The background on why Keith Olbermann pointed out the "African-American" issue was that Prop 8 was voted "yes" to by 70% of African-Americans that voted. I think, just playing Devil's Advocate" that he was trying to point out some sort of hypocrisy of discrimination by a group he, you and I know have been discriminated against throughout our history.

I think Prop 8 (speaking as a straight, white male, the least discriminated against segment of society) is all about equality under the eyes of the law.

Rated for bravery (cause I suspect you could get your guts handed to you if some people on Open Salon see this post), but disagree strongly.

Case study: two of my friends have been together for years. Live just like my wife and I do. Want to get married, just like we did, rings, ceremony, reception, etc. Let me emphasize, they want to be *married*, just like we are. What possible objection can we have to that, and how could it possibly affect hetero marriages in any way?

We call marriage an "institution", and when we're not being satirical, we recognize it as a generally good institution. High time to let the gays and lesbians through the front doors of the institution, just like everyone else. Let 'em love each other the same way and call it the same thing.

Also, Olbermann is going to mess himself live on TV one of these days. Needs to take a pill and quit loving himself in the mirror.

I don't care of they "marry". Heck, I like my ex's partner. Not my type but a very sweet lady.

What my ex and her partner do, what you and your wife do, or anybody else and their loved one do won't change my relationship with my wife one bit.

What I see on the news are people who are upset about the word marriage. I don't see anyone yelling about what they want out of life and their relationship with their partner. All I see is people upset that they can't use the word marriage.

BTW, rated for bravery, I like that. However, being a truck driver makes bravery easier. By the time they figure out where I am, I'll be 600 miles down the road.

Also, my ex and oldest are not my only LGBT friends.

Excuse me, but you know it isn't about just a word. It's about the level of promise it means to those who make those vows. It means respect for the level of commitment that exists in the relationship between to committed partners.

By the way, my husband's first wife, with whom he had four children, discover she was lesbian and it was very difficult for her psychologically. She died a couple of years ago, married to a woman in Oregon. At the end of her life, living authentically and married to the woman she loved, that commitment gave her great comfort.

What I have with my husband, I want anyone who wants this kind of deeply satisfying relationship to have no legal barrier to it.

Words are merely symbols and are not the things themselves.

What really matters is the level of commitment, respect, acceptance and the legal protection that is behind the words, for which the word marriage is merely symbolic. The act of marriage between other than a man and a woman, itself is what is made illegal, not the words.

Susanne,

I agree with almost everything you said. Here is the problem with your argument. It is about the words.

California already has a domestic partner law. It allows people of the same sex to have the same rights and privileges as a married couple. It's just not called marriage. Prop 8 only prevents same sex couples from having a “marriage”. It does not prevent civil unions or domestic partnership type laws which have the full effect of marriage.

I also want everyone to have a deeply meaningful relationship with their partner. But what is preventing it? A word? A law? I would suggest that if a word, law, or piece of paper from the state is what makes your relationship meaningful maybe it needs to have someone look at it.

However I don't think that is what your relationship is about. From reading your other posts I would assume that your relationships are built on trust and respect and anything the state did or does has no affect on it what so ever.

So how close am I? What is the relationship with your husband built on?

Thank you for replying.

The thing that you are saying makes sense from the perspective of someone who is unlikely to be denied equality. But, the people in the back of the bus were getting a ride too, and that's the problem really. Separate but equal is not full equality. If we create a separate distinction in the law, then we also create in the judiciary a means for interpreting the law--and that is one of the places where things will get shortchanged and difficult and sidetracked and all the things that make "this" not like "that."

One thing I forgot to say. When my husband and I got married it meant that wherever we turned in life we were completely married. There was no refuge from the commitment we had made. We boxed ourselves in. There is an ancient body of law that applies to the commitment we have made. Allowing those who make such a commitment access to that body of laws with all its rights and responsibilities is what is being denied. Marriage is an intersection of everything that life is for those who engage in it.

G.T. Randolph

You are right, I could not have said it better.

Thanks for replying.

