Washington's "everything but marriage" bill

[scrappy]

Today Washington's state legislature passed the "everything but marriage" bill. This is exactly what I support. It’s the fairest of all solutions for legalizing same-sex domestic partnerships. And it preserves the titular treasure that many heterosexuals hold so dearly. Now everybody’s happy in Washington state, where we all respect the rights of everyone.

 

Why isn’t Washington’s new law a model of things to come for the remaining 45 states that still prohibit same-sex civil unions?

[john5746]

From the article you linked:

 

Opponents said the measure will have a detrimental effect on traditional marriage.

 

"We cannot elevate the legal standing of domestic partnerships to equate with marriage and not have profound impact on the status of marriage in this state," said Rep. Jay Rodne, R-Snoqualmie.

 

So, some people still think it is an attack on marriage and I am sure some people think calling it something different is wrong as well.

[Dak]

so... domestic partnership is marriage in all but name?

 

pretty much every single argument against gay marriage is still 'valid' then (well... of the same validity as before, at any rate).

[Mokele]

The problem is that even with the other states, there still needs to be federal recognition. For instance, one does not have to testify against one's spouse in court, but you can clearly see how, for a gay couple, state vs. federal court could make a HUGE difference.

[Mr Skeptic]

so... domestic partnership is marriage in all but name?

 

pretty much every single argument against gay marriage is still 'valid' then (well... of the same validity as before, at any rate).

 

Well, I always thought that the definition of marriage was the best argument against gay marriage. This does away with that by not calling it marriage.

[Kyrisch]

I've seen the argued back and forth, left and right, and I've come to the conclusion that it's between two unalterable opinions. Either you evaluate homosexual relationships as equal in validity and quality as heterosexual relationships, or you don't. If you see them as equal, you have no problem with gay marriage. If you (as many do) view homosexual relationships as inferior to heterosexual ones, then it is only rational that you require that there be something 'higher' that is exclusively for heterosexuals, e.g. the 'titular treasure' of marriage. But this only makes sense if you take are of the opinion that gay couples are degenerate.

 

So let me ask you this direct question, Scrappy. Do you view straight couples and gay couples on even ground? If so, then why shouldn't they be afforded equal rights? And if not, what rationale might you possibly have?

[Dudde]

I grew up in Washington state for almost 20 years, I'm glad to see they're taking steps in the right direction - I still think its stupid that people are so offended, and even more so that they're offended by thinking of them as 'marriages' - but the progress is sweet.

 

Personally, it's probably too early to start another Same Sex marriage thread though

[scrappy]

So let me ask you this direct question, Scrappy. Do you view straight couples and gay couples on even ground? If so, then why shouldn't they be afforded equal rights? And if not, what rationale might you possibly have?

Depends on what you mean by "even ground." I regard Washington's new "everything but marriage" law as providing "even ground" for straights and gays in the category of domestic partnerships. Is the principle of "separate but equal" invoked by Washington's new law? That's purely a matter of opinion. My opinion is negative, other's may be different. But as far as all relevant legalities go—and as far as all domestic partnerships go—gays and straights are now on "even ground" in the Evergreen State.

[iNow]

Today Washington's state legislature passed the "everything but marriage" bill.[/url] This is exactly what I support. It’s the fairest of all solutions for legalizing same-sex domestic partnerships.

 

Actually, no. It's not fair, at all. It's discriminatory. It forces same sex couples to be called differently for no legitimate, relevant, secular reason. It's only "fair" to those people too myopic to realize that there's no difference between two people of different sex sharing their life together and two people of same sex sharing their life together.

 

It's about as "fair" as saying that black people can have all of the same rights as white people as long as we call them negroes.

 

 

The reason it's not "fair" is because these are marriages, and calling them by any other name is the same "separate, but equal" silliness we long ago learned is not "equal" at all.

