New Minnesota Bill Would Give Everyone Civil Unions, Gay and Straight, Leaving Marriage to Churches

  • metta

    Posts: 39159

    Apr 25, 2013 6:46 PM GMT
    New Minnesota Bill Would Give Everyone Civil Unions, Gay and Straight, Leaving Marriage to Churches




    http://www.towleroad.com/2013/04/new-minnesota-bill-would-give-everyone-civil-unions-gay-and-straight-leaving-marriage-to-churches.html
  • Rhi_Bran

    Posts: 904

    Apr 26, 2013 1:52 AM GMT
    In theory it would work, if the federal government recognized civil unions...unfortunately I don't think this will ever become a federal institution, and thus this fails. Not to mention, marriage is not strictly a religious thing, so it's really just dancing around the issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2013 2:47 AM GMT
    They're giving away words with "marriage" going to the churches? Can we bid on the word "God" or has the church already called dibs on that one too?

    tumblr_kvc8viEZhL1qzdzcdo1_500.jpg

    frabz-You-can-have-shotgun-next-time-i-c
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2013 4:33 AM GMT
    Seems kind of pointless. Aren't there already churches that perform gay weddings, so there will be gay marriages either way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2013 4:45 AM GMT
    dudewithabeard saidSeems kind of pointless. Aren't there already churches that perform gay weddings, so there will be gay marriages either way.


    It would make the churches shut up, really. (especially Nienstadt) That's pretty much the point, which is fine, since the main attitude in Minnesota from my understanding does reflect the bill, plus it is at least a step in the right direction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2013 5:16 AM GMT
    Rhi_Bran saidIn theory it would work, if the federal government recognized civil unions...unfortunately I don't think this will ever become a federal institution, and thus this fails. Not to mention, marriage is not strictly a religious thing, so it's really just dancing around the issue.


    Indeed, it only works if it's done at the federal level. Done state-by-state, unions would not be recognized nationwide.

    I have to assume the representative misspoke, though, when she said marriage should be left to churches. She most likely meant "religious organizations." Leaving marriage solely to churches seems like a really bad idea.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2013 2:19 PM GMT
    I agree with shortbutsweet and Rhi.

    Also, if religious conservatives really felt that the problem was in the name the republican platform would include support for civil unions.

    They really don't care what it's called they will not support it. I wish people would wake up and recognize that the name game is simply a cover for them. An easy way to deny us our rights.

    shortbutsweet said
    Rhi_Bran saidIn theory it would work, if the federal government recognized civil unions...unfortunately I don't think this will ever become a federal institution, and thus this fails. Not to mention, marriage is not strictly a religious thing, so it's really just dancing around the issue.


    Indeed, it only works if it's done at the federal level. Done state-by-state, unions would not be recognized nationwide.

    I have to assume the representative misspoke, though, when she said marriage should be left to churches. She most likely meant "religious organizations." Leaving marriage solely to churches seems like a really bad idea.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2013 2:42 PM GMT
    Great idea!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2013 5:35 PM GMT
    creyente saidI agree with shortbutsweet and Rhi.

    Also, if religious conservatives really felt that the problem was in the name the republican platform would include support for civil unions.

    They really don't care what it's called they will not support it. I wish people would wake up and recognize that the name game is simply a cover for them. An easy way to deny us our rights.


    As much as I respect your opinion, mine is actually somewhat different.

    I think religious conservatives feel very strongly that the term "marriage" refers to a special relationship among people that reflects what they believe is a sacred covenant between man and God. As such, their opposition to gay "marriage" is based upon strongly-held religious beliefs that are not likely to be swayed -- but only so long as we call it "marriage."

    The radical right bases their opposition on bigotry and hatred, and I suggest those are the people to whom you are referring. They don't care what you call it; they just want to deny rights to anyone who isn't a white, Anglo-saxon, Protestant male.

    Mainstream conservatives -- the largest group by far -- can be persuaded to do the right thing. It will take finesse, but we have to present a reasonable, responsible message so that they will stop listening to the shrill voices coming from the zealots and radicals. We cannot accomplish that by being shrill and self-righteous ourselves and shrieking -- as some of us do -- that only a revolution will do. We may achieve equality that way, but it will come at far greater cost in terms of gay lives.

    Just as there are many right ways to be gay, there are many ways to achieve equality. Some achieve the same goals at less cost.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2013 5:38 PM GMT
    Rhi_Bran saidIn theory it would work, if the federal government recognized civil unions...unfortunately I don't think this will ever become a federal institution, and thus this fails. Not to mention, marriage is not strictly a religious thing, so it's really just dancing around the issue.


