Logan Darklighter Wrote:Quote:[b]robkelk wrote:[/b]
Quote:Logan Darklighter wrote:
When what they should be doing is going after specific rights.
Which is exactly what's happening. The right in question is the right to get married.
I apologize for not being more clear. I meant specific rights that we normally think of as encompassed by marriage, such as - in the case of the above news story, the right of hospital visitation.
In other words, what I'm suggesting is fight for and achieve each specific right until achieving the goal of gay marriage does not seem so much a radical redefinition so much as a fait accompli. Does that make more sense?
Ah - now I see where you're coming from. That's the wrong approach - nobody should have to fight every inch for a right that somebody else in the same community takes for granted.
We had this debate in Canada a decade ago. Here are a few quotes from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/ ... 31376.html]the February 2005 Canadian Department of Justice press release about the matter, issued just as the relevant legislation went to Parliament:
"The Government cannot, and should not, pick and choose whose rights they will defend and whose rights they will ignore. If the fundamental rights of one minority can be denied, so potentially can those of others."
"Many Canadians support legal recognition for same-sex unions, but want to call them something other than marriage, such as civil union. Civil union is a separate institution from civil marriage, does not respect the right of same-sex couples to equality without discrimination and is in breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
"The bill also recognizes that freedom of religion is already fully protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in its recent decision. That is why its title speaks of civil marriage. Religions will continue to make their own decisions about this question."
Assuming one replaces "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" with "Bill of Rights", does any of that not apply to the beliefs held by the citizens of the United States?
This is a solved problem. The only people who insist it's still an issue that needs further study are the homophobes and the people with a vested interest in keeping the current inequities in place. Phobias can be corrected with education and patience. As for the vested interests ... didn't you folks fight a civil war because some people wanted to keep being rich by refusing other people their rights?
(Yes, that's an inflammatory statement – made on purpose.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012