 

 

However, you know that already. This is like the seventh thread on this topic in which you've participated. Is your goal to get this one locked, as well?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Personally, it's probably too early to start another Same Sex marriage thread though

Somebody give that man a prize!

[jackson33]

Actually, no.

 

It's about as "fair" as saying that black people can have all of the same rights as white people as long as we call them negroes.

 

Actually it's yes...Black people or any ethnic group still have the same rights, under the laws to carry on any style relationship they prefer....You really need to get off this Black People vs. Same Sex....or start using White people in my opinion.

[iNow]

Since when is it wrong to argue on principle, and to stand up for what's "right" instead of what's "popular?"

 

 

It's not right to name them differently since the only reason provided for doing so are the personal distastes and icky feelings of a group of people. There is no harm caused by calling them by the same name as others, only self-inflicted psychological harm created by those with delicate sensibilities and archaic mindsets.

 

It's that simple, and my viewpoint will be the one which stands the test of time on this issue, and on others like it. Case closed.

 

 

Also, Jackson... If you're going to edit my posts to layer sentences together in a way I did not write them, I'd greatly appreciate if you'd acknowledge doing so. I usually use this <...> to note when I've removed a persons text. Thanks for your future compliance on this.

[Mr Skeptic]

Actually, no. It's not fair, at all. It's discriminatory. It forces same sex couples to be called differently for no legitimate, relevant, secular reason. It's only "fair" to those people too myopic to realize that there's no difference between two people of different sex sharing their life together and two people of same sex sharing their life together.

 

Uh, there are differences. Maybe you're too myopic to realize that.

[iNow]

Uh, there are differences. Maybe you're too myopic to realize that.

 

Explain, and please recall that I used the qualifiers legitimate, relevant, and secular.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's only "fair" to those people too myopic to realize that there's no difference between two people of different sex sharing their life together and two people of same sex sharing their life together.

 

Explain, and please recall that I used the qualifiers legitimate, relevant, and secular.

 

Looks to me like you also said it without said qualifiers. In any case, its generally frowned upon to make blanket statements without backing them up, and then demand that anyone who disagrees with you disprove you rather than supporting your own statement.

[Sayonara]

The next few posts are going to decide whether or not we are going to have a moratorium on same-sex marriage threads.

[iNow]

Looks to me like you also said it without said qualifiers.

 

Okay. Parse it however you'd like. Would you at least be willing to articulate which differences you find relevant so we can discuss those in detail?

[john5746]

I saw New York's governor on CNN. He is proposing a same-sex marriage bill. When asked why he isn't trying the domestic union route, he said that it has been in the works for years and has proven too difficult. Wonder why Washington is able to do what New York cannot?

[Mr Skeptic]

Okay. Parse it however you'd like. Would you at least be willing to articulate which differences you find relevant so we can discuss those in detail?

 

One difference: everyone agrees that opposite sex unions can be marriages, but a lot of people don't agree that same sex unions can be marriages. If it were the case that same sex unions can't be marriages, then that is more than enough to disprove what you said. Therefore for you to be able to state conclusively that there is no difference between same sex "marriages" and opposite sex marriages, you must be able to show that same sex unions can be marriages. If you can't, then you must relegate said statement to simply your opinion.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The next few posts are going to decide whether or not we are going to have a moratorium on same-sex marriage threads.

 

How about a moratorium on intolerance and arrogance?

[iNow]

If it were the case that same sex unions can't be marriages, then that is more than enough to disprove what you said. Therefore for you to be able to state conclusively that there is no difference between same sex "marriages" and opposite sex marriages, you must be able to show that same sex unions can be marriages.

Which is why I used the qualifiers... the ones you ignored. Okay. Righto. This is going nowhere fast. I'm done here. I thought my point was quite clear. My fault entirely if it was not. I can't believe I was being so arrogant and intolerant.

