[lbo-talk] Gay marriage

[andie nachgeborenen]

Reread Brown v. Board of Education on why seperate but equal is intended to stigmatize, humiliate, denigrate, and degrade. When straights are willing to ban marriage for het couples in favor of civil unions, I'll buy your argument. I'd support that move, I'm no fan of traditional marriage, but it aint gonna happen. The prohibition on gay marriage is intended to say, and says very clearly, that gays are disgusting perverts hated by God and not entitled to the rights of white people, er, straights. The fact that civil unions functionally may recreate the legak incidents of marriage is immaterial. The legal incidents are not what is important or central here. The meaning of equal rights is what is important and the respect or lack of it accorded to alternative sexualities.

--- On Wed, 11/12/08, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:


> From: Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Gay marriage
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 8:50 PM
> At 8:27 PM -0600 12/11/08, John Thornton wrote:
> 
> > Why do you seem so unwilling to believe that civil
> unions do not equal marriage in the US?
> > A marriage license, like a drivers license, fishing
> license, or business license cannot be denied because of
> race, gender, sexual orientation, age blah,blah, blah
> 
> It isn't that I don't believe they do not equal
> marriage, I accept what Doug says about it being a social
> ritual that is important to some people. So a different word
> conveys a different impression. For the present.
> 
> I'm questioning why civil unions can't provide
> equal legal rights. If drafted to do so. Obviously
> there's still a cultural difference. But that's a
> different issue. Why not let those heterosexual couples who
> want it have their "marriage"? Its only a word.
> 
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
> 
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk