reasonably be 30 years?

I am glad you say "only switch in the room". Because it IS the only switch in the room as far as I can see. Nobody is writing bills, putting ballot initiatives or even talking about your solution. You seem to think it might take thirty years. My argument form the beginning is that as a matter of tactics, your solution is horrific. WE have a very real pragmatic solution that ends the harm right now and there is more or less zero momentum on this pie in the sky solution of yours that isn't even any different outside of a word change. A light switch is about the best analogy I can think of.

I must not. Perhaps this is because you have utterly failed to demonstrate what this power is.

You always speak as if there is this huge "power" or "significance" that comes from this such that the semantics difference is critical. I have asked innumerable times for you to explain what that difference actually is. What long term consequences actually comes from the difference.

I have told you that, in Canada, I cannot see the difference. I don't see some big consequences. So please tell me what they are.

You must have said that in a later iteration of the question.

It depends on whatever else is floating around at the time. As I said, if it's the only thing out there, then I do it.

It's a light switch that's booby-trapped and you've got millions of people fighting you as you try to flip it. I think your position is pie in the sky idealistic in terms of moving things forward. You admit that 15 years is not an unreasonable amount of time for things to happen (barring a supreme court ruling, which I think is even less likely). That's not a light switch.

Also, I keep telling you that you're really close on the civil union front. Maybe you're of the same mind of the other poster who basically said that you should go for the gusto, but to me that amounts to simply trying to shove it down everyone's throat, and not actually about gaining equal rights. You're free to do that if you want, but I think that it undermines the argument that it's about rights. If it's really the word "marriage" you want, it's much better for you to come out and say so.

The power has been demonstrated. It's all over the place. I noted the power of the word when it came to tallying the Texas votes. You go from 60% to 25%. That's a powerful word.

I've noted how it plays into ideas of religious freedoms. And how separating it out from legal language removes that as a barrier.

Again, I think you're just too caught up in your own ideals to see beyond your own view. I think you've developed a certain amount of tunnel vision that's causing you to miss things that I think are fairly plain to see.

Your government does not consist of 50 individual governments. There are MANY more games that are being played here, and they all have different sets of rules.

BTW - I'm done for the night.

Lol. You really can't help yourself but nitpick on something that isn't hammered down. Yes of course there isn't anything out, the question is for today in all the states where there is zero momentum for your plan and all the momentum for mine!

But anyways as long as you are voting on the side of legalizing gay marriage and ending the discrimination in the only climate we have - today's climate - then great.

You do do you? My pie in the sky idealism actually has occurred in numerous states, and is being advanced in numerous others. I live in a country, among many, that has embraced it already. You can say anything you want about my solution, but it is certainly not pie in the sky idealism. It is the most pragmatic solution avaliable to us and it is not even close. This is why YOU say that gay marraige will be legal in 15 years yet you do NOT say your solution will be implimented by then. Maybe not in 30 years.

I want both. As I said earlier, getting the rights is 99% of the way there and is and should be the focus. Civil unions gets a huge portion of this although they usually are not actually identical rights just similar ones. My main arguments against you were the tactical argument that my way is vastly more likely to actually occur and then secondly that it is distinctly distasteful and enabling to entirely eliminate marriage from government just so we can appease the homophobes who doesn't want gays included in their institution.

If the positions were reversed, btw, and my solution was incredibly unlikely to occur and yours was being proposed all over the place and likely to be spread accross the country within 10-15 years I would be all over it. It wouldn't be perfect. I might still raise my objections. But I would of course vote for it and campaign for it and advocate for it. This seems to be the difference between us. You recognize the harm caused (at least, before your disgusting post that tried to minimize it) but are unwilling to take the compromise presented by our current to actually fix the problem now.