[Kyrisch]

Depends on what you mean by "even ground." I regard Washington's new "everything but marriage" law as providing "even ground" for straights and gays in the category of domestic partnerships. Is the principle of "separate but equal" invoked by Washington's new law? That's purely a matter of opinion. My opinion is negative, other's may be different. But as far as all relevant legalities go—and as far as all domestic partnerships go—gays and straights are now on "even ground" in the Evergreen State.

 

I asked you a direct question. Do you think that homosexual and heterosexual couples are equally legitimate?

[Mr Skeptic]

Which is why I used the qualifiers... the ones you ignored. Okay. Righto. This is going nowhere fast. I'm done here. I thought my point was quite clear. My fault entirely if it was not. I can't believe I was being so arrogant and intolerant.

 

It's going nowhere fast because once again, you state something and blatantly refuse to support it. As for your qualifiers, feel free to show how a definition of marriage is not legitimate, not relevant, or not secular. Just because you can't support your point doesn't mean that you need to storm out of the discussion.

 

I don't see why you should be entitled to state your opinion as a fact.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Mr Skeptic

[Dak]

Actually, no. It's not fair, at all. It's discriminatory. It forces same sex couples to be called differently for no legitimate, relevant, secular reason.

 

So? While it is, technically, discriminatory (by definition), in a world where lezbians are 'correctively raped', gay men are beaten to death, and just 30 years ago it was a prison-able offence to be gay, having to use a longer, more cumbersome name for their marriage should be an easily tolerable discrimination.

 

Anyway, there's no actual law stating that you can't call it marriage. imo, best bet now is not to force anything on anyone, just let peoples' natural lazyness lead them to abandon 'domestic partnership' in favour of 'marriage'.

 

It's only "fair" to those people too myopic to realize that there's no difference between two people of different sex sharing their life together and two people of same sex sharing their life together.

 

Of whom there are a lot. Let them have their semantics, that they may pretend it's not happening, Espescially if it helps things actually progress.

 

It's about as "fair" as saying that black people can have all of the same rights as white people as long as we call them negroes.

 

Sounds fair to me. Black people get what they want (equal rights), whilst other people get the edge taken off of it by calling it a different name. Everybody wins.

 

Why should the needs of gay people be prioritized over those of bigots? Or vice-a-versa? This way, some homosexuals have to be slightly annoyed at the different name, whilst some heterosexuals have to be slightly annoyed at the fact that it's now a bit harder to pretend homosexuals don't exist; it seems to be the absolute minimum overall annoyance, which would, by definition, be 'fair'.

 

Unless you want to prioritize the gay people over the whiney faggots, and set everything up for them? Why, if everyone's equal, would you do that? Surely, in the interests of not being hypocrites, we must accept that the whiney faggots are real people too even tho we don't like them and think that they should be shot, and that they have equal expectations to have the country set up in their benifit, and with a right to expect slight concessions from other people if it makes them much happier? (genuine question)

[iNow]

...having to use a longer, more cumbersome name for their marriage should be an easily tolerable discrimination.

Well, my basic argument is that there's no such thing as "tolerable" discrimination. It's really that simple.

 

I agree with you that having rights is better than not having rights, however, where I stand firm is in the fact that discrimination itself, in any form it comes, must be struck down. I am defining discrimination as the differential treatment of people for no legitimate, relevant, or secular purpose. Sometimes differential treatment is appropriate, but it must be justified and to protect some greater good.

 

That is NOT the case here, and I would even argue (as I have in the past) that the "greater good" is actively being suppressed by such discriminatory practices and differential treatment.

 

 

Why should the needs of gay people be prioritized over those of bigots? Or vice-a-versa? This way, some homosexuals have to be slightly annoyed at the different name, whilst some heterosexuals have to be slightly annoyed at the fact that it's now a bit harder to pretend homosexuals don't exist; it seems to be the absolute minimum overall annoyance, which would, by definition, be 'fair'.

Why settle for anything less than actual equality?