You are right, there is an ancient body of law that is in play with marriage. Part of that body of ancient law is that marriage has the definition of a man and a woman.

Lots of things should be equal under the law but aren't. For example when my last wife left and took the kids had a judge take the bench and the first words out of his mouth were "I'm not going to give you your kids." Is that equal?

My first wife disappeared with the girls for a few years. I only found them when one of them did something at school that got posted on the schools website. A Google search turned up her name. Her state wouldn't tell me where they were.

Before somebody asks, there was no abuse of any type by anyone in the house.

So here you are taking the position that something might happen. Well things do happen, and even in marriage things are not equal.

I'm not saying change any thing other than the word. The laws that stand for marriage would also stand for (insert new word here).

I have to take a minute to complement you here. I listen to the radio 18 hours a day in my truck. I hear the news from all angles as the news provider changes with the station. I did this post because of what I didn't hear. That is anything but focus on the word. You, on the other hand, have made arguments that are based on substance no language. Thank you.

G.T.

Now that I think about your comment a little more I wonder why the protests were not against the black churches? I didn't hear about them knocking the cross out of a little old black ladies hand and stepping on it.

If 70% of African-Americans voted yes on Prop 8, why didn't they interrupt black services?

Those black churches are not the primary ones who bought the advertising or paid for the initiative. $25 M came from Mormons. That may have something to do with it, don't you think?

But it wasn't a LDS church they went after. However, I can see the LDS spending that much cash on Prop 8.

There have been some big protests outside Mormon temples. I believe the demonstrations are aimed at everyone, in the same way that antiwar protests are meant to demonstrate the breadth of the opposition to the war.

I don't understand this comment: "I would suggest that if a word, law, or piece of paper from the state is what makes your relationship meaningful maybe it needs to have someone look at it."

So if gays want to be married, they need to have someone educate them about how a law won't make their relationship meaningful - but what about heterosexual people getting married? They seem to want marriage in great numbers - often more than once. Do they need someone to 'take a look' at their suppositions about marriage as well?

I'd like to know where anyone get's the idea that the word "marriage" can or should only apply to a union between one man and one woman?

Seriously. Where is the etymological support for the idea that marriage is to be restricted to one man and one woman? I haven't found it anywhere.

Prop8 is, on its face, an attempt to deny people equal protection under the law on the basis of sexual orientation and, in California at any rate, that is illegal for the state to do.

I also rated your post because it's sparked good discussion. But I also couldn't disagree more, for all the reasons people have noted in the comments. I'll just comment myself on your fixation on the word "marriage," because I think you're using a bit of flimsy linguistic sleight-of-hand to put forward an unintentionally dishonest position on the issue of marriage equality.

You said: "You just can't change the definition of the words marriage."

The meaning of words change literally all the time--change is ongoing right now on many of the words I'm using in this post--mainly because of subconscious linguistic behavior, but also often because an influential group pushes a change in definition (slang developed by a group with lots of pop culture cred, for example). People tend to notice, care, and protest only when they have their own vested interest in what they have always known the word to mean. Or when they feel threatened by the group pushing the shift in meaning.

I think you're fooling yourself by claiming that your issue is only with the word itself and how it should properly be defined. The definition of the word marriage has actually changed dramatically over time--think of polygamy, the husband's rights of ownership over the wife (or wives), etc. Is your understanding of the word marriage--one man + one woman, each retaining full ownership over self--threatened by that knowledge of the word's history? If it's not, that's a tacit acknowledgment that word meanings change over time and in fact can change at any time--particularly when the word has a legal meaning rather than only a cultural/societal one. The current meaning need not be constrained by the previous one.

As our society changes, so does our understanding of the meaning of the word marriage, but more importantly for this discussion, so do our laws have to be altered to reflect our new understanding. You clearly have a vested interest in insisting that a marriage should continue to be defined as you have always defined it, as you thought everyone always defined it. I don't claim to know what that interest is, and I don't assume you're shielding some nasty anti-gay prejudice. But you're shielding something when you outline a position that boils down to "words mean what they mean"--in fact, words will always mean what we decide they mean, b/c they exist for our use. Admit to yourself that you are invested in and want to defend the "one man + one woman" definition of marriage for a reason. And then ferret out that reason. Then you will be taking an honest position.