    I like that but yeah Obama and the democrats should have done this when they had the chance in his first 2 years. Gotta happen with the feds cuz don't mean nothin when the states do it.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Apr 26, 2013 5:52 PM GMT
    shortbutsweet saidMainstream conservatives -- the largest group by far -- can be persuaded to do the right thing.


    The problem is that too many gays think they need to be persuaded at all. Marriage equality is coming, with or without them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2013 6:54 PM GMT
    I'm sorry if my language was not clear. I was not trying to imply that my belief was shared by you.

    I was simply agreeing with the sentiment expressed by both you and Rhi about civil unions and the need for them to be sanctioned at the federal level in order for this to work. I would have considered that a great first step.

    However, I added my own thought with the "Also" statement.

    There are many religious people who recognize that the word marriage does not have it's roots in religion and who support the effort for full equality. Luckily this is becoming more the norm as people become educated to the facts. It might actually be a blessing that the conversation did not stop at civil unions. In the end creating two separate but equal sets of laws for marriage/civil unions seems a bit overkill, and really does not address the stigma that comes with the separation.

    There are also some conservative religious individuals who actually believe the word marriage is sacred to their religion, and would support civil unions. The problem is none of these individuals are in leadership positions.

    There are also many gays that would have accepted civil unions if they came with the full benefits of marriage. However at no point in time has this been seriously offered as an alternative at the state or local level. Some states have civil unions but do not honor all of the rights of marriage even at the state level which is why there is such a push for marriage equality. I hardly think it is a shrill voice that asks for equal rights.

    At this point I have not seen any legitimate discussions about creating civil unions that are the mirror image of marriages for the heterosexual community. It has been a smoke screen each time, and a way to divert attention from full marriage equality.

    I'm confused by this statement:

    "Just as there are many right ways to be gay, there are many ways to achieve equality."

    What is the right way to be gay?


    shortbutsweet said
    creyente saidI agree with shortbutsweet and Rhi.

    Also, if religious conservatives really felt that the problem was in the name the republican platform would include support for civil unions.

    They really don't care what it's called they will not support it. I wish people would wake up and recognize that the name game is simply a cover for them. An easy way to deny us our rights.


    As much as I respect your opinion, mine is actually somewhat different.

    I think religious conservatives feel very strongly that the term "marriage" refers to a special relationship among people that reflects what they believe is a sacred covenant between man and God. As such, their opposition to gay "marriage" is based upon strongly-held religious beliefs that are not likely to be swayed -- but only so long as we call it "marriage."


    The radical right bases their opposition on bigotry and hatred, and I suggest those are the people to whom you are referring. They don't care what you call it; they just want to deny rights to anyone who isn't a white, Anglo-saxon, Protestant male.

    Mainstream conservatives -- the largest group by far -- can be persuaded to do the right thing. It will take finesse, but we have to present a reasonable, responsible message so that they will stop listening to the shrill voices coming from the zealots and radicals. We cannot accomplish that by being shrill and self-righteous ourselves and shrieking -- as some of us do -- that only a revolution will do. We may achieve equality that way, but it will come at far greater cost in terms of gay lives.

    Just as there are many right ways to be gay, there are many ways to achieve equality. Some achieve the same goals at less cost.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2013 7:04 PM GMT
    I don't really care for the term "civil union". Why does the government have to change the word away from marriage? It can have both a civil and religious meaning. I'm kinda hoping this doesn't go forward, and a marriage bill is put up instead.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Apr 27, 2013 5:49 AM GMT
    S34n05 saidWhy does the government have to change the word away from marriage? It can have both a civil and religious meaning.


    Because some people are convinced that the freedom and equality should bend to the will of bigots and homophobes, when the truth is freedom and equality should just run them over and be done with it (that's what's going to happen anyway, why delay the inevitable?).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM GMT
    creyente saidIn the end creating two separate but equal sets of laws for marriage/civil unions seems a bit overkill, and really does not address the stigma that comes with the separation.


    Agreed. But when did I suggest two sets of laws? One that applies to everyone is enough for me.

    creyente saidThere are also many gays that would have accepted civil unions if they came with the full benefits of marriage. However at no point in time has this been seriously offered as an alternative at the state or local level. Some states have civil unions but do not honor all of the rights of marriage even at the state level which is why there is such a push for marriage equality. I hardly think it is a shrill voice that asks for equal rights.


    The shrill voices are the ones that insist there is only one way to achieve equality and attempt to silence anyone who disagrees. Did I not make that clear? It was not directed at you.

    creyente saidAt this point I have not seen any legitimate discussions about creating civil unions that are the mirror image of marriages for the heterosexual community. It has been a smoke screen each time, and a way to divert attention from full marriage equality.