 

 

 

Many of you may have heard of the term "conversational intolerance." It was made popular by Sam Harris, who is known for his books "Letter to a Christian Nation" and "The End of Faith." Harris is what most consider an "atheist," yet he himself never thought of himself using that term until his book came out and people collectively identified him as such. Harris considers himself a rationalist, somebody who fights for reason and critical thinking, which is much more descriptive than the "non-label" of atheist.

 

With that context set, Harris made popular the term "conversational intolerance," and it's something that I myself practice regularly when topics discuss things like "bans of same sex marriage are okay" or "intelligent design is the best explanation" or "evolution is silly" or any of the other ridiculous claims that we (as an intelligent and learned bunch) should simply NOT TOLERATE.

 

 

I don't tolerate that "some discrimination" is okay, and I don't think I ever will. I will continue to stand up for this principle until either a) I die, or b) the rest of the world wakes up and gets on the same page.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversational_intolerance#Conversational_intolerance

Harris acknowledges that he advocates a benign, corrective form of intolerance, distinguishing it from historic religious persecution. He promotes a conversational intolerance, in which personal convictions are scaled against evidence, and where intellectual honesty is demanded equally in religious views and non-religious views. He also argues for the need to counter inhibitions that prevent the open critique of religious ideas, beliefs, and practices under the auspices of "tolerance."

 

Harris argues that such conversation and investigation are essential to progress in every other field of knowledge. As one example, he suggests that few would require "respect" for radically differing views on physics or history; instead, he notes, societies expect and demand logical reasons and valid evidence for such claims, while those who fail to provide valid support are quickly marginalized on those topics. Thus, Harris suggests that the routine deference accorded to religious ideologies constitutes a double standard, which, following the events of September 11, 2001 attacks, has become too great a risk.

 

In the 2007 PBS interview, Harris said, "The usefulness of religion, the fact that it gives life meaning, that it makes people feel good is not an argument for the truth of any religious doctrine. It's not an argument that it's reasonable to believe that Jesus really was born of a virgin or that the Bible is the perfect word of the creator of the universe. You can only believe those things or you should be only able to believe those things if you think there are good reasons to believe those things."

 

 

 

I stand firm by my statement that there is no legitimate, relevant, nor secular reason to call same sex couples by any other name, and to do so is discriminatory and should not be accepted in an advanced culture such as ours. I further posit that any perspectives which argue FOR differential treatment are unsupported, lacking of legitimate purpose, and are thus based solely on ignorance, bigotry, and should not be tolerated.

[scrappy]

I asked you a direct question. Do you think that homosexual and heterosexual couples are equally legitimate?

YES! YES! YES! They are equally legitimate, just as Washington's new law makes them so in Washington. But that doesn't mean I agree that a same-sex domestic partnership qualifies as a "marriage." That's because I regard "marriage" and a DP between one man and one woman. Washington state got this one right!

[Dudde]

To be fair to Scrappy at this one, he has cited several times (in several threads) that he's for equal rights between same sex and hetero- marriages, just against using the term marriage.

 

I'm still more on the other side on this one, I believe discrimination of any kind is unacceptable in the world we live in today - we're a lot more different than we were even 30 years ago. However, I'm also for taking steps, as opposed to a front of changes washing over the people - I doubt that will ever happen.

 

Then again, if the GLBT community wasn't pushing anything at the rest of the country as so many people are upset about, they would be exactly where they've been, and that's just stupid. Even with the legislation granting them equal status, I think the next step should be to ask why they're letting these groups have a marriage in all but name - I don't think settling for a name anything less than what the rest of the world uses should be forced on anyone.

 

EDIT:

oh, and this

 

whilst other people get the edge taken off of it by calling it a different name. Everybody wins.

 

I don't think I'll ever to agree with however. That would be absolutely ridiculous, it's like saying as long as you submit to the fact that you agree you're inferior, we'll give you rights because we're that nice. It doesn't work that way - if one group of people get's a set of rights simply for being alive, I see no excuses for denying anyone else.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Dudde
forgot