First I think I'll make some 1-on-1 comments then a general comment to the group.

Susanne, I love it when you post. You have a position that is well balanced and easy for you to defend. I love that. You are able to see and reason all sides of the issues you address, and you will keep going to make sure your point is understood instead of making it and leaving.

Stellaa, I listen to Keith when I need my blood pressure raised. He is good at getting me to talk to my radio.

Sandra, I don't remember what your relationship status is, if I ever even remember seeing it. The point I was trying to make is that relationship should be special between you and somebody else. It should be for your reasons. The laws nor anything else should have a bearing on your relationship. If that piece of paper is on what your relationship is based, not mutual respect, love etc. then I think maybe there is a problem.


Lonnie, I don't think the attempt is to deny anyone anything with Prop 8. I think it was put forth by uptight, sexually repressed jerks who afraid they are going to wake up one morning and be gay.

Ms. Snitten, saved the best for last. As I sit and read your message and think back there have been different definitions of marriage. Polygamy was, in the not to distant past, a practiced form of marriage. You are totally correct.

Where you are wrong is you thinking I have a vested interest in defending one man + one woman. If you only knew how wrong you are. I would not be married now if it wasn't for my ex being the bitch she is and the fact that living together in VA and NC, the two states involved, both have laws against living together and the she used that against me during our custody hearings. We are talking about a lady who would not let my kids meet their future step-mother before the wedding or even attend the wedding.

If you want to know where I would like to be it is in polyamorous relationships without hiding the other party from the world. It's not fair to “the other” to not be 100% involved, full time. So one man/woman relationship, nope not for me. Never has been, never will be. The reason for my second divorce, on my part, is denying what would make my life whole, thinking I could live the straight life. I don't believe that any one person can be everything to any other person. They may be close, which is why relationships last, but with a 50% failure rate, maybe there is something missing.

Now for the group, and those not named.

Thank you for your replies. Some of you may have read that one of the reasons that I come here and post and read is that I don't agree with most of you and what I read. I have said that if I wanted someone to talk to that always agreed with me, I would talk to my dog more. He loves me no matter what I say. I do want to hear what others say and think. I may never agree but I will reevaluate.

While lots of people here think I'm just another closed minded conservative, let me assure you that in most of my ways I may be more liberal than most of you. This discussion we have had over the last few days has regenerated a few brain cells and memories that haven't moved in some time. And no, it's not because of better living through modern chemistry that they haven't moved. It's because there have been other issues that put them out of action to allow processing space for other things.
I will rethink this issue. While I may not come to the point where I agree with all of you I'm sure that my position will be modified.

So if you ever see me write something and you think your more right than I am, please post, debate and let me understand your point of view. I may not change my mind and maybe I'll change yours someday.

Leaving with the statement we have all heard, that a mind is like a parachute, it works better when open, is very true. I have seen some minds here that are going to allow their owner to have a sudden stop some day because they are closed. Let me assure you, and those who have deleted my replies, call me names and told me to shut up, that of all the minds here, mine is one you can change and I look forward to you trying.

Thanks again,

Harold

I still don't see how you've defended this statement: "You can still have all that and everything else that my wife and I have. What you can't do is call it marriage."

Actually, H, I don't think anyone who favored Prop8 feared "waking up...gay." They only wanted to deny certain people equal protection under the law.

Sandra, it's easy. There is nothing a gay person can or can't do that does not apply to me exactly the same way.

A gay man can marry woman, so can I. A gay man can't marry a man and neither can I. Also, I can't marry my girlfriend because I already have a wife and my wife can't marry her because women can't marry women, and she is married.

If you want to make something legal that's not them make everything legal that's not so that I won't be disenfranchised either.

The current accepted definition of marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. It is not 1 man and 2 women (like the 3 of us want it) or any combination other than 1 man and 1 woman.

Sorry, but if you want things to be equal then we want our share of equal too. Don't we deserve it?

