All you Prop 8 apologists have been saying it all these weeks, we’ll see soon if you really mean it: Even though “marriage” to you is something sacred that can only be between a man and a woman or it will be ruined for everybody, you all still claim to support “domestic partnership with the same exact rights as marriage.” From Larry Gilbert to commenters like “cook,” “junior,” and “Mary/Erika” you repeat this blithely, either serenely unaware that there are numerous rights domestic partners don’t enjoy, or with complete disingenuousness assuming nobody will know the difference.
Well, the fact is, as Glennzilla reminded us Thursday, our gay brothers and sisters in civil unions are denied “a whole array of crucial marriage-based tax, pension, visitation, inheritance and legal standing rights granted to opposite-sex couples.” And this is largely thanks to DOMA, the horribly unjust “Defense of Marriage Act” which was signed into law in 1996 by a cravenly “triangulating” Bill Clinton (burned by his earlier support for gays in the military and under constant attack from Republicans in Congress and elsewhere.)
Glenn elaborates on one particularly egregious example:
…if an American citizen marries a foreign national of the opposite sex (an increasingly common occurrence), then, under U.S. immigration law, the foreign spouse is entitled, more or less automatically, to receive a Green Card and, if desired, U.S. citizenship, so that American citizens can live in the U.S. together with their spouse.
But if an American citizen marries a foreign national of the same sex, then DOMA bars the INS from recognizing the marriage as a basis for granting immigration rights. As a result of DOMA, American citizens are put in the hideous predicament of having to choose either to (a) live apart from their spouse or (b) live outside their own country. The U.S. now stands virtually alone in the Western World in imposing such a cruel dilemma on its citizens (worse still, many U.S. citizens have same-sex spouses from countries where the U.S. citizen cannot live, due to lack of resources or opportunities or because that country also refuses to grant immigration rights to same-sex couples; in those cases, DOMA means that Americans are forced, with no choice, to live apart — oceans apart — from their spouse).
The good news is our new President, although he’s been wishy-washy on the topic of gay marriage itself, has been emphatically and outspokenly against DOMA since it was passed twelve years ago, has repeated this during the campaign, and still won by a landslide. Meanwhile our new Vice-President, although he did vote with the majority twelve years ago, was crystal-clear during the debate with Gov. Palin:
…Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple. . . . It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do. . . . there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple.
And Glenn’s call for a repeal early on by the newly energized Democratic Congress, while pooh-poohed by the usual zombies, wimps and bigots as the the usual “extremist Glenn pushing the Democrats toward political suicide” has now been joined by the ultimate DC insiders, the Washington Post editorial page.
It’s still grievously unjust to tell any group of Americans they can’t get married while the rest of us can, but if you pro-Prop 8 OJ bloggers and commenters are serious about backing equality then I expect you to support the repeal of DOMA some time early next year!
Very accurate, and quite similar to this:
http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/i-see-gay-people-why-dont-you-america.html
Vern. The votes have been counted. Let’s fasten our seat belts and wait the pending legal challenges.
Larry. Too bad you didn’t read any more than my title. Yes, the votes have been counted.
But I want to know, did I characterize your position accurately? DO you support gays having all the same rights as married straights, but in domestic partnerships (civl unions) instead? If you do, you might want to read the rest of my post.
Vern. Like yourself I was rather busy, and under the weather, the past two months in a successful local election and have neglected several mandatory obligations. No, I did not read the entire post but as you know I supported the YES side of the debate.
Please, Larry.
We all know what side you’re on in respect to marriage.
My question is, do you support civil unions (domestic partnerships) providing the same rights as marriage? That’s not too long to read and answer is it?
I just want a civil union,legal union or domestic partnership for people that want to be legally united to a person of the same gender with the same rights and obligations as heterosexual couple,but the term or word ‘marriage”should be apply only to a Man and a Woman as always had been since we know humankind. Why non-heterosexual people are no being tolerant with traditions?. Do not ask for tolerance when for more than one time this kind of proposition had been defeated!.
OK, “mary” agrees (even though, just like Larry, she doesn’t seem to understand what I’m saying.) Same rights and obligations. That means repealing DOMA, mary. Try reading this post slowly, it seems like you agree, and that’s a good compromise for now.
Vern,
You are absolutely right. The repal of DOMO is next. That’s where the real $$$$ is. Just check out United Airlines books. The healthcare benifits at SFO alone are astronomincal.
Perhaps after the courts overturn this and it rears it’s head again, everyone will pay attention.
