http://purpleunions.com/blog/2009/12/nj-5-moderate-republicans-will-not-vote-for-gay-marriage.html All the News We Can Find on Gay Marriage & Marriage Equality Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:42:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://purpleunions.com/blog/2009/12/nj-5-moderate-republicans-will-not-vote-for-gay-marriage.html/comment-page-1#comment-184 Leland Traiman Sun, 20 Dec 2009 05:34:18 +0000 http://blogs.purpleroofs.com/test/2009/12/19/nj-5-moderate-republicans-will-not-vote-for-gay-marriage/#comment-184 Anecdotal reports of inappropriate or anomalous implementation of New Jersey's civil unions & California’s domestic partner laws would not be solved by changing the titles to marriage. Lesbians and gay men in Massachusetts have reported problems with their state’s implementation of same-sex marriage. Like California & New Jersey, the Massachusetts legislature is having to plug holes because these policies are new. Any new and comprehensive policy, no matter how well written, will have bumps along the road to implementation. (The Gay & Lesbian Review 5/2007 page 6, Marriage Equality Not a Reality In Massachusetts by Dale Mitchell, Cofounder, LGBT Aging Project, Boston, MA) Additionally, there will always be inequalities, regardless of title, until the federal government grants federal marital rights to same-sex couples. A grant of federal marital rights could be given to any or all the legal unions a state may choose to recognize, be they marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships. Anecdotal reports of inappropriate or anomalous implementation of New Jersey's civil unions & California’s domestic partner laws would not be solved by changing the titles to marriage. Lesbians and gay men in Massachusetts have reported problems with their state’s implementation of same-sex marriage. Like California & New Jersey, the Massachusetts legislature is having to plug holes because these policies are new. Any new and comprehensive policy, no matter how well written, will have bumps along the road to implementation. (The Gay & Lesbian Review 5/2007 page 6, Marriage Equality Not a Reality In Massachusetts by Dale Mitchell, Cofounder, LGBT Aging Project, Boston, MA) Additionally, there will always be inequalities, regardless of title, until the federal government grants federal marital rights to same-sex couples. A grant of federal marital rights could be given to any or all the legal unions a state may choose to recognize, be they marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships.

]]> http://purpleunions.com/blog/2009/12/nj-5-moderate-republicans-will-not-vote-for-gay-marriage.html/comment-page-1#comment-183 Leland Traiman Sun, 20 Dec 2009 05:13:26 +0000 http://blogs.purpleroofs.com/test/2009/12/19/nj-5-moderate-republicans-will-not-vote-for-gay-marriage/#comment-183 The term, "separate but equal," was always a lie. The racist who promoted it never really wanted African Americans treated equally. Everyone, with a wink and nod, knew that. But its opposite, that "separate can never be equal," is also a lie. If that were true then men and women would share the same public toilets and affirmative action would not exist. Domestic partnerships were invented by LGBT folk to obtain the benefits of marriage when most of us viewed marriage as a discredited patriarchal institution. Comprehensive domestic partnerships and civil unions are now specifically designed to avoid any inequalities. This painstaking legislative word-smithing gives lie to the notion that separate cannot be equal.All civil rights struggles have had a series of steps and compromises along the way. Our struggle is no different. But, what if I am wrong and separate is not equal? What if comprehensive domestic partnerships are only "almost" equal? At this point in time, I would still love to be "almost" equal because, as of today, we are nowhere near equal! Let us get to equality (or almost equality) first. Once we have achieved that, we can start to worry about possible inequalities. We may not find any. Until then, it is just academic ruminations. (Commissions in New Jersey and Vermont "proving" that civil unions were not equal to marriage were cleverly stacked with marriage-only advocates whose conclusions had been decided upon before each commission met.) The term, "separate but equal," was always a lie. The racist who promoted it never really wanted African Americans treated equally. Everyone, with a wink and nod, knew that. But its opposite, that "separate can never be equal," is also a lie. If that were true then men and women would share the same public toilets and affirmative action would not exist. Domestic partnerships were invented by LGBT folk to obtain the benefits of marriage when most of us viewed marriage as a discredited patriarchal institution. Comprehensive domestic partnerships and civil unions are now specifically designed to avoid any inequalities. This painstaking legislative word-smithing gives lie to the notion that separate cannot be equal.All civil rights struggles have had a series of steps and compromises along the way. Our struggle is no different. But, what if I am wrong and separate is not equal? What if comprehensive domestic partnerships are only "almost" equal? At this point in time, I would still love to be "almost" equal because, as of today, we are nowhere near equal! Let us get to equality (or almost equality) first. Once we have achieved that, we can start to worry about possible inequalities. We may not find any. Until then, it is just academic ruminations. (Commissions in New Jersey and Vermont "proving" that civil unions were not equal to marriage were cleverly stacked with marriage-only advocates whose conclusions had been decided upon before each commission met.)

]]>