ACLU Launches National Gay Marriage Campaign

[sonicx]

(New York City) The American Civil Liberties Union announced plans on Monday to launch a national Marriage Campaign to persuade Americans that it is unfair to deny legal protections to the families of same-sex couples.

The campaign will be led by Michael Mitchell, who comes to the ACLU after serving as the Executive Director of Equality Utah, that state’s lesbian and gay advocacy organization.

"Our Constitution guarantees basic fairness to all people, yet lesbian and gay couples who make lasting commitments to each other just like married couples, are denied protections for their families," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU.

"With states racing to enact amendments that will forever ban same-sex couples from getting legal protections, it is critical to show why it’s wrong to keep people from visiting their partners in the hospital or from making emergency medical decisions, and how it hurts children to be legal strangers to their parents."

more = http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/05/051605acluMarriage.htm

[FloridaPat]

1. Could it be that the real reason the repubs don't want this is because

they are so involved with gays on a personal level, that marriage might put them out of business? No boy friends to play with??

[mia]

2. This issue needs to be reframed by the ACLU

All same-sex couples who are willing to make lasting commitments to one another, even if they're not lesbian or gay, should have the same benefits given by the constitution. All should have the right to form a legal parnership (civil union) that it intended to be lasting with full rights and responsibilities.

What one does in the bedroom, or not, should be a private matter.

[countmyvote4real]

3. You clearly see the forest, BUT I think you’re missing the trees.

Many of the amendments that the states are adopting specifically deny these rights to same-sex couples. And yes, there are some amendments that are worded obscurely enough to deny basic rights to any couple that lacks a marriage certificate. Those amendments challenge the concept of common law marriage, but to my knowledge, common law exceptions have never been upheld for same sex partners.

Bottom line: I think the ACLU is right to focus on the marriage/civil union rights of same sex partners. If they opened-up their campaign beyond same-sex partners, it would just close a loop-hall for all the hetero people that have been living together without a marriage license. Gays would still be the turds of this gawd-awful period of pseudo revival.

That’s my knee-jerk reaction. But that’s my launching pad for the following…

WTF determines ultimate right from wrong? I know that we all have human foibles (sorry, I’m too lazy to use the thesaurus), but only the worst side of the human condition would manufacture a threat to decency when that threat is only perceived in mind of the beholder. (I’m not talking about you, mia.) It could only be conceived that way if there was first hand knowledge “that dare not speak its name.”

Anyway, leaps abound. Going from Wilde to Shakespeare (or MTM), I finally land upon “Me thinks you doth protest too much.” How many fucking gay Republicans have to be exposed to figure this out? There is some extreme self-loathing in this sector that doesn’t belong there or anywhere.

And now we’re back in the forest in which we started, but I’m a lonely tree.

[mia]

8. From Shakespeare to Freud

The Republicans may be on a roll.

"Me thinks you doth protest too much” --> "Reaction Formation".

Reaction Formation occurs when a person feels an urge to do or say something and then actually does or says something that is effectively the opposite of what they really want. It also appears as a defense against a feared social punishment. If I fear that I will be criticized for something, I very visibly act in a way that shows I am personally a long way from the feared position....

Example
A man who is gay has a number of conspicuous heterosexual affairs and openly criticizes gays.

http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/reaction_formation.htm


Maybe I think of any marriage as more of a vehicle for sex, and less beneficial when it comes to actual caring and lasting responsibility. That's not something that needs to be legalized by any contract if it's a real feeling. People just do what is right if they're ethical and care. Friends and family members are more likely to stand together, so why not give them the benefit of a civil union of some sort?

We all have different preferences for companionship. With equal rights we'll be a forest of trees standing tall. Let's hope we won't be competing for limited sunlight.

Let's hope that the Gay Marriage issue doesn't cloud the larger dangers at hand - again.

[countmyvote4real]

12. You make great warrants, but sunlight is light that should shine on all.

I still don’t understand how the ACLU focus on gay marriage should cloud the issue for those that aren’t interested in being equal and protected under the Constitution.

BTW, I really liked your use of “companionship.” To me, it’s an even higher form of relationship that deserves protections under the law in the instances that you aknowleged and citred.

[TaleWgnDg]

4. self-delete

[TaleWgnDg]

5. Think about it this way ---> if our states and federal . . .

.
Think about it this way ----> if our states and federal legislative bodies grant benefits and privileges (burdens and obligations) to marrieds-only, then why should America uphold those laws if marriage, itself, is withheld from all Americans? Why should America, its federal and several states, embody discriminatory laws? Why should those laws remain on the books?

In other words, there are more than 1,300 federal laws and approximately 1,200 laws from each and every state. These laws are restricted to marrieds-only. Why, then, should these laws continue if these laws remain restricted to opposite-sex couples only, when same-sex marriage is not legal?

Thus, it's not about "marriage" per se; instead, it is about the legal benefits, privileges, burdens, and obligations that married-onlys are granted in our laws when they, alone, may enter the legal civil contract of marriage.






_______________________________________________

edited to add:

"ACLU Launches Marriage Campaign to Move Americans to Treat Families of Same-Sex Couples More Fairly

"May 16, 2005

"Executive Director of Equality Utah to Lead the Charge

"NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union today announced plans to launch a national Marriage Campaign to persuade Americans that it is unfair to deny legal protections to the families of same-sex couples. The campaign will be led by Michael Mitchell, who comes to the ACLU after serving as the Executive Director of Equality Utah, that state’s lesbian and gay advocacy organization."

. . . more at http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=18250&c=23


.

[mia]

10. You make good points, and I agree with you,

but Marriage to me is only a religious ceremony. It wasn't legal without the "Marriage Certificate".