Steve Smith blew it. PLAIN AND SIMPLE, we let a Red-Shirt Freshman play against the “YES ON 8” Two time MVP.
What are you saying Vern, that the passage of 8 did not change anything?
The reason there is “discrimination“, according to you (and others), is because of federal laws that 8 has no effect on what-so-ever?
I still think that carving out gay people as a distinct breed of people falls under the same reasoning used for Jews and Gypsy’s in WW2, and Native Americans during the Indian wars.
(Germans ordered all Jews to register with them and the word “Jude” was stamped on their identity cards. Jews were placed outside the law and their lives were regulated by German orders or edicts)
(Many tribes ignored the relocation orders at first and were forced onto their new limited land parcels. Enforcement of the policy required the United States Army to restrict the movements of various tribes.)
It is so much easier to get rid of someone you don’t like when you know where they live.
And it is even better when they come in pairs, voluntarily, holding hands. (Unarmed of course)
Cook, let me just respond to your first two sentences, but PLEASE PAY ATTENTION! It’s a little bit complicated, but NOT THAT COMPLICATED!
1) Proposition 8 changed EVERYTHING. Gay people were able to marry before Prop 8, and were eligible for all the rights and benefits that any married people could get.
2) NOW, thanks to Prop. 8, they have to go back to “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships,” like they were stuck with before the May court decision.
3) Under civil unions / domestic partnerships, there are a whole lot of rights they’re not entitled to, as I enumerate in my post.
4) That’s largely because of the 1996 law signed by Bill Clinton, known as Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, which specified that civil unions don’t give many of the same rights as marriage. (DOMA didn’t say anything about gay or straight, just civil unions vs. marriage.)
Are you following so far, Cook?
There were/are two ways to allow same-sex couples to have the same rights as us: Allow them to marry (which meant NOT passing Prop 8 ) OR repeal DOMA so that civil unions confer the same rights as marriage.
I don’t want to argue about any of your other points until I’m sure you understand all that! Some of you people are driving me crazy. Mary should be agreeing with me about DOMA, and so should you, I know you agree about equal rights. I have no idea where Larry’s coming from.
(The only thing I’ll say about your paragraphs 3-6, which I know is an argument you keep making, is that WE are not trying to make gays “a distinct breed of people,” we are trying to give them the same exact rights as the rest of us, the right to marry whomever they love. But please don’t start arguing about that again until I’m sure you understand the other stuff.)
PS I just realized that Larry may really be confused, not just purposely obtuse, since it turns out his folks had sometimes been nicknaming Prop 8 itself “the Defense of Marriage Act.” So he may have just glanced at my title and thought I was talking about repealing Prop 8. I don’t know why I lose sleep over what goes thru the heads of guys like Larry, it’s probably just all a game to him anyway. Just always trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt I guess. Some day I’ll get over it.
Vern. From one activist to another I do commend you for your persistence.
Confused. No. Under the weather, Yes.
Well OK then, brother Larry. Get better, and then when you feel OK, let me know if you agree about repealing the 1996 DOMA. Remember, I’m NOT talking about Prop 8 or gay marriage.
“1) Proposition 8 changed EVERYTHING. Gay people were able to marry before Prop 8, and were eligible for all the rights and benefits that any married people could get.”
No they weren’t, California did not change one federal law, like DOMA.
Cook-Giles post of way back had a link to everything gays are not intiled to even being Married in Caliofrnia. So 8 changed very little.
Cook –
‘No they weren’t, California did not change one federal law, like DOMA.‘
So what you’re saying is that it’s OK for the federal government to violate states’ rights as long as you agree with the issue in question.
SMS
COOK just is NOT understanding, let me try again!
First of all the Cook-Giles link was to rights gays don’t have under civil unions, without being allowed to marry.
DOMA, the federal law, limits the rights you have with civil unions.
Before Prop 8, gays were allowed to marry here. You do know that, right?
So between last May, and the time Prop 8 passed, they were entitled to get married and enjoy all the rights married people enjoyed. DOMA didn’t hurt them because they were MARRIED. I don’t know how many different ways I can phrase this! I don’t want to give up on you because you SAY you believe in equality…
Marriage is misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misrepresented and the legal community have all failed us in missing the mark. All who advocate marriage have failed in clarifying for the general good exactly what constitutes legal and illegal marriage. Although we have thousands of years of judicial precedent starting with Adam and Eve. Marriage between a man and women has legal precedent and same sex marriage does not.