tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774131.post5411498179994079193..comments2023-06-24T11:57:48.459-04:00Comments on larrylivermore.com: MilkLarry Livermorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11948659387575597910noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774131.post-26338088803938831382008-12-31T04:43:00.000-05:002008-12-31T04:43:00.000-05:00Yeah, marriage is truly an odd beast. Personally, ...Yeah, marriage is truly an odd beast. Personally, I'd like nothing more than to hand it back wholesale to the churches and see secular civil unions for everyone that cares to have one (gay, straight, whatever the hell). And yes, I can see how this whole argument over the semantics of gay partnerships might seem - and, in fact, is - merely symbolic on the surface. The problem is that by refusing gays the right to civil marriage in this day and age, our government fosters the idea of gay people as "less-than" straight rather than merely "different from", and in doing so, perpetuates other more serious slights against them (in the workplace, the housing market, schools...)<BR/><BR/>And while I'm actually very much a pragmatist - in no way do I expect Obama to make The Gays his top priority - I would certainly like for him to take an *honest* position (I would hope, in favor of) gay rights rather than being endlessly evasive and trying to placate people on both sides...as much as doing just that can sometimes be the bulk of what politics is all about, it's also very much about leadership and deal-brokering, both of which entail conflict as well as diplomacy.<BR/><BR/>I won't say it's without some risk, but I don't think Obama has anywhere near as much to lose as Clinton did in 1993 by taking on some gay rights issues. I guess I'm just not convinced that this has to be an instance of *either* gay marriage *or* something else. We'll see...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774131.post-88798270949669250102008-12-30T16:40:00.000-05:002008-12-30T16:40:00.000-05:00I don't know that marriage, which is actually a hy...I don't know that marriage, which is actually a hybridized institution originally created by the church and given greater legitimacy by the state is actually a "civil right" as the term is commonly understood, though of course the concept is constantly redefined. Allowing women to own property or vote was once considered downright bizarre, too.<BR/><BR/>That being said, I fail to see how civil unions that confer the same protections and privileges as marriage would be depriving gay citizens of any meaningful rights other than perhaps some nebulous value arising from being able to say, "I'm the same as Mr. and Mrs. Mormon across the street." In other words, it strikes me as pure symbolism, a feelgood gesture that is hardly worth jeopardizing the new administration's ability to enact many far more important legislative and structural changes.<BR/><BR/>If you had to choose, for example, between Clinton attempting to open up the military to openly gay people and getting his national health care program passed, which would you choose? Oh, you might protest, but I shouldn't have to choose, I want both of those things and I want them NOW. Understandable, but in politics and real life, we sometimes do have to choose, and Clinton's bullheadedness about the gays-in-the-military issue was at least part of the reason we ended up getting neither. I'm trusting Obama to be smarter than that.Larry Livermorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11948659387575597910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774131.post-71819391031166821152008-12-30T16:05:00.000-05:002008-12-30T16:05:00.000-05:00So, just because a whole bunch of bigoted American...So, just because a whole bunch of bigoted American voters aren't "ready" for gay marriage, gay taxpayers should settle for separate but equal until such time as the neocons die off? I think not. There's precedent for not depriving minorities of their civil rights in this country, which is why Prop 8 is back in the courts and why California AG Jerry Brown (who, as part of his job, is supposed to defend Prop 8 now that it's law) has come out publicly in favor of it being repealed.<BR/><BR/>Waiting around endlessly for consensus rather than taking a stand and working for what's right is exactly the kind of flaccid centrism that progressives rightly fear the Obama administration will default to. Obama has little to lose by working with gay Americans to insure their full civil rights now that he's been elected...if he doesn't, well, I don't know about you, but I have no respect for members of one minority who snub others, whatever their rationalization may be. Is everyone so happy to be rid of Bush that they'll be content if Obama turns out to be a "Republicrat"? I freakin' hope not.<BR/><BR/>BTW, very nice article on Milk...it was nice to see Van Sant stay away from self-indulgence and just tell a good story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com