How Gen Y sees civil unions
March 29th, 2009 by KimWhile opponents of Hawaii's defeated civil unions bill embraced in the Senate gallery on Wednesday, on Facebook, the state's youngest generation was up in arms.
"Sad" was the most-used adjective. "What a sad day in the Hawaii Senate," someone wrote. Referring to the people in red shirts gathered on the Capitol Rotunda, someone else wrote: "I'm just embarassed for these people ... the ignorance ..."
I am aware that these reactions are colored by the nature of the company I keep. My high school was Episcopalian, but was attended by students of all religious backgrounds. I spent four years at a tiny college in Western Massachusetts, which was in a state of shock and mourning on Nov. 4, 2004. I can count on one hand the number of friends I know who voted for John McCain.
It's not necessarily the political leanings of my generation that shape our views about gay rights. Studies have shown that about the same number of Americans under 30 identify themselves as liberal (30%) as say they are conservative (27%). However, polls suggest America's youngest citizens as a group are significantly more open to civil unions and gay marriage than the general population. According to Pew Research, people under age 30 favor civil unions by 58% to 37%; they support gay marriage by 52% to 40%. In comparison, the general population supports civil unions by 51% to 41%; they oppose gay marriage by 49% to 38%.
Why is there a distinct difference in the way Generation Y perceives homosexuality and the way other generations see it?
My generation grew up in a society that is more tolerant of homosexuality than ever before. The average person today has more opportunities to meet, talk, go to school or work with someone who is gay than they did even a decade ago. I didn't have "out" friends in high school -- but many of my friends did. Ask your parents how many openly gay classmates they had when they were 16.
For today's average 25-year-old, meeting or interacting with someone who is gay is no more extraordinary than meeting someone who is Jewish, Canadian or wears glasses.
I believe that this is one of the primary reasons why young people are more tolerant of homosexuality, and more open to civil unions than older generations in Hawaii and across America. Humans are generally more accepting of a phenomenon we have seen, someone we have talked to, something we can understand.
In my mind, and in the minds of many my age, there is no difference between someone who is straight and someone who is gay, besides his or her sexual orientation.
This is precisely what triggers anger, frustration and disbelief among young people at the idea that those who are gay should be somehow denied rights given to those who are straight.
For Generation Y, it is more than just baffling -- it is injustice.
This year, Hawaii's civil unions bill ran up against large and vocal opposition, particularly after the measure seemed to be gaining ground. The marathon hearing on the bill was so fraught with emotion, accusations, fear and misunderstanding that I could only watch so much of it. It demonstrated the near impossibility of reasoned debate on this issue.
It may be that Hawaii, for all its progressive posturing, is simply not ready for civil unions. It may be that the potential political costs outweigh the benefits for some state leaders, with the stakes raised even higher in 2010, an election year. It may be that gay rights proponents will have to find common ground with religious groups, who should not be forced to compromise their beliefs, either.
People continue to say that a majority in Hawaii oppose civil unions. They cite a 1998 ballot initiative where nearly 70 percent of Hawaii voters approved a constitutional amendment giving the state Legislature the authority to reserve marriage to heterosexual couples.
However, there is a big difference between 1998 and today. Today, my generation is out of college. Today, my generation fills leadership positions in Hawaii and across the country. Today, my generation has a voice.
Today, my generation can vote.
Tags: civil unions, Facebook, Hawaii, legislature, religion
March 29th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Thank goodness for the younger generation!
March 29th, 2009 at 8:11 am
"Today, my generation can vote."
But how many of them do?
March 29th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Kim,
Well said. I would add that there are a number of us in the older generation who were equally appalled and embarrassed by the senate vote. I sent a note of thanks to each of the six senators that had the political will and courage to do the right thing.
Good luck in Washington!
Aloha,
Class of '63 at that same tiny college`
March 29th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Youre a very good writer.A well written piece on a very tough(for lack of a better word) topic.When meeting or interacting with someone who is gay,when,exactly is that revelation made known? Someone speaking with a "Fargo" accent and skin eggshell white,visiting Hawaii in the winter months (snowbirds),is probably from the Great White North,or Minnesota."where ya from?" Is probably the second sentence spoken when meeting someone. "Hi,my name is Seth Rosenberg",(a probable first line in a new conversation)one could easily deduce the speaker is Jewish. The thing is,I think,is that there's an association -in many people's mind-that being gay is doing something wrong.Until that stigma is changed,there will be this fierce battle against civil unions and gay marriage.Education,tolerance,and time will definately help in changing minds.Maybe the 60's need to be revisited and get the blueprints of protest and change that brought civil rights and equality to African-Americans,or the struggle of women and women's lib.The 60's hippies were a tolerant group as well. Today, Generation Y,must also continue the education of the next generation.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:11 am
An awesome blog, Kim. Perhaps your best ever. You demonstrate a maturity on this contentious issue that is well beyond your 25 years.
I was particularly struck by your statement that, for your generation, "interacting with someone who is gay is no more extraordinary than meeting someone who is Jewish, Canadian or wears glasses." Knowing someone does not always bring understanding, whether they be Russian, Buddhist, Afro-American, a vegetarian, or into animal rights, but it certainly helps, and I would guess that 99.9% of the folks who dislike homosexuality have never had a gay friend. If they had, I strongly believe they would be much more tolerant towards civil unions.
Hawaii's civil union bill may not pass this time around, but if your generation is in favor, it is destined to succeed...it's only a matter of time.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:12 am
I couldn't agree more, you hit the nail on the head. I agree that Gen Y is much more progressive and open for the reasons you state above.
What got to me was the level of opposition back home. Living in Seattle and watching the events from an 'outsiders' perspective, I couldn't help but feel disappointed that the overwhelming majority opposed civil unions with such vocal fervor. The level of ignorance and lack of reasonable discussion amazed me. Don't get me wrong, there were some reasonable arguments in opposition, but they were few and far between.
For all the racial equality that Hawaii claims to have, it appears that the majority of Hawaiians are not ready for full equality for all, just yet.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Not only thought provoking and well written, its an eye opener for the older generation. Your written thoughts and beliefs are dynamic. Williams College gave you a deep insight on life as well as an outstanding education. (#1 Rated in Liberal Arts?!) Yes Kim, our future generation is in good hands with educated leaders like yourself to take care of the future. Congratulations.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Hrmm.. I think it's obvious that the world we live in today is so much more liberal than when our parents were our age. Kids with piercings galore, people suing everyone over anything and everything due to their "rights" being violated... etc etc. The point that most stood out to me in your writing was that yes, due to this increased 'freedom to express ones self' mentality, chances are the majority of people that will hold leadership positions in the future will be more open to things like civil unions, i.e. there could be some kid being raised by a same-sex couple as we speak who will someday become governor of Hawaii; simply evolution I suppose.
