On Nov 10, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Chris Gehlker wrote: > I posted a fairly long rant here: > <http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=41803> > Comments welcome.
Amen! This is an idea - a compromise? - that I've discussed with many gay friends, as well as several Prop 8 supporters, and it is tempting to everyone I've spoken to. Doubtless, there are true bigots out there who want nothing but agonizing death for gays, but that is, I hope, the vast minority. That said, the Prop 8 proponents I know also see this as just a superficial change, that it still represents exactly what they have voted against, and I think they are right. Prop 8 wasn't about protecting churches from forced religious ceremonies for gays (though some did believe that), it was purely about preventing the state from granting civil unions. In the end, states granting civil unions for all is perfectly appropriate - the state is a civic institution afterall - and is truly all they do already. The state does not involve religion in marriage - that's purely optional and secondary to the civil unions we already get from the stae. The problem is, I think, that if people want to call that marriage, well I'm sure they will, and that's where I'm afraid the issue will breakdown - if it looks like marriage, smells like marriage, people will use the language of marriage, and then we're back to our current predicament. I fear it's just playing the same word games that we're playing now. So on the surface it's the correct, obvious, and honest path... but will it really make a material difference in the debate? _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