    How is the discussion above a smoke screen, in your view? In what way am I diverting attention from full marriage equality, other than at the most superficial semantic level, when I say we can achieve equality with less bloodshed?

    creyente saidI'm confused by this statement:

    "Just as there are many right ways to be gay, there are many ways to achieve equality."

    What is the right way to be gay?


    Please read the statement again. I do not support the idea that there is only one right way to be gay, and I do not support the idea that equality can be achieved only within the mainstream definition of the word "marriage." What is it about this word that is so important?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2013 6:35 AM GMT
    metta8 saidNew Minnesota Bill Would Give Everyone Civil Unions, Gay and Straight, Leaving Marriage to Churches




    http://www.towleroad.com/2013/04/new-minnesota-bill-would-give-everyone-civil-unions-gay-and-straight-leaving-marriage-to-churches.html



    Finally someone is listening to me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2013 7:06 AM GMT
    But homophobic conservatives don't want to support any recognition of same-sex unions. They're against equality, whether it be this equality under the name of civil union, or equality under the name of marriage. So why not just propose legalizing gay marriage?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2013 7:28 AM GMT
    Honestly, I'm annoyed that the idea of leaving the government out of marriage only became popularized when it started becoming evident that same sex marriage would likely become legal over time throughout the country.

    It's not the worst idea, but I can't shake the element of "We'd rather that NOBODY have it than let you have it"

    I'm not concerned about "making the churches shut up" because they will lose anyway. Let them fall on their sword...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2013 5:23 PM GMT
    shortbutsweet said
    creyente saidIn the end creating two separate but equal sets of laws for marriage/civil unions seems a bit overkill, and really does not address the stigma that comes with the separation.


    Agreed. But when did I suggest two sets of laws? One that applies to everyone is enough for me.

    When did I suggest that you were asking for two sets of laws?

    creyente saidThere are also many gays that would have accepted civil unions if they came with the full benefits of marriage. However at no point in time has this been seriously offered as an alternative at the state or local level. Some states have civil unions but do not honor all of the rights of marriage even at the state level which is why there is such a push for marriage equality. I hardly think it is a shrill voice that asks for equal rights.


    The shrill voices are the ones that insist there is only one way to achieve equality and attempt to silence anyone who disagrees. Did I not make that clear? It was not directed at you.

    I did not assume you were talking about me. I try not to take anything someone says as an attack on me unless they have directly attacked me, and you have not.

    However, I also did not ask you to clarify who you believe the shrill voices to be. I simply don't agree that someone who is looking for equality is a shrill voice.


    creyente saidAt this point I have not seen any legitimate discussions about creating civil unions that are the mirror image of marriages for the heterosexual community. It has been a smoke screen each time, and a way to divert attention from full marriage equality.


    How is the discussion above a smoke screen, in your view? In what way am I diverting attention from full marriage equality, other than at the most superficial semantic level, when I say we can achieve equality with less bloodshed?

    You seem to be personalizing the conversation. I never stated that you are trying to divert attention, my comments were directed at those who have the authority to make policy.

    My point of contention is not with your views, but rather with those politicians who have chosen to use civil unions as a way to ensure that our unions/marriages do not have the same standing legally or socially.




    creyente saidI'm confused by this statement:

    "Just as there are many right ways to be gay, there are many ways to achieve equality."

    What is the right way to be gay?


    Please read the statement again. I do not support the idea that there is only one right way to be gay, and I do not support the idea that equality can be achieved only within the mainstream definition of the word "marriage." What is it about this word that is so important?

    Apparently I misunderstood your meaning, which is why I asked you to clarify. I would not want to accuse you of anything you were not intending on saying. Thank you for clearing that up. I'm sure you can see how the sentence could be misconstrued.

    I think you should ask the religious conservatives why the word "marriage" is so important as they are the ones fighting to keep it for themselves. As I stated, the real issue is the rights that are conveyed with the word marriage.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2013 6:59 PM GMT
    creyente saidHowever, I also did not ask you to clarify who you believe the shrill voices to be. I simply don't agree that someone who is looking for equality is a shrill voice.


    I clarified because you misunderstood me and apparently still do. I thought I made clear that it is one's tone that makes one shrill, and not the mere fact that one seeks equality. Or perhaps you are suggesting that any tone is acceptable, so long as one seeks equality? Do you endorse name-calling, naked aggression, straw-man arguments, bullying, and attempts to silence those who disagree with your chosen path to equality? I don't see you engaging regularly in those tactics, but you have left this an open question.

    creyente saidI think you should ask the religious conservatives why the word "marriage" is so important as they are the ones fighting to keep it for themselves. As I stated, the real issue is the rights that are conveyed with the word marriage.