Unfortunately with this increased liberalism comes less moral standards. Where this will lead our race in the future is scary to me...
I could go into why I'm personally not for same-sex marriage, but frankly the topic has been beat to death.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Very well written as always, but call me the exception to your perceived rule. I'm in my 20's and I can tell you that when I do interact with a gay man, mostly at work, I do not feel totally comfortable. Now, at this point most people who have the pleasure of posting anonymously would start to call me ignorant and a bigot. But, Kim, you don't know what it's like, as a man, to think that the man 2 feet away from you may be mentally undressing you. Now, at this point, the same people will start to call me pompous and full of myself. I am neither, but for those of us who adore women and are repulsed at the thought of two men having sex, there is a level of comfort that I hope I will never reach when interacting with a gay man.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Extremely well written.
I tried in 2007 and again in 2009 to emphasize to legislators that this issue breaks strongly on age and large numbers of the current electorate were not eligible to vote in 1998. I have observed that those under 40-45 are much more accepting and inclusive than those 40-70. Interestingly we often see more tolerance in those over 70: I suspect people over 70 come to realize the importance of companionship.
Your blog gives an articulate, well-reasoned explanation why Gen Y feels the way it does. It gives direct voice to my observations. The quest for marital equality is becoming THE civil rights issue of the Gen X and Gen Y generations. Voices like yours are essential in our quest to legally protect all committed couples and their families.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
@ scott
Each person is entitled to their individual comfort level. It is when people attempt to take affirmative steps to stop other people from living a happy life that I start questioning validity.
ABC recently did a social experiment determining testing out peoples tolerance level using a staged heckler as well as a couple. They also explore the difference between being ok with an idea and actually being put to the test (click the video link)
http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=7152579&page=1
As for the mentally undressing. Though that it is an awkward experience is it really any more problematic that young women have in the workplace? Speaking with friends, it seems to be a constant problem for good looking women to have to constantly balance their attitudes and clothing choices in order to be taken seriously and not heckled by the hyenas at work. Sure its not same sex. But I imagine it must be just as tiring.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
@Scott -- I wouldn't call you any of those things, and I'm glad to have you weigh in on this blog, as you have done thoughtfully for many topics.
When my friends and I were preparing for college, there was a oft-stated fear among my guy friends that they would be paired with a roommate who was gay. I tried to put myself in their shoes -- I tried to think about what it would be like if I were forced to live in close quarters with a male instead of a female roommate. I definitely would feel uncomfortable, knowing that there was the possibility that there would be some sort of attraction between that person and myself.
But rooming with someone who happens to be attracted to members of your sex and simply interacting with them, at work for example, is very different. I'm sure you're an attractive guy, but odds are that not every gay man you meet is going to undress you with his eyes (especially once they discover that you are not gay), no more than every female you meet is going to undress you with her eyes.
I would add that while I don't know what it feels like, as a man, to sense that a man is undressing you with his eyes; but I DO know what it feels like as a woman. However, how are we to discourage chauvinism or sexual harassment, or even mere silent thinking? I am not sure if by preventing civil unions and gay marriage, opponents believe that they will discourage men from being attracted to other men, or women from being attracted to other women. The probability of this happening seems about as likely as stopping chauvinism, or stopping a man from lusting after a women when the attention is clearly not welcome.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
@Scott - As a gay IVY league educated man, I always laugh when straight men say that. It's like saying every straight man undresses EVERY women he meets. And as a direct corollary I'm assuming you undress your mother, sister, niece, female cousin on every occasion you see them. Well thought out point.
@KimF - Thanks for writing about this, and enjoy your metro card. LOL
March 29th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
wow kimi - excellent post. I also agree with oahuresident123 - I think, (hope and pray) that in twenty years from now this will all seem silly ( just like not allowing bi-racial couples to marry) and that there are children coming up through school who will view "interacting with someone who is gay no more extraordinary than with someone who is Jewish, Canadian or wears glasses." And hopefully the children will save us from the ignorance...
March 29th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Well said.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
JM-617-I've had 2 men expose themselves to me since living in Hawaii, and have had to reprimand a co-worker at HPU for making advances at me in 2003. I'll spare you some other examples. It's not fun and has shaped my worldview about Hawaii. I am always impressed at Kim's responses and I am glad you got a kick out of my post. Btw, congratulations in your Ivy league education.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
i think every straight guy goes through a stage of discomfort with homosexuality at some point in their lives. the discomfort comes from having to deal with the question "am i gay?" the reactions to this question can range from increased curiosity to outright homophobia.
for my generation (age 27), homophobia was very common during high school and gradually decreased during college and the years after. in those years, we slowly began to understand homosexuality through personal interactions and the media. it's not a disease, you can't catch it, it's most likely genetic, and gay people throw some great parties.
the younger generation is more exposed to homosexuality than we ever were with the aid of the internet, and are less likely to become homophobic. and as more members of the gay community achieve success and respectability, the gay community will slowly lose the negative stigmas the same way racial minorities did way back when.
will homophobia disappear? not entirely. just like racial discrimination, there will always be people on the left side of the bell curve, and as long as they are not impeding other peoples' pursuit of happiness, we should not discriminate against them either.
@ scott: yes they may flirt with you and undress you with their eyes, but really, you should take it as a compliment. why is it wrong for anyone to find you attractive as long as they respect your boundaries? in my experience, the more uncomfortable you are, the more likely they are to push your buttons.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Thanks, Kim. Excellent commentary.
(This is what I was trying to elicit from you about a month ago when I poked fun at all the columns about twitter and dating!)
@Scott-
I am a straight male political activist. I was visiting a sister in the Bay Area when Dan White's verdict was announced for killing Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone. White's defense was that his psychology was destabilized by a sugar imbalance brought on by eating a twinkie and drinking a Coke on an empty stomach.
White was sentenced to 7 years for a premeditated double murder! Someone said he would have received a harsher sentence if he had only killed the Mayor.
