I think there's certainly something to your analysis, and if I could I would rephrase at it as the anti-SS marriage argument running, "marriage is for us, not them." It's a group identity which is being threatened. And I don't suppose it would do much good to point out that this group identity isn't real; a married man could be enganged in buggery on the side. A New York Times magazine article talked at length about this practice among black americans a few months ago, giving the sub-culture a name, the down low, and suggesting the practice was widespread and responsible for the surprisingly high AIDS numbers among black males in this country.
But I suspect mentioning this will just illicit responses of, 'well, they shouldn't be," or, "that's an example of homosexuality wrecking families," blah, blah. The group identity thing is comforting.
Sorry, Michael, I wrote that as you were posting, and said more or less the same thing. Of course, it's Ogged's machismo that's being called into question.
...to make homosexual unions explicitly "civil" is to deprive them of the presumption of sanctity granted traditional marriages.
I comepletely agree with you, Ogged. The state has no business recognizing the supposed sanctity of traditional marriages or rewarding traditional couples on the basis of sanctity. Married or not, couples (or moreples) should have to go to City Hall and get civil unions if they want the tax breaks, etc. The details of my relationship with my partner are no business of Ed Rendell's, of Arnold Schwartzenegger's, or of anyone I'm not currently sleeping with.
Ogged: The other option is to furnish a way for heterosexual men to signal, without explicitly raising the issue, their heterosexuality.
I vote for belt buckles.
Michael: a married man could be enganged in buggery
The joke there is just too easy. I'm still chuckling, though.
Smart-assed repartee aside, I think Bush has played this card about as poorly as possible. I thought the day that gay rights would play to the Democrats' advantage was at still five years off. It's not. The reactions at Sullivan's site are more widely representative than most people realize. It just looks too nakedly political.
Reverse the question. Aren't gay men just wanting to pass? Are they going to wear weeding rings and tell jokes about their spouses in straight company? What do gays get out of marriage that they don't get out of civil union but the chance to flaunt it in front of everyone. From a community that rants on about 'breeders' I hope we hear as much dissent from the heirs of Stonewall as we do from actual married metrosexuals intent on blurring everyone's world with this preposterous grandstanding.
Are they going to wear weeding rings and tell jokes about their spouses in straight company?
I suppose you see something wrong with this? I don't. You know, my beliefs in equality being what they are.
What do gays get out of marriage that they don't get out of civil union?
As things stand, a lot. Consult atrios for in depth, but, for starters, a civil union is recognized only in the state which it is issued. A marriage must be recognized in every state. This rather invalidates your next ridiculous guess that gays are just looking for a means to "flaunt" in front of heterosexuals.
I can't make any sense at all out of your last sentence.
I think there's certainly something to your analysis, and if I could I would rephrase at it as the anti-SS marriage argument running, "marriage is for us, not them." It's a group identity which is being threatened. And I don't suppose it would do much good to point out that this group identity isn't real; a married man could be enganged in buggery on the side. A New York Times magazine article talked at length about this practice among black americans a few months ago, giving the sub-culture a name, the down low, and suggesting the practice was widespread and responsible for the surprisingly high AIDS numbers among black males in this country.
But I suspect mentioning this will just illicit responses of, 'well, they shouldn't be," or, "that's an example of homosexuality wrecking families," blah, blah. The group identity thing is comforting.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 02-24-04 4:37 PM
forgot to sign that
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 02-24-04 4:38 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 02-24-04 4:40 PM
Sorry, Michael, I wrote that as you were posting, and said more or less the same thing. Of course, it's Ogged's machismo that's being called into question.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-24-04 4:42 PM
...to make homosexual unions explicitly "civil" is to deprive them of the presumption of sanctity granted traditional marriages.
I comepletely agree with you, Ogged. The state has no business recognizing the supposed sanctity of traditional marriages or rewarding traditional couples on the basis of sanctity. Married or not, couples (or moreples) should have to go to City Hall and get civil unions if they want the tax breaks, etc. The details of my relationship with my partner are no business of Ed Rendell's, of Arnold Schwartzenegger's, or of anyone I'm not currently sleeping with.
Posted by Bob | Link to this comment | 02-24-04 4:54 PM
Ogged: The other option is to furnish a way for heterosexual men to signal, without explicitly raising the issue, their heterosexuality.
I vote for belt buckles.
Michael: a married man could be enganged in buggery
The joke there is just too easy. I'm still chuckling, though.
Smart-assed repartee aside, I think Bush has played this card about as poorly as possible. I thought the day that gay rights would play to the Democrats' advantage was at still five years off. It's not. The reactions at Sullivan's site are more widely representative than most people realize. It just looks too nakedly political.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-24-04 9:06 PM
Reverse the question. Aren't gay men just wanting to pass? Are they going to wear weeding rings and tell jokes about their spouses in straight company? What do gays get out of marriage that they don't get out of civil union but the chance to flaunt it in front of everyone. From a community that rants on about 'breeders' I hope we hear as much dissent from the heirs of Stonewall as we do from actual married metrosexuals intent on blurring everyone's world with this preposterous grandstanding.
Posted by Cobb | Link to this comment | 02-24-04 9:16 PM
Cobb:
Are they going to wear weeding rings and tell jokes about their spouses in straight company?
I suppose you see something wrong with this? I don't. You know, my beliefs in equality being what they are.
What do gays get out of marriage that they don't get out of civil union?
As things stand, a lot. Consult atrios for in depth, but, for starters, a civil union is recognized only in the state which it is issued. A marriage must be recognized in every state. This rather invalidates your next ridiculous guess that gays are just looking for a means to "flaunt" in front of heterosexuals.
I can't make any sense at all out of your last sentence.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 02-24-04 11:56 PM