    I would be interested to know the answer to that question. But as they are not here, I asked you.

    I don't particularly care what the term is. Call it "marriage" if you like. Call it "civil union" if you like. Call it "Al Franken," for all I care. But anyone who wants to enter into Al Franken with another person is entitled to the same rights. If religious institutions want to sanction those Al Frankens, they are free to do so.

    Now, some have argued that anyone who doesn't want to enter into Al Franken with another person should also be entitled to the same rights, and I have yet to hear any argument to the contrary on this forum. Why should Al Frankened people get benefits that are not available to single people?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2013 7:21 PM GMT
    shortbutsweet said
    creyente saidHowever, I also did not ask you to clarify who you believe the shrill voices to be. I simply don't agree that someone who is looking for equality is a shrill voice.


    I clarified because you misunderstood me and apparently still do. I thought I made clear that it is one's tone that makes one shrill, and not the mere fact that one seeks equality. Or perhaps you are suggesting that any tone is acceptable, so long as one seeks equality? Do you endorse name-calling, naked aggression, straw-man arguments, bullying, and attempts to silence those who disagree with your chosen path to equality? I don't see you engaging regularly in those tactics, but you have left this an open question.


    Your last post states quite clearly what you consider to be shrill voices:

    shortbutsweetThe shrill voices are the ones that insist there is only one way to achieve equality and attempt to silence anyone who disagrees.


    There is nothing to indicate that you meant tone here. However, since you bring it up, I would ask you what do you think of the use of the word "shrill" as a descriptor? Would this not be considered a "tone" by you?


    creyente saidI think you should ask the religious conservatives why the word "marriage" is so important as they are the ones fighting to keep it for themselves. As I stated, the real issue is the rights that are conveyed with the word marriage.


    I would be interested to know the answer to that question. But as they are not here, I asked you.

    Again, you seem to think your argument over what to call it is with me. I have already stated my indifference to this.


    I don't particularly care what the term is. Call it "marriage" if you like. Call it "civil union" if you like. Call it "Al Franken," for all I care. But anyone who wants to enter into Al Franken with another person is entitled to the same rights. If religious institutions want to sanction those Al Frankens, they are free to do so.

    Now, some have argued that anyone who doesn't want to enter into Al Franken with another person should also be entitled to the same rights, and I have yet to hear any argument to the contrary on this forum. Why should Al Frankened people get benefits that are not available to single people?

    Why are you moving the conversation in this direction? Have I indicated that "All Franken" people should get benefits not available to single people?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2013 7:34 PM GMT
    creyente said
    shortbutsweet said
    creyente saidHowever, I also did not ask you to clarify who you believe the shrill voices to be. I simply don't agree that someone who is looking for equality is a shrill voice.


    I clarified because you misunderstood me and apparently still do. I thought I made clear that it is one's tone that makes one shrill, and not the mere fact that one seeks equality. Or perhaps you are suggesting that any tone is acceptable, so long as one seeks equality? Do you endorse name-calling, naked aggression, straw-man arguments, bullying, and attempts to silence those who disagree with your chosen path to equality? I don't see you engaging regularly in those tactics, but you have left this an open question.


    Your last post states quite clearly what you consider to be shrill voices:

    shortbutsweetThe shrill voices are the ones that insist there is only one way to achieve equality and attempt to silence anyone who disagrees.


    There is nothing to indicate that you meant tone here. However, since you bring it up, I would ask you what do you think of the use of the word "shrill" as a descriptor? Would this not be considered a "tone" by you?


    creyente saidI think you should ask the religious conservatives why the word "marriage" is so important as they are the ones fighting to keep it for themselves. As I stated, the real issue is the rights that are conveyed with the word marriage.


    I would be interested to know the answer to that question. But as they are not here, I asked you.

    Again, you seem to think your argument over what to call it is with me. I have already stated my indifference to this.


    I don't particularly care what the term is. Call it "marriage" if you like. Call it "civil union" if you like. Call it "Al Franken," for all I care. But anyone who wants to enter into Al Franken with another person is entitled to the same rights. If religious institutions want to sanction those Al Frankens, they are free to do so.

    Now, some have argued that anyone who doesn't want to enter into Al Franken with another person should also be entitled to the same rights, and I have yet to hear any argument to the contrary on this forum. Why should Al Frankened people get benefits that are not available to single people?

    Why are you moving the conversation in this direction? Have I indicated that "All Franken" people should get benefits not available to single people?