The gay community erupted in outrage. I decided to attend a rally in the Castro district to get a sense of the reaction and to be a part of history. My friend and I arrived a few hours early and went to a restaurant to eat. For the first time in my life, I felt sexually harassed by the oogling we got. I recognized this was an experience many young women feel all the time and it opened my eyes.
Kim is absolutely right about the value of growing up around openly gay friends and relatives. It had helped me recognize the common humanity of gay and lesbian frinds and to become angry when politicians use the vulnerability of gays as a means to advance political careers or win elections. Shame on the bullies. But also, shame on those who are in a position to stop the bullies but run away to hide.
Mahalo, Kim!
March 29th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Statistically, Generation Y will continue to replace those in our government who have come before, and it is only a matter of time until those more tolerant of their fellow citizens assume the reigns of command.
I have never heard a valid excuse from those who opposed civil rights in the 60s that validates their opposition, and I can't imagine how those who voted against equal rights today will one day explain themselves either.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Great discussion and great post, Andy. Hell, now I'm slightly overweight and have bags under my eyes from having a 3 week old son in the house keeping me up all hours of the night. Perhaps there's a good side to letting myself go a little bit!
March 30th, 2009 at 8:40 am
@Scott--When I read your first post, I thought of "When Harry Met Sally." Can a guy really be just friends with a gay guy? Can two gay guys,or girls, really be just friends?
Just curious, in light of your experience and discomfort with gay guys, where do you stand regarding same-sex civil unions or marriage?
Now I want to listen to some Harry Connick Jr.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Thank you Kim for a well written and thoughtful discussion of this very important issue. I am hopeful that all elected leaders in our State take the time to read your words. You have brightened my morning. Please keep writing as you have a gift. gh
March 30th, 2009 at 9:26 am
@zzzzzz-to be brief, plus I'm sick of this topic...I agree with Obama (I never thought I'd say that)
March 30th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Hi Everyone.
You can read more of Scotts interesting take on gays on Cats blog about gay marriage. Kind of funny that Scott never mentioned the "mentally undressing" issue on Cats blog. I don't think its an issue of Scott being attractive. Its probably an issue of him being embarrassed about his flab and beer belly and his tiny pupu pup. Scott go back to Cats blog you still haven't answered some of the questions I asked.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Scott,
After thinking about your "mentally undressing you" statement. I have to say I've never even thought of that as an issue. Maybe its because I have never mentally undressed a woman. So do you mentally undress women you consider attractive? Be honest.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:15 am
McLovin-last week you disclosed to everyone that you are dying of terminal cancer and that you are on a tremendous amount of medication. I am taking you for your word and I certainly wish you the best with your health. I won't be addressing you anymore.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Scott,
Thanks for your concern on my health issues. I didn't mean to mention my health issues for sympathy. I just wanted explain reason for my grammer and spelling issues. I appreciate the debate with you and find your insults towards me quite amusing. It makes for an more interesting blog. So don't hold back. Otherwise I make me assume that you are running out of ammo to back your views.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
All. Lets keep it to the issues.
Small minds talk about individual people
Average minds talk about events
Great minds talk about ideas
@scott - hearing your past experience, I can better appreciate your personal views. Anyone who has been a victim of de facto crimes by certain classes/groupings of people are bound to be cautious. All things take time. The hope though is that someday, over time, one realizes that not all people from that class of persons are the same, and that the person committing the act was a representative of themselves and not the group as a whole.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I totally agree. Coming from a conservative part of the U.S. to Hawaii was indeed eye openinig. I was put off rather quickly by some people here through some of these encounters. One story was actually really funny, but I can't share it here
The few gay people I do know here are certainly very nice, but I do stick to my earlier assertation that I am not totally comfortable around them, which I think is very understandable. Kim was right on the money when she said that this topic is so emotionally charged that it's hard to even have a healthy debate about it. But, I'm better for it, having posted back and forth with MOST of you folks, and I think you'd say the same. This is indeed a thoughtful and impressive crowd on this blog, and that speaks the most about the quality of our blog host.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
You know, I've read resources and I've thought about this issue. I actually admitted, "heck, what do I CARE who or what people marry." Therein provided the ultimate answer for me. Where does it stop? Are we going to engage (pardon the pun; ba-DOIIIIIIING, madcap!) in so much of THIS kind of change that we lose our morals? Next people'll want to marry their turtle, their dog, their car. And, what? The government'll have to provide benefits for that somewhere along the line?
But, above all, it's the moral issue at stake. I get so much disagreement, but, it's true -- this great country is great because we've adhered to Judeo-Christian values (certain folks'll have you believe that doesn't exist; they discredit themselves, anyway, by emphasizing multi-culturalism -- a multiculturalism that, seemingly, excludes Western religion [notably Christianity] from its ranks). Is it a coincidence that the discreditation of Christianity nowadays coincides with the push and FORCE upon society of same-sex marriages? I don't think so.
You can't get a child out of a same-sex marriage (adoption doesn't count; you need a heterosexual-based means -- a man and woman couple, test tube, whatever -- to ultimately accomplish that).
And, you know what? You can say all that I say is blather -- it's no coincidence that in most of the nation, same-sex unions get voted down.
I'm no Bible-thumper. But, I gotta say, my Roman Catholic values have prevented me from making some bonehead decisions. They are true. We Catholics have our problems, I'll admit, but, staying the course is the reward.
Above all, I have not heard a single good reason for same-sex marriage. Period.
Thanks for bringing up this topic, Kim.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
@Scott.
Genesis 1:28. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."
You and your wife have followed His instructions and are being rewarded in kind.
Congratulations on your new bundle of joy! There is no joy equal to welcoming a new born baby. Was it March 6?
Aside from the loud noise, you are much wiser than beyond your years.
@zzzzzz.
On your question to Scott: "Can a guy really be just friends with a gay guy?" Please let me tell you my experience:
I had a close older journalist friend in Washington D.C. who was born Jewish (repudiated it vehemently because of the stigma) from the Bronx in New York City. He admitted that he was gay. I am straight and he got a clear message not to mess with me. We had a social relationship. I was attracted to his brilliant mind and his pointed and animated talk similar to the likes of the late radio disk jockey, J. Akuhead Pupule (Hal Lewis), and late night television host, Jimmy Kimmel. I returned to Hawaii, and years later, he decided to retire to Hawaii with his aging mom. They both passed away in Hawaii. The fact that he was gay did not affect our relationship. He was still one of my very dearest friends.
