That referendum on marriage.....
Some people on the left think marriage an issue worthy of debate. Beyond marriage had a full page add in the NYT. Here's their exec summary.
Check the signatures. They're not insignificant people.
They still call conservatives bigots but at least have the courtesy of explaining what they want. They deserve considerable review,debate.... and a referendum.
Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:
· Single parent households
· Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)
· Blended and extended families
· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents
· Adult children living with and caring for their parents
· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives
· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers
· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
· Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS.
The current debate over marriage, same-sex and otherwise, ignores the needs and desires of so many in a nation where household diversity is the demographic norm. We seek to reframe this debate. Our call speaks to the widespread hunger for authentic and just community in ways that are both pragmatic and visionary. It follows in the best tradition of the progressive LGBT movement, which invented alternative legal statuses such as domestic partnership and reciprocal beneficiary. We seek to build on these historic accomplishments by continuing to diversify and democratize partnership and household recognition. We advocate the expansion of existing legal statuses, social services and benefits to support the needs of all our households.
7 comments:
Unfortunately, the IFI referendum was not about the issues raised in the NYT ads. The IFI referendum was all about excluding one type of social unit -- gay couples in a long-term relationship that looks like marriage -- from the protection of the laws.
The entire campaign to put the IFI referendum on the ballot was about gay-bashing, not about the broader issues of how we should recognize diverse social units.
How does it protect marriage?
Marriage has become ajoke in many ways as regular folks acted like the hollywood types getting married,divorced,and married again and again.
What happen to death due us part?
If you want to protect marriage,make it hard for a man and a woman to get married or divorced.
Many male/female couples do not really respect the concept of marriage. Just look at the divorce rate and remarriage numbers. Too many couples want to act like Liz Taylor and husband of the year plan.
If a couple ( no matter opposite sex or same sex ) love each other and have a true bond; then give them a right to a civil union.
Allow the churchs to control their beliefs.
The world needs more love now more than ever.
Did you all hear that Protect Marriage Illinois Director David Smith received a "promotion" as leader of the Illinois Family Institute as Peter LaBarbera is regrouping Americans for Truth.
Yes -- someone e-mailed me to say that it was as if they shipwrecked the S.S. Minnow, through the Skipper overboard, and put Gilligan in charge.
The entire campaign to put the IFI referendum on the ballot was about gay-bashing, not about the broader issues of how we should recognize diverse social units.
Where was the bashing part in the referendum?
And why didn't Illinois activist respond by raising the broader issues?
Instead of telling everyone who was for the referendum that they were bigots and then lobbying to have it pulled.
I think IFI's arguement was not bashing, but that it would lead to exactly what Beyond Marriage is purposing.
If that's the case, why not argue it out publically, and weigh the issues?
Instead of pushing it all back into the closets?
Bill,
A referendum raising the issues in the NYT article would be phrased differently -- it would be about exclusion rather than inclusion. The IFI referendum was about excluding a social unit -- gay couples -- from even asking for marriage rights.
As for why Illinois activists didn't respond by raising other issues: the referendum did not have enough signatures. Why waste time and effort on something that doesn't even meet that threshhold?
Besides, I think you'll see a renewed push for some sort of legislatively sanctioned civil union within a few years. That's where the broader debate on what social units deserve recognition from the government.
As for your prediction that the IFI's referendum would lead to a broader debate: it hasn't in any other state. The exclusion of gay couples from the civil privileges of marriage has always degenerated into a special rights vs. equal rights or if-we-open-marriage-to-gays-polygamy-and-bestiality-will-be-next argument.
Just a couple of examples from the press section of the IFI website: There's the guy in Maryland who said that the laws shouls not be changed to create special protections for people "of sexual deviancy." There's an article that concludes that "this isn't about race, this isn't about religion, it's about sexual behavior." Or another press release that includes, "The homosexual activists' name-calling is another sign that they have no compelling arguments as to why America should discard thousands of years of human history by radically redefining marriage to accommodate men who have sex with men, and women who have sex with woman. Creating counterfeit "marriage" is not a civil right, but it is a moral wrong."
Yeah, IFI wanted the referendum to discuss how to recognize diverse units of society that serve the function of family. < / snark >
Dyslexia strikes -- in the first sentence I meant, "it would be about inclusion rather than exclusion."
And now I see a bunch of other typos, for which I apologize.
Post a Comment