    I am curious why you are dancing around my direct question and not answering it. Do you endorse name-calling, naked aggression, straw-man arguments, bullying, and attempts to silence those who disagree with your chosen path to equality? If you do, I can see why you would object to describing that behavior as "shrill," which I find merely descriptive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2013 7:44 PM GMT
    shortbutsweet said
    creyente said
    shortbutsweet said
    creyente saidHowever, I also did not ask you to clarify who you believe the shrill voices to be. I simply don't agree that someone who is looking for equality is a shrill voice.


    I clarified because you misunderstood me and apparently still do. I thought I made clear that it is one's tone that makes one shrill, and not the mere fact that one seeks equality. Or perhaps you are suggesting that any tone is acceptable, so long as one seeks equality? Do you endorse name-calling, naked aggression, straw-man arguments, bullying, and attempts to silence those who disagree with your chosen path to equality? I don't see you engaging regularly in those tactics, but you have left this an open question.


    Your last post states quite clearly what you consider to be shrill voices:

    shortbutsweetThe shrill voices are the ones that insist there is only one way to achieve equality and attempt to silence anyone who disagrees.


    There is nothing to indicate that you meant tone here. However, since you bring it up, I would ask you what do you think of the use of the word "shrill" as a descriptor? Would this not be considered a "tone" by you?


    creyente saidI think you should ask the religious conservatives why the word "marriage" is so important as they are the ones fighting to keep it for themselves. As I stated, the real issue is the rights that are conveyed with the word marriage.


    I would be interested to know the answer to that question. But as they are not here, I asked you.

    Again, you seem to think your argument over what to call it is with me. I have already stated my indifference to this.


    I don't particularly care what the term is. Call it "marriage" if you like. Call it "civil union" if you like. Call it "Al Franken," for all I care. But anyone who wants to enter into Al Franken with another person is entitled to the same rights. If religious institutions want to sanction those Al Frankens, they are free to do so.

    Now, some have argued that anyone who doesn't want to enter into Al Franken with another person should also be entitled to the same rights, and I have yet to hear any argument to the contrary on this forum. Why should Al Frankened people get benefits that are not available to single people?

    Why are you moving the conversation in this direction? Have I indicated that "All Franken" people should get benefits not available to single people?


    I am curious why you are dancing around my direct question and not answering it. Do you endorse name-calling, naked aggression, straw-man arguments, bullying, and attempts to silence those who disagree with your chosen path to equality? If you do, I can see why you would object to describing that behavior as "shrill," which I find merely descriptive.


    I am not dancing around anything. No where in my commentary have I endorsed name-calling or naked aggression which is why i have not resorted to this in my commentary.

    However, I do find the use of the word "shrill" to be inflammatory. You seem to believe that this in non-confrontational language. Is it possible that those who are using language you deem to be "naked aggression" might indeed feel the same way you do about the use of the word "shrill"?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2013 8:58 PM GMT
    creyente saidI am not dancing around anything. No where in my commentary have I endorsed name-calling or naked aggression which is why i have not resorted to this in my commentary.

    However, I do find the use of the word "shrill" to be inflammatory. You seem to believe that this in non-confrontational language. Is it possible that those who are using language you deem to be "naked aggression" might indeed feel the same way you do about the use of the word "shrill"?


    Hmmm. Let's see. In another thread, I proposed a perfectly reasonable solution: give everyone the same rights. My proposal was met with the following personal attacks:

    showme:
    "Fuck these mewling sycophants."
    "You're an idiot."

    TroyAthlete:
    "You are a serially dishonest bold-faced liar."
    "What a self-righteous, mealy-mouthed hypocrite." "deluded," "naive," "bitter," "self-centered tool," "lying hypocrite," "selfish," "dishonest."

    Aristoshark:
    Suggested (and then retracted) that dissent in the gay marriage debate should be punished with execution.

    And the only thing you object to is my use of the word "shrill" to describe that behavior? You may not have endorsed it, buy you can't be agnostic about tyrrany. Either you're for it or against it. And if you're not against it, you are tacitly for it.

    Would you care to address these vicious attacks? Or would you prefer to focus on whether I handled them with perfect equanimity?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2013 9:12 PM GMT
    Alpha13 said
    metta8 saidNew Minnesota Bill Would Give Everyone Civil Unions, Gay and Straight, Leaving Marriage to Churches




    http://www.towleroad.com/2013/04/new-minnesota-bill-would-give-everyone-civil-unions-gay-and-straight-leaving-marriage-to-churches.html



    Finally someone is listening to me.


    Actually, they aren't. Your past complaining that marriage discriminates against single people also applies to civil unions. icon_wink.gif