It boiled down to setting boundaries, where you are going to allow and not cross. He knew where I stood and I knew where he stood and we got along just fine.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
1) I do believe that adults should live their lives as they see fit! Therefore, I'm for civil unions
2) Kim Fassler made a great point. The anti-civil-union crowd keeps saying "we voted on this issue already!"
The people born 1981-1992 weren't eligible to vote in 1998! They are eligible to vote in 2010! The "we voted on this already!" act as if the "born in 1981-1992 crowd" doesn't exist!
3) However, I totally understand Scott's point of view! I remember back in 10th grade, in a social studies honors class, I argued against same-sex marriage.
It had NOTHING to do with religious faith! It was that I was uncomfortable with the possibility of gay men being attracted to me! I thought homosexuality was gross!
The following 2 years, I did research on this issue, wondering why do people become gay! I learned that many had those feelings growing up but didn't want to tell anyone because of the stigma! I learned many wished they were straight, but nothing they can do could change that! I learned some dealt with the stigma through suicide!
I started to feel guilty about my homophobia! I wanted to be a more positive person, and didn't know the stress many homosexuals had to go through!
By my 12th grade, (in 1998) in my first vote, I voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Had I been born 2 years earlier, and the issue was on the ballot in 1996, I would've voted the opposite way!
In my freshman year in college, in speech class, there was a lottery of topics that we had to speak on. I was hoping to talk on abortion, guns, or other topics. I was picked to talk on same-sex marriage! I was nervous because I didn't want to be accused of " being gay" by defending same-sex marriage! But I decided to speak my mind anyways, and it was the first time I publicly defended gay people!
Also, in my early 20's I learned one of my favorite uncles were gay! I found out because I knew he was ill! First I heard it was diabetes! Then I heard from my grandma, that it was AIDS! Then, being very curious, I asked "how did he get it?" That's when I learned the truth!
He passed away in 2002!
Now, I feel really bad about saying homophobic things growing up!
4) Religious conservatives give themselves WAY TOO MUCH credit for defeating same-sex marriage on ballots. Most of the homophobic comments I heard are NOT from religious conservatives. A lot of it was from middle/high school peers who listen to gangsta rap, boys who fantasize about having 100 girls, or from girls who wear hoochie clothes! That doesn't sound like a religious conservative crowd to me, but a lot of them are grossed out by homosexuality!
This tells me a LARGE PORTION of same-sex opponents in Hawaii, L.A., New York, etc . ARE NOT RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES! Many are semi-liberals who haven't gotten over their fears and disgust towards people of the same-sex who might be attracted to them!
March 30th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Very well written. Even though we don't always agree on things (let's not bring up China and Tibet again, eh?
haha!), this was a very strong piece. If only the other blogs on HA were of the same quality.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
@chicken grease - I know a good reason for same-sex marriage: love.
Just like you, I was raised a catholic. Our priest was arrested for having sex with a minor. I am no longer a practicing catholic.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Well, that's not love to me. And apparently not to a lot who vote. I'm sorry that one situation might have led you to leave the church. I'm not ignoring those priests who are pedophiles -- they are scum. But, thank God we have a lot of good priests, GREAT priests and others in our Church that lead us in a time where, you know, the church is begging for those to become priests. Story of Job and many other instances show that it's not always easy to be Catholic, but, you stay the course. You know your faith that has been on the planet for centuries. Sorry town girl, but, I question the faith of those who would leave the church. I have not heard one good reason yet.
And I know this is an Y-Gen forum, but, methinks there are more Gen Yers who will ultimately adhere to a more moral-based way of living than any other. Them and us Gen-Xers. We understand that there same-genders who want to fall in love with each other, but, most of us are starting up our own families and when THAT happens, well, quite truthfully, we wish to keep our children away from fringe things. You don't become more conservative until you start up your own family. Believe it.
To think that just due to a change in generations will make an ultimate difference, well, that's nice coffee store and academic talk. But, in the real world, when it comes down to it, very few will go out of their way to support same-sex marriages (there are OTHER WORRIES). Same-sex marriages will not reduce taxes, not reduce crime, and will not reinforce morality. And I think that once most go into the ballot box, it's between them and the ballot. And I think they ultimately envision there own street where folks of the same sex are holding hands and kissing and living next door to them. And that's what makes most of them vote against it. Despite ANY generational directive, real or imagined.
Can you guarantee most Gen-Y who are parents will NOT be shocked to see their child come home one day with someone of their own gender and say, "hey, ma, dad. I'd like to meet ______, my new ______friend." You cannot convince me at all that most Gen-Y folks would not be shocked.
Your Gen-Y people will end up having the same sensibilities as other generations once they get along in life and grow more older. They're probably THE most tech-savvy of all, but, they'll see why many generations before them see certain lifestyles as plain wrong.
And I question Gen-Y's social responsibility as much as THAT too seems to be forcefed to us sometimes. I've seen statistics -- they shoulda' come out in droves to vote Obama in. I didn't see too much of it. And Obama's victory was hardly a landslide. Gen-Y could've made it so. Where were they in November? And I'm supposed to think they'll show up to the polls to vote for gay marriage?
Finally (for now
), go check out a gay parade one of these days . . . and you ask yourself is THAT something children should see. Is it something you want your grandparents to see?
And here's the clincher if you ain't yet convinced -- I have gay friends. Man, the stories they tell about their community's politics when it comes to relationships, sex, man, tell you my impression: I'll say, to me, it's WAY different from heterosexual relationship woes. No shame. I hear of more backbiting, more character assassination, I hear of more problems there than in hetero' relationships . . . and I think a lot of straight people realize this. The straight Gen-Yers will, too, eventually. IMAGINE if gays were to get married?
And maybe if some of the community could clean up their act a little they'd begin to be support from a majority and from the Gen-Yers that I come into contact with. I don't see how a half-naked man walking down the street supports ANY cause that wishes to be taken seriously. Impressions go a long way.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
@ Scott / all
thanks for the reply. Just remember as the arguments heat up, stick to issues. Discussing individual people may lead to short term satisfaction and even short term victory, however to advance the state of any argument, it really has to be about the ideas.
I am starting to see this thread morph into a healthy debate.
On that note, I am curious, a question for those against civil unions. Are you against same sex civil unions or against same sex marriage, or both?