So there we are again with that word. Marriage - a Biblical term.


Bush Christianity has totally stripped the Love of God from from the faith I once knew - and they dare to do this in Christ's name.

The minions of this administration are methodically slurping the life blood out of this country, so why bow to religious terms?

What about the Separation of Church and State? Maybe that's the real issue here.

[TaleWgnDg]

13. You are confused . . . and you are muddling together . . .

.
You are confused . . . and you are muddling together . . . religious tenets with civil law. As a Family Law attorney, I've attempted -- several times in this DU thread -- to explain in laypersons' terms what is of religion and what is of law.

Try reading these posts in this DU thread: #5, #9, #11

And, as for your earlier premise in this DU thread about marriage reaching couples who are not involved in a sexual relationship, that premise does not exist in law in America. As such it has never been a part of any valid marriage in America.

Nothing I've stated is my personal opinion, instead it's a recitation of the law in America since America's inception founded in our constitution. And, separately, as founded in the Massachusetts constitution as so eloquently stated by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge (allowing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts).

.

[mia]

14. Religious tenets and civil laws are muddled together in notions of

Marriage already. I'm talking about "civil unions", of which Marriage is one form. There could be other types of civil unions that would afford couples equal rights. We just don't have names for them yet.

Thanks for your information.

[TaleWgnDg]

15. You are incorrect . . .

.
You are incorrect:

"Religious tenets and civil laws are muddled together in notions of Marriage already"

Marriage is a construct of law. Marriage is a construct of civil law. Marriage is a construct of civil laws, of criminal laws, enacted by our State legislative bodies as authorized by our federal and our state constitutions.

The muddling together of Church and State is caused by the religion-into-law people also known as the religious rightwing or the radical rightwing George Walker Bush crowd. And you have bitten into that apple.

Again, I suggest you take some time and re-read what I've posted in this DU thread in attempts to "de-muddle" your thinking. Other than that I pass on this issue.



.

[PartyPooper]

6. Whatever.

I'm a gay male in a long-term relationship with another man. I don't give a fig about marriage. What I care about is civil unions and basic rights for me and my partner of over 30 years. We are American tax payers. We don't care about "marriage" per se in a church. But, we do care about our rights under the law as a couple. Do we count?

Are our rights to be trampled under George W. Bu$h?

[TaleWgnDg]

9. Uuummm, you've got the apple on the orange tree and vice versa . . .

.
Uuummm, you've got the apple on the orange tree and vice versa . . . And, on top of all of that you are biting into the apple given to you by the religion-into-law idiots.

Lemme try to explain. As a 37-plus year Family Law practitioner, I'll try to make this as unlawyerly sounding as possible.

1.) Marriage is a civil right guaranteed in the federal constitution says a very long line of U.S. Supreme Court cases.

2.) Marriage has never been a right granted to us by any religion in America.

3.) Despite the protestations of the religion-into-law idiots, no religious institution "owns" marriage in America.

4.) Marriage is a civil legal contract. Marriage is controlled by civil laws in all the States across America. These laws are promulgated by each State's legislative bodies. And these laws, in turn, are interpreted by each State's judicial system.

5.) Who can get married? And who can marry others? These two issues are once again an issue of civil law, not "church law" or "church tenets" or "church doctrine." Our states can enact laws which control these two issues. Never in the history of America has any religion enacted any valid law that did otherwise.

6.) Each state has separately enacted approximately 1,200 laws that benefit (and burden) marrieds-only, and the federal government has also enacted approximately another 1,200 laws that benefit (and burden) marrieds-only.

7.) If, and only if, same-sex couples may partake in marriage, may they then partake of all the states and federal laws that benefit and burden married opposite-sex couples.

No, it's not about so-called "civil unions" that may vary state-to-state and be unenforceable. No, it's not about "civil unions" that will not recognize the federal laws that burden and benefit marrieds-only. No, it's not about "civil unions" that will not be recognized by any foreign country as a marriage u/ their body of laws.

Instead, it's about marriage. Civil marriage. The civil contract of marriage which is recognized in all 50 states and territories and in all foreign countries. The very same marriage -- civil marriage -- that has been granted to all of us across America since the first Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts.

Don't believe the bunk spewed by the religion-into-law crowd.

On the other hand, due to the protection of the federal constitution's religious freedom/Separation of Church and State amendment, no religion can be forced to marry couples that are against their religious tenets. In other words, even if same-sex marriage becomes the law of one or more or of all the states, no religion can be forced to marry same-sex couples. Instead, those same-sex couples may be married by another religion who wants to marry them, or a Justice of the Peace, or a judge, or another individual that their home state has granted the license to marry couples.


.

[Selatius]

7. It is ultimately an issue of equality

If two people are committed to each other and want to live a life together, why should they be discriminated against for the fact that they are of the same sex? They should be treated equally with everyone else.

It is an issue of civil rights, not moral values. One's moral values and one's rights are not affected either way if "Adam and Steve" down the street marry. Yes, if one wants, condemn homosexuality. That is one's right, but those rights end when they come into direct conflict with the rights of others.

I just don't comprehend how something so simple can become so missed. So many people bled and died to establish the separation between church and state because they did not want to repeat the mistakes of Europe in the past.

[TaleWgnDg]

11. Why? You ask why?

.
Why? You ask why? Why do so many ppl get confused and are confused about issues of Church and State? Of what is Church? And what is State?

Because the religion-into-law crowd, aka the religious rightwing George Walker Bush crowd, wants the confusion. It benefits them. It fills their coffers. It grants them their political candidates. The more muddle, the more benefit. No morals, no scruples.

God speaks to George Walker Bush, George Walker Bush speaks to God. Radical rightwingers believe it.




.