Why the majority of those in favor of traditional marriage also support equal rights for domestic partnerships. Read more at www.GarrettMyler.com
Why the majority of those in favor of traditional marriage also support equal rights for domestic partnerships. Read more at www.GarrettMyler.com
November 28th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Would you want to have a “domestic partnership” instead of a marriage? If they are really equivalent under the law, you would have no issue with having a domestic partnership. But it’s pretty clear that they are not equivalent. As long as there exists a difference in name, it encourages discrimination. What prevents an employer from distinguishing between the two? Everyone already knows what a marriage is, but we must re-educate everyone to know what a domestic partnership is.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Moreover, what is the real purpose of distinguishing between the two if they both offer exactly the same rights and benefits? The only possible answer is because people still want to view domestic partnerships as somehow lesser than marriage.
Also, your contention that people against same-sex marriage generally have no problem with domestic partnerships is complete crap. Just look at the narrow margin by which Ref. 71 passed, or the many states that forbid any kind of marriage-like union.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Finally, how would you suggest we go about getting domestic partnerships recognized by all states and the national government? It would be an incredibly hard battle, considering all the different names they’ve given the union in different states. It’s a lot easier to ask for marriage in every state because every state already has marriage contracts & everyone knows what a marriage is. Plus, as Ref. 71 showed, people are only marginally more likely to vote for domestic partnerships anyway.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Seems like your straining to get around that pesky democracy thing. If you want to re-define “marriage” via democracy…put it on the ballot (again). But doing it ethically means abandoning the “equal rights” lie & acknowledging the “separate but equal” argument is bunk.
You make a decent point in regards to the # of people in WA who voted to “reject” 71. I still believe that the majority of us are fine with domestic partnership rights. Others just aren’t educated enough…hence the vid.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I don’t see how putting marriage up for a vote again would require abandoning an equal rights argument or saying that separate but equal is not equal. Both of these things are true. There is an equal protection argument to be made, similar to the one that was made in Loving v. Virginia. There is also a separate but equal argument, because people already look at civil unions/domestic partnerships as lesser than marriage. That’s the whole point of their existence.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Prop 8 is being taken to a federal district court in about a month.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:49 am
no i already told you that there is no equal protection argument to be made because
the same court in Loving v Virginia distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage in Baker v. Nelson
also, they are not of equal value in the first place because it is biologically impossible for same sex couples to procreate and rear children NATURALLY, so i don’t see how the separate but equal argument is relevant in this issue
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:31 am
thats a lie, ken. regardless of whatever was distinguished in the case, gay marriage was not deemed incompatible with the constitution. so of course there is an equal protection argument to be made. unless the constitution is amended, you will have that fact to contend with. secondly, procreation has nothing to do with marriage. people can procreate outside of marriage and they can be married without ever intending to procreate. one has nothing to do with the other.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Sigh… just because the supreme court looked at it once and threw it out, doesn’t mean the argument is entirely invalid. The courts in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, Lewis v. Harris, In re Marriage Cases, and Varnum v. Brien all agreed that an equal protection argument IS valid. So clearly there is SOME case to be made.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Also, it is nowhere near obvious that marriage has much to do with procreation at all. Millions of married couples choose not procreate. Millions of unwed couples can procreate. The act of procreation does not require a marriage. Infertile and elderly couples are allowed to wed. There is no edict in marriage requiring a couple to procreate. Gay couples are equally situated with respect to the benefits marriage grants, that is, we may receive EVERY single benefit given by marriage.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Would actively denying gay couples marriage licenses somehow encourage them to get married to the opposite sex and procreate? No, that’s fairly unlikely. So what is the actual purpose of denying gay couples marriage licenses? The answer is there is no important governmental objective involved, and hence no reason for denial.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:38 am
I appreciate the thought & research from both sides in this respectful discussion.
“No important governmental objective involved”? I’d say defending democracy is a pretty big governmental objective. It’s simple really. Gays should be treated equally under the law. But as I clearly mention in the video, THE PEOPLE’S desire to distinguish different things with different names is not unconstitutional.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
The people do not, and should not, have a right to discriminate against a group of people who are protected under the equal protection clause of the constitution. This is one of the reasons we have a constitution in the first place, to protect rights of minorities from the majority.
Naming things differently creates an inherent inequality. It opens the door for people to not only view them differently, but also treat them differently.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!
In CA & WA gays have “equal protection” under the law. “Naming things differently creates an inherent inequality”? Take a good hard objective look at what you just said. I suppose we should all start calling blacks “white” & women “men” because otherwise it creates a “second class” citizen & people are prone to think they’re different. Since when was being “different” so horrible? Besides, regardless of the law, you’ll never be able to control perception.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Besides, if a “2nd rate” citizen exists under the law, it’s the result of racists judges like Sonia Sotomayor & affirmative action.
A firefighter has a harder time getting hired & promoted because he was born a white male. I’m sure since you’re all about equality you’re just as passionately fighting against that injustice right?
Plus, how dare firefighters be called something different than cops. Gangs nationwide view & treat cops differently. Equality demands they both be called firefighters!
December 5th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Ok, I wrote that paragraph in haste. Clearly, calling black people black and gay people gay is not discrimination.
But when you create a set of rights for one person and name it one thing and another set of rights for different people and name it differently, that can create inequality.
Sending you a message to describe what I mean in more detail.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:25 am
Garrett,
Nearly every single person I sent this video to (without any comment from myself) independently told me that they’re convinced that you’re a latent homosexual. Why is that?
December 16th, 2009 at 4:59 am
Haha. I don’t know…maybe it’s the way I look…the way I talk…maybe my body language? Ask my girlfriend. You know what….maybe everyone who passionately supports traditional family values are secretly gay. haha…yeah, that’s probably it.
Scott, you’re ad hominem attacks only illustrate your lack for a logical & rational response to the points I make….leaving you with nothing but a pathetic (not to mention rude) attempt to distract from the real arguments. Chill bro…seriously.