There are valid arguments as to why there may be a difference. I know it is not the main point, but if you disaggregate the "marriage" stigma from the equation, it become more of a tax and benefits issue. I do not believe the statute wants to force religious figures to "marrying people" rather it conveys a set of tax and benefit rights. The government modifies rights all the time with trust and estate law, heck under case law even some pets have been granted some legal rights.
I do understand the counter-argument to this is that we perhaps are implicitly blessing the idea by rewarding (what some would argue to be) "bad" behavior by granting the benefits.
But then what does one think about investment bank bailouts and mortgage principal reductions for subprime borrowers? Don't you think we are implicitly blessing irresponsible and risky invesment behavior?
We are blessing behavior that did not just merely make you feel uncomfortable in a bar, but rather behavior that destroyed the economy, behavior that threatened (or took) your job, behavior that is breaking up families and putting people on the street.
Can you really say that the granting of tax and benefits to these unions has the potential to harm or affect you personally as bad?
March 30th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
@JS, if this were a blog about the recent bailouts and today's GM news, then I really don't think I'd be able to contain myself. As to what CG said, well, Obama won because of minorities and the media, we all know that. As a 29 year old husband/father, I read with great interest and agreement what CG said. Young people are idealistic and that's great. When else in your life are you going to be idealistic! I remember my dad telling me I was idealistic when I was 20. He had this look in his eye that said "I'm glad you're thinking like this as a young man, but wait until you grow up and get into the real world. You'll see." Now, I'm a very conservative man and damn proud of that. Ok, focus....for those of us who support traditional families and values, we don't want to encourage the gay lifestyle. It's as simple as that. I fully support their right to tax benefits, berevement issues, all of that. But why is it that just 10 years ago this community said "what we do in private is our business" and now they are, pardon the pun, shoving it down our throats so hard that it's consuming everything. Why do they want marriage? Why here, why now? Is it all about recongnition? Beyond a symbolic act of recongnition and inclusion, why why why? I don't think it's anything more than that.
Be civil people.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Chicken Grease,
Like you, I used to dislike the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage. I thought it was gross!
I have since learned that adults should be able to live in freedom, even if I might be grossed out!
I also learned that people don't choose who theyre attracted to! (if you don't believe me, how did YOU choose who you're attracted to!)
(to learn more on why I changed my mind on same-sex marriage, read my post above)
In a free society, you can't ban stuff just because it's "gross".
I personally think stir-fry food is "gross". I don't like to look at stir-fry food! I don't like the taste of stir-fry food! But I'm not going to be one of those "ban stir-fry because I don't like it" people!
You don't like to look at 2 males kissing each other? WHOSE FORCING YOU TO STARE AT THEM? Don't like to watch? Don't stare! I don't like to look at stir-fry food, so if I see it, I look somewhere else! It's not that hard!
You're NOT entitled to only see things you like all the time! Neither am I!
Anyways, what Fassler is trying to say is TIMES CHANGE!
A few centuries ago, many thought the Earth was flat. I guess that means the generations of the past has more wisdom than us?
A few centuries ago, nearly all societies had slavery! Does that mean past generations have more wisdom than us, Chicken Grease?
A few decades ago, in some states, inter-racial dating was banned. Many thought it was "gross" when they see a European & an African kissing each other! Do those grossed-out people have wisdom, Chicken Grease? Are you saying that as Generation Y get older, they'll start to realize that Africans & Europeans kissing each other is "gross". Are you saying that as Generation Y get older, they'll be upset at their kids for being fans of mixed-race celebrities like Alicia Keys, The Rock, Hines Ward, Derek Jeter or Maggie Q?
Personally, while I have no plans to attend a gay parade, if they want to have a parade, let them have a parade! No one is forcing you to attend!
It's called "living in a free society".
March 30th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Live and let live.
CG is naive to extreme measures if he believes marriages are only to procreate. People do that hourly outside of marriage sometimes creating single parent families (which statistically leave children at risk).
Quite simply the entire income tax system is at fault for this whole issue of state recognized civil unions. If everyone was taxed the same way and no benefits were given to married couples, this wouldn't be so much of an issue.
I think its pretty unfair to us single folks to have to pay more than married folks, WHERE ARE THE SINGLES RIGHTS??
March 30th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
And another thing,
ChickenGrease implies that as Generation Y gets older, they'll be more against same-sex marriage, and that will never change.
In 2000, 61% of Californians voted against same-sex marriage. In 2008, it was 55%!
Notice the majority is getting smaller. Soon it won't exist!
In 1998 (the first year I voted) 70% of Hawaii voted against same-sex marriage.
If it is voted on again in 2010, the % voting against civil unions will get smaller! Yeah, i think it will still be over 50% , but with some "1980-1992 born" crowd now eligible, it WILL be LESS than 70%!
March 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Aloha and mahalo for a well-reasoned and written article.
I was barely into my teens in 1998 when some of the red-shirted demonstrators say this issue was "decided". How arrogant and ignorant of them. Why shouldn't my LGBT friends/co-workers/neighbors/someday-maybe-family-members have this CIVIL RIGHT. Someday it will be IMPOSSIBLE for my grandchildren to understand how ANYONE could have been so bigoted. I feel like their "church" has raped my "state".
March 30th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
@jash
Sidenote: actually married couples usually pay more tax than they would if they filed separately. It is commonly known as the "marriage tax penalty." So perhaps consider yourself lucky.
@scott - I am in around the same age bracket as you. As to the "why MARRIAGE, why now" question, that's exactly my point. I think people are mixing defacto marriage with what was on the table in Hawaii, which was civil unions. I equate civil union to a set of legal rights (weaker than that of a pure federally recognized marriage), similar to those given out on a willy-nilly basis by administrative law judges, tax courts, etc on a daily basis.
Which returns me to my question. Do people posting oppose / support: (1) same sex marriage; (2) same sex unions; or (3) both. For me (at the stage of the post) it is mainly a point of curiosity rather than debate.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
@JS -- Good point and thanks for bringing that up. The Pew Research stats I cited did separate attitudes towards civil unions and gay marriage and the results showed more support for civil unions.
@Chicken Grease -- Good to have you back! I think my main problem with your argument is the assertion that civil unions or gay people exhibiting affection for one another is somehow amoral and a "fringe" activity -- I would hardly consider homosexuality to be "fringe" in 2009. I think it is possible for Gen Y to keep our morality and still support civil unions. I also think you've outlined the area where compromise between religious groups and gay rights groups will be hardest to achieve.