The “what's in a name?” query cuts both ways. By that same logic, what harm is there to deny the use of the word? It's just a name, after all.

First, when viewed this way, it's easy to see how petty this is, so thank you for the metaphorical leg up. Some opponents of gay marriage really do want to keep people from visiting sick friends, from having financial support, from inheriting, etc. That's inutterably mean-spirited. But beyond that, if they lose that battle politically, their last gasp is, as you say, to deny the use of the word. If they can cling to nothing else, these people want to be able to still cling to the fact that the mere use of the word was stopped, even if none of the other more tangible things they wanted stopped. If the word meant nothing, there would be no desire to hold it back.

Words are the URLs of the so-called left brain (logic and language), just as images are URLs of the so-called right brain (images and experience). In each case, these directly access a path of neurons to a specific place in your brain where you experience the sensation of meaning. The meaning is encoded in your brain simply as connectivity to other meanings, and different connectivity does not yield the same texture of thought.

And the petty, petty thing that the anti-gay-marriage people want to deny is the right to that good feeling, as if somehow the knowledge that they are savoring something with their own husband or wife that other people don't get to have makes it sweeter. Shame on them.

The term 'marriage' is both a legal construct, which since it is a law CAN BE changed; and as a social construct governed socially by religions, churches have a say over what their members can call a marriage. That's why Catholics still have problems with divorce and a really weird set of constraints on getting an annulment. They have a right to those differences because their religious ban on divorce has no bearing on civil law.

I don't see why it must be any different when it comes to gay marriage. We, as a culture can call marriage between two human beings, regardless of chromosomes, a marriage. It is a kind of legally recognized social construct to some, a holy bargain with God for others, and none of the particulars for specific individuals makes any difference to the letter of the law. Equal protection and equal opportunity under the law should always have superior weight under our state constitutions. Archaic ideas regarding morality and superiority of what the majority of people accept are not sufficient basis to limit the full self-expression of otherwise lawful citizens.

Big kudos to you for being so open and willing to explain yourself. Because you have been so forthcoming, it's more clear than ever to me that you are invested in the 1 man + 1 woman definition of marriage, and I think you've revealed why. You don't have to WANT that kind of marriage to be invested in the definition of the word, as you're proving.

This is how I read the personal story you shared: The current, conservative understanding of the word doesn't cover the kind of relationship you want/have, either. You are settling for an established relationship that you can't legally sanctify. And you've decided, hey, c'est la vie, whatever, I'll just live my life. The majority has decided, and that's the way of the world. When you see other people who don't want to settle for that--who want to fight to legally expand the definition of marriage to include their understanding of it--it pisses you off or disgusts you or perhaps just merely tires you. What on earth is their problem, you think. I'm not jumping up and down and throwing tantrums because my version of things isn't included in the legal definition of marriage. You look down on these people for not having your same toughness, and for being unwilling to just accept reality, as any grown-up should be willing to do.

When you say that making gay marriage legal is unfair unless we legalize your idea of what would make a good marriage as well as other ideas not mentioned here, you are taking an honest position. You're defending what you genuinely care about--your own constrained freedoms. Insisting on the 1 woman + 1 man definition is just part of holding tight to the "reality" you accepted long ago, and that you think, dammit, everyone should have to accept. I think I understand you, now, but I still heartily disagree with you, because I wouldn't support legalizing "polyamorous" relationships (so going back to polygamy), though possibly someone could change my mind about that, but mostly because anyone who does support polygamy should fight the good fight or shut up. Criticizing others for fighting THEIR good fight--just because you don't want to take on your own--is unfair.

Dang Ms. Snitten you are getting close.

I am fighting. I'm keeping my mouth shut, for now. Here is my fight, and what I want and what I'm willing to give to get what I want. I use the word I instead of us because I'm the one posting and it is easier.

First, I'm not going to try to get people to change the meaning of the word marriage. As we have seen people have way to much emotional investment in the meaning of the word. Here is a point where I'm willing to lose the battle to win the war.

Next there are way more gays out there fighting than there people like the 3 of us. While every movement has it's nutballs like the gays have the sisters from SF ours