(politics) Play this Backwards...

[GodSistah]

and it still says the Same Thing: Nothing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXEE8V2o2M

From my favorite new blog:
http://outtheboxwithtimdillinger.blogspot.com/2007/07/play-this-backwards-and-it-says-same.html

:)

~Andrea~

[Darlene]

Well I watched and listened and listened and watched and the did those steps two more times and I am still saying "huh". But now I don't know much, well I really don't know anything about his wife Elizabeth but that she believes in Gay Marriage. Or so he says! Maybe we should start looking at Elizabeth Edwards for President? What do you say? Laugh!
Peace, Darlene

[Dee]

To ask Gay and Lesbian couples to settle for “civil union” is still sending the message that they are not truly equal to heterosexuals. It says that they are sub-citizens. Until Gay marriage is included by law in your land, there can be no true equality in your country.

My two Canadian nickels.

[david uk]

Absolutely Dee, my thoughts exactly!

[DaveM]

I entirely agree, Dee--it is no different from the infamous 19th century American law which established that a black person counted as 3/5 of a person for census and other purposes.

To be sure, a marriage is also a civil union. But a civil union is only part of a marriage. It just ain't right.

[Dee]

Well, fortunately Canada came to its senses about Gay marriage, two years ago this month in fact. I am unlikely to ever marry, but should I want to I believe I should have that choice as a member of the human race.

I am not a lesser human being for being Gay and will not be treated as such.

[DaveM]

Well, Dee....Canada is first on my list of places to emigrate to, even though I am not gay and unlikely to ever marry, either.

Actually, the latter is possible, but it will require a near-miracle.

[Oak Kitten]

What the politicians are not going to say, is that this is really just a matter of semantics. The word "marriage" has mainstream religious overtones. Marriage is a sacrament in some religious traditions, and if those religions do not accept homosexuality, then their adherents are going to scream that the state is interfering with their religious freedom to discriminate, and they have a point. But who would want to be a member of a church that discriminates against you?
As a Unitarian Universalist, my religious tradition welcomes GLBT members, accepts them as ministers, and performs same-sex marriages.
If civil unions confer the same rights upon gay couples that heterosexual married couples enjoy, then once the practice becomes accepted, the semantic distinction will disappear. I think it is a strategic error for proponents of gay marriage to fight over the terminology. The trend in society is moving towards acceptance of gays and lesbians in committed relationships. If a same-sex couple wants to refer to themselves as married, who is going to stop them? The twits who would go to great lengths to point out that they are not in fact "married" but only "civil unionized" will just make themselves look small-minded and foolish, because they ARE small-minded and foolish. The whole civil union term will eventually just fade away. Language is dynamic and constantly changing, and I believe that the whole "civil union" controversy will fade away within a year or two once the practice is commonly accepted.

Oak

[DaveM]

You may be right, Oaky. In some countries--England comes to mind--a "marriage" is only legal if performed in a specific church. The Church of England provides legal marriages, the Catholic Church performs wedding ceremonies but the priest must also be a civil registrar in order for the marriage to be "legal". Sweden, I believe, has a similar law regarding the Lutheran church. And there are undoubtedly others.

And that's heterosexual marriages--even those, apparently, have not been sorted out as well as some of us might like to believe!

To my mind a marriage is a marriage. And I'd really like both church and state to begin recognizing that. The identities and genders of the two committed partners being married are no more relevant than the color of their skin.

[Dee]

I posted previously that I will unlikely ever marry, but it just occurs to me now that was a lie. I am already married. It's a marriage of the heart, one that no one can touch and the most important kind to me.

All those talking head control freaks can go jump in a lake.

[hoops]

i don't know, maybe it's because i'm just that kinda girl but i'm gay and i attend the catholic church and receive communion and fully intend to get married when i find the right woman, of course i know the church won't marry me, but hey my siblings have married non christians and even athiests and my family AND the church still consider them to be married according to the catholic church. if my wife wants to attend mass with me, great! if not, hey ya know she can do what she believes too. i'm not gonna let anybody tell me what i can belive and what i can't
peace
hoops

[Dee]

Right on, Hoops! Seems to me most of the bigots who spew their opposition could use some serious work on themselves!

[Oak Kitten]

Hoops,

There is something to be said for sticking it out and staying with the Catholic Church, if you can tolerate their intolerance. It is a lot easier to discriminate against some anonymous category of people than it is when you see real people day in and day out, and get to know them as complete human beings.

I attended a Catholic women's college as an undergraduate (because they gave me the best financial aid package, not out of any religious conviction). I learned that there are some Catholic religious orders such as the Ursulines and the Jesuits, who are very progressive in their outlook, and I have a lot of respect for their willingness to work for change within a hierarchy that I perceive as positively medieval in its outlook. So keep up the quiet resistance, it may eventually pay off - though I don't expect much to happen while the current Pontiff remains on the scene.

Oak