@Everyone - I'm really grateful to you all for keeping discussion on this difficult subject civil. Major props. Mahalo.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Pablo-post #38, you're way too far out there with your examples. I'm still trying to wrap my head around your examples. The relationship between a man and woman is the most fundamental thing ever created. Race, stir-fry, the Earth being flat, c'mon. You're all over the place. If you justify things by saying "times change", then you simply have no moral foundation and are capable of change (manipulation) to whatever fits the times. Also, I'm not religuous (see, I can't even spell it), but I can look at a man and woman and see what was meant to be, and I discourage the encouragement of anything other than that.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Scot - post #44
About the "times change" stuff, I was addressing ChickenGrease, who acted as if "all pro-civil union supporters are young naive types that will become civil-union-opponents as they get older" when actually, this a generational change unlikely to be reversed anytime soon.
Look at the civil rights movement! That was a generational change! 50 years ago, people didn't mind Jim Crow! Now, who's the president? Even North Carolina, Virginia voted for Obama. Georgia -- Obama only lost by a small margin there! That would've been unimaginable 5o years ago!
Unlike what Scott implied, I don't take a poll to determine my opinions! It's just that -- sometimes, a new generation is more correct than previous generations! This is true on same-sex marriage!
As I mentioned in earlier posts, I used to be like you Scott! I understand your mindset, I once had it!
I know, male parts is supposed to go inside a female part. But ideally, we would all be born with good eyesight! But we don't restrict the civil liberties of those born blind, right? So why restrict civil liberties on those born with different sexual orientation?
March 30th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
The Obama presidency is due to the MAJOR demographic change in this country in the last 50 years, particularly the last 10-20 years. Votes don't always represent the pulse of the country. Seeing what Obama has done thus far, I think many people who voted for him would perhaps second guess their vote. Unless they like government control of private business. Plus, Bush was a dolt who detracted the moderate people like me. Perhaps someone (JS) could help us clarify the difference between civil unions and marriage. Pablo, you supported both in your previous post. I don't think you know the difference between gay marriage and civil unions either.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Kim has gone national with the Freedom to Marry organization linking her blog:
http://straighttalkonmarriage.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-gen-y-sees-civil-unions.html
Based in New York and headed by Evan Wolfson, Freedom to Marry describes itself as "The gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage equality worldwide."
March 30th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
I wonder if you put Kim's blog on this site, or if Kim allowed you to do so. I wonder how many non-gay people are "working to win marriage equality worldwide". I'm sure many straight people are burning the midnight oil on this one. Either way, your cause lost in Hawaii this year. In fact, it never even had a chance. I would suggest checking back in 2 years, when we have the exact same officials in office.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:41 am
Scott-
Interestingly, contrary to popular belief our elected officials actually have high turnover. Since 2001 more than half the State Senate is gone, and nearly 2/3 of the House has left.
I must point out as well, that Civil Unions in Hawaii certainly had a chance this year. When nearly 40 members out of the 51 commit to supporting the issue, and 18 of the 25 do the same in the Senate, I'd say it's a viable issue.
The issue to think about as you describe it, is who it is that defines morality. Is it our government? Is it each person? Is it a majority vote of society? Is it your god ... or is it mine?
March 31st, 2009 at 1:32 am
@Richard -- Thanks for the link.
@Scott - No, I didn't know that I had been linked until Richard posted the link here. I hadn't heard of Straight Talk on Marriage before..
March 31st, 2009 at 7:48 am
I know I'm late, but I just got back from China and liked your post. As a fellow Gen-Y'er, I agree that we are more open than the older generations. Perhaps it's more "experiences" with diversity in real life or in the online world, I'm not sure.
There are definitely positives and negatives to granting homosexuals the right to civil unions but I think it's wrong to deny them of those rights. Some argue religion or the belief that a mother and father provide the best family grounds. I don't think religion can influence the government's decision since it's their job to grant equality to its citizens. Until the divorce rate is up from 50%, single people can't adopt, and there are no issues such as child neglect or spousal abuse, it's hard to say us heterosexuals have it right enough to deny rights of fellow people who are trying to achieve the same thing.
If we want to take it to an extreme, marriage should only be for religious couples who are willing to forgo the right to divorce. The rest should be civil unions. Religious groups can't really argue against granting civil unions since the Church agrees to marry any heterosexual couple basically, knowing that half will divorce and many don't follow God religiously. If it's about protecting the word of God, this doesn't seem like the Church is fully protecting the sanctity of marriage already, with or without the issue of homosexuals wanting civil unions.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:01 am
Mahalo, Kim. And to all of you.
Here's my bottom line for this argument (and, in no means am I tired of talking about it, but, this is my Quint scratching his nails against the chalkboard moment); OK, wait, actually I have a few (by the way, for those of you playing the home game, notice that I mentioned "bottom" and "nails," BA-DOOOIIIIING!):
-- OK, I forgot the first one. But, it'll come to me at some point. Oh, wait, I remember: look at how same-sex marriage is being forced down your throat. First they called it "same-sex marriage." NOW it's being called "civil unions." They're CHANGING THE EUPHEMISM, they're changing the expression. That's what happens when a movement is on the ropes. They try to reinvent something when they realize nobody wants what they're selling.
-- More importantly . . . if this civil union or same-sex marriage ever becomes the norm in this nation (again, we great because, overall, Judeo-Christian values guide us. Even our current president, who has every reason to not adhere to any denomination based on his sense of multicultural values, more than any other president before, cites Christian-based religion as his own), will you be ready for other versions of marriage.
Will you be ready for the day an adult wishes to marry a child? Not a teenager, but a child.
Ohhhhhhh, and YOU'RE saying it won't happen?
THIS is why the institution (proponents of same-sex or civil unions seem to forget that this word exists in tandem with the idea of "marriage") between a man and a woman must be maintained. Forever. Unblemished. Unchanged.
Such a conjecture (union between an adult and a child, God forbid, if things should get to even a discussion of something like that) is something the ACLU would salivate at defending. Will we be seeing, "homosexuals were given the right to marrry. Looks like petowners want to marry their pets. Looks like NAMBLA [I'll let you fine folks look that one up] wants to hold regular marriage ceremonies).
There are some things that do not need to be changed in this world.
Shocked? Don't be. Just don't support any kind of marriage except between a man and a woman (unrelated, at that).
[I know I said I wasn't a bible-thumper, but, couldn't resist:]
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over
For her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word
That he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wringle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish."
-- Ephesians 5, 25-27, "The New American Bible"
March 31st, 2009 at 9:03 am
The homosexuals want to get their foot into the door then sue everyone for not legally letting them marry each other. Many of their demands are already being met by the Reciprocal Beneficiaries law (Act383) enacted in 1997. This gives the homosexuals all the legal benefits they need. They want the spiritual and moral right to marry each other which Hawaii's citizens have already determined by ballot voting that is reserved for a male and a female.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:08 am
.....keep on waiting..... waiting for the world to change....
March 31st, 2009 at 10:16 am
@chicken grease - please don't get us started on the bible!!! unless you are willing to defend the entire book and not just the bits you like:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2008/03/cnnn-can-you-put-out-new-bible-with.html
why does this always come back to church? what about weddings that happen in a court house? would those be civil ceremonies? what about when people who don't believe in god get married? is that still okay? and if they don't care about god in their life why should you care about god in their life?
But a bigger (and more important) point is: it is wrong to deny tax paying citizens their civil rights.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:51 am
You're right that Gen Y adults weren't voting in 1998. The only way to truly determine the outcome of this issue is to put it up to the voters like they did in 1998. I bet the outcome will still be the same. I opposed HB444 and would challenge the House members and the 6 Senate members who supported it to put it to the voters to decide. I am guessing they are afraid to do so. It proves the old adage, "If you can't stand the answer, don't ask the question!"
March 31st, 2009 at 11:17 am
Scott -post #46 - same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions are almost the same thing! It's just different wording, and for some reason, the 2nd one is supposedly more marketable! Legalizing either one is fine with me!
ChickenGrease -post #52 - I used to make the same exact arguments like you did when I was in the 10th grade (see my post #32).
I used to laugh along when a classmate said "same-sex marriage would lead to someone wanting to marry their desk." That was in my immature days! Mature adults understand how lame that argument is!
Marriage is an adult human thing! So don't give me this "same-sex marriage will lead to someone marrying a child" I used to go along with such lameness only because back then, I thought homosexuality was gross, and I didn't understand what kind of hell many had to go through, growing up wishing they had the same sexual orientation like everyone else!
Now that I know better, as far as I'm concerned, as adults in a free society, they should be able to marry any ADULT they want!
Even if others in society don't approve!
It's called "living in a free society"
March 31st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Uh, carolyn, I think that you are assuming that I'm taking only "bits" of the Bible just because I offer one quote. Where does it say that that's the entirety of what I believe in the Bible. I know what the Bible is. I've studied it. I know it has its problems. And the bible is only part of the Catholic faith.
And don't look now, but, your source has discredited itself before I even click on the thing -- CNN. Oh, yeah, the bastion of objective news sources.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
look again chickengrease - not cnn but cnnn. I take it you didn't even click to know what I am referring to. I'd be lying if I said I was surprised.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
@chicken grease, post #35: My gay cousin and his partner have been together for over sixteen years, and I can honestly say that the bond they share approximates "love" more closely than any relationship I've ever seen. They support each other, care for each other's needs, and are just genuinely happy to be in each other's company. To each his or her own, but pigeonholing love into a strict man-woman definition is very narrow-minded, IMHO.
God bless
March 31st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
@CG
Apologies for the short comment this time. I am addicted to this discussion but am fairly short on time.
One thing that keeps coming up over and over again is the question as if allowing same sex unions would allow for a slippery slope such that people will:
(1) want to get married to animals
(2) want to get married to children
I really do feel silly addressing this argument but its such a low hanging fruit that I cant resist.
The situations can be easily differentiated. In a same sex marriage there are two consenting adults who have the legal mental capacity to form such a union. The key is consent and mental capacity on both sides of the union.
In case (1 - animals) you have a consenting person and an animal. I am really not going to go into this one as it should be obvious. That being said if anyone really thinks Rabbit has the ability to legally consent and has the mental capacity to formulate the rights and obligations that marriage with a human being brings, I will gladly address them.
In case (2 - child) there is a consenting adult and a child. We can go into study upon study about mental capacity, age of majority, and a deep psychological study as to decision formation as it relates to age. But really? You know, I know, everyone knows that two consenting adults deciding to get married does not present the same consent problem as 40 year old and a 8 year old deciding to tie the knot.
Seriously. Slippery slope to animals and children, easily differentiated as being on a completely different slope. The "derogation" (if one wants to call it that) is in the definitional parameters of the marriage, without introducing the additional consent problem that children or animals would bring into the mix.
There are some good defensible arguments above, but this really isnt one of them.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
@carolyn: Agreed completely (#55)
@chickengrease: RTFA. It's obvious you didn't (#57)
March 31st, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Oh well, my dog and I are better off as friends anyway
March 31st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Any approval of marriage other than between a man and a woman opens the floodgates for any other kind of marriage and MOST OF YOU KNOW IT. Man marries man, woman marries woman, fine, yeah, made sense, oh, they must be in love . . . and then there was the other stuff that you guys didn't think about. Yes, the adult marrying the child (a case like this WILL happen and you know it, but, you'll conveniently say, "oh, we didn't mean THAT" when, in fact, YOU anti-traditionalists would have set the precedent; and the clincher is, you ain't gonna care).
Traditional marriage keeps a lot of chaos from happening. You know it. YOU KNOW IT. You just want equality for all . . . and YOU KNOW equality doesn't happen in the real world. Why the heck should it happen for marriage?
I'm done with this topic already, Kim has gone on to a different topic, you guys can keep spinning your wheels effortlessly and I'll be comfortable with knowing that traditional marriage will be maintained forever (I don't count the near-seceding lands of California and Mass'). You folks have a tough road ahead of you. Hope you get enough sleep. Above all, I hope you can be at every crucial forefront to support this matter you seem to care about so deeply.
You know what would be good . . . that they pass the civil union bill tomorrow (go look at the calendar. Bwa-ha!).
March 31st, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Chicken Grease will soon say that "legalizing same-sex marriage will make our oceans turn orange, our soil turn blue, and our skies turn green!"
That's just as silly as "legalizing marriage between 2 ADULTS of same-gender will inevitably lead to legalizing marriage between adult & child"
March 31st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Kim,
It's true, the younger generation is more comfortable with gay and lesbian people. Thanks for your column, which is very thoughtful. But I would disagree with you on a couple of points. I don't believe "Hawaii isn't ready for civil unions." The most recent poll shows that 81 percent of Hawaii's population supports equality for same-sex partners. That is enormous support. The minority--members of socially conservative churches--are vocal, but they are by no means the majority of the public. The legislature failed in its duty to support equal protection for all of Hawaii's citizens. Churches, in our democracy, should not be defining the limits of equality.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Pablo,
Isn't it hilarious when people like Chicken Grease spits out those silly rationale. Then start saying stuff like then people will be able to marry dogs etc. etc. Just means their running out of ammo to justify their arguments. These topics just degenerates and starts going around in circles.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Chicken Grease wrote:
"we [are] great because, overall, Judeo-Christian values guide us."
This is silly. Are only "Judeo-Christian" countries "great"? What about China, India or Japan? Which countries in the past were "great" by your standards? Excuse me for assuming, but most people with your ideological framework would list The Greeks, the Roman Empire, the Egyptians, perhaps the Persians as having been "great." They, of course, were not "Judeo-Christian" in their values.
Why do you say "Judeo-Christian"? Do you realize that phrase is mid-20th Century in origin and reflects a social peace worked out between Jews and Gentiles that they would stop "talking stink" about each other and forge an alliance against non-European and non-religious people? Most Jews share more with a "secular humanist" viewpoint than they do with "born-again" Protestants, so what does that do to your notion about the inherent superiority of "Judeo-Christian values"?
Finally, in your version of "greatness," those of us who are buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, followers of tradition Hawaiian spiritual beliefs, atheists, agnostics, Zoroastrians or Jains, have not contributed to the greatness of this country?
You speak as someone raised as a Catholic. 150 years ago American Protestants were making the same arguments against our ancestors. They were called "Papists" who could not be loyal citizens of the United States because of their loyalty to the Pope. (I say 150 years ago, but 50 years ago many Protestants refused to vote for Jack Kennedy with the same arguments).
It is silly to equate "morality" with sexuality. Morality impacts all of our interactions. Do we treat each other fairly, honestly, with compassion? Or do we exploit each other, bully the vulnerable for our personal aggrandizement or profit? There are gays and lesbians who treat each other badly, just as there are heterosexuals who "use" each other, take advantage, exploit dependency, are "unfaithful," or do not take responsibility for their actions.
The world is a lonely enough place. If two people find comfort in each other's arms and ask for recognition and support from their neighbors and are willing to commit themselves to the same sets of responsibilities which govern opposite gender couples, what "moral" person would stand in their way?
March 31st, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Kolea-I don't subscribe to Chicken Grease's school of thought on this topic. I've never used religion to justify my argument on this topic. Btw, you're smart as hell and very thoughtful. But, your last paragraph panders to the emotional side of all this. No one is denying gay people the right to live together, buy homes together, invest in crappy IRA's together, raise children together, but why do they insist on invading the realm of marriage, which has been between men and women for centuries? I simply think they are a marginalized subset of the population who sees this, most liberal time in America, as a time to just test the waters and see if the country is willing to bend over (again, pardon the pun), and give in to this extreme lifestyle being integrated into a time honored tradition between men and women. I'm not even arguing this on the merits of what is moral or not, as your last sentance tries so hard to do. It is simply, why are the gays to intent on invading the sanctity of marriage, because civil unions is just another name for gay marriage.
Someone posted a quote from Elton John earlier. Even he didn't support gay marriage and he's the most visible gay man on Earth. Also, my favorite musician of all time, imagine that. He is a friend of my aunt's in LA and I had the honor of having lunch with him in 2002. Italian place. Nice guy, exactly what you'd expect. Moderate tipper because he thought the dry wine wasn't dry enough. Ah, long story, but he did give me a signed album cover and posed for photos with me. Awesome day.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Scott,
I'm glad you like Elton John's music, but I'm not sure his music skills qualify him to speak for all gay people or to bargain away their rights.
How would gay people getting equal marriage rights constitute "invading the sanctity of marriage"? "Invasion" is an act of aggression. Somehow you view their quest for equality as an act of aggression against straights. How odd. The reality is that gays and lesbians suffer actual and implied aggression all the time. Just as a woman walking alone at night has to be constantly aware of men walking behind her, or approaching her, for fear of getting rape, so do open gays and lesbians have to fear being harassed or actually assaulted. Dozens of people are killed in this country every year, simply for being gay and running into the wrong person. Hundreds are assaulted.
The red shirt mob down at the capitol had the same complaint. Gays were asking for "special rights," they claimed. Civil unions for gays "threaten" heterosexual marriage, they claimed. Gays are "sick", perverted, abnormal and child-molesters. All while claiming they "loved" the gays.
So who is the aggressor?
Why is it so hard to provide equal rights for everyone, so long as they are two consenting adults and not hurting anyone else? If the state has an interest in encouraging straight people to settle down, form a lasting relationship and create a stable homelife, why don't we have the same interest in helping gay couples settle down as well? Over the centuries, we have argued, litigated and legislated to find the proper set of rights and responsibilities appropriate to committed couples. That cluster of rights and responsibilities are the marriage laws. It makes sense to take those same rights and apply them to same gender couples.
The court has already ruled the state has been unable to demonstrate a "compelling state interest" in denying marriage licenses to same gender couples. The 1998 constitutional amendment allows the legislature to "reserve marriage" for opposite gender couples, but this did not remove the state's obligation to come up with some remedy, other than "marriage," to provide equal protection under the law.
Civil unions is exactly the right remedy to satisfy our legal requirement for equal protection while still respecting the constitutional amendment. Those who object to civil unions are really objecting to the idea that gays deserve legal equality.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Scott, I've read your comments in this thread and while I feel you bring up a number of valid points, I have to disagree with your last post. You say that you've never used religion to justify your argument on the topic, yet talk about gays "invading the sanctity of marriage." Doesn't that imply that your reasons for opposing gay marriage are to some extent grounded in religion? The only other argument you raise is that marriage between a man and a woman is a "time-honored tradition.” As an institution that existed for centuries (and still persists in one form or another in many areas of the world), one could argue that slavery falls under the same “time-honored” umbrella. I'm not saying that forbidding same-sex couples from marrying/forming civil unions is as egregious an act as slavery, but I am saying that just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean that it's right or just. Just my two cents.
P.S. I’m jealous that you got to meet Elton John!
April 1st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
AMEN to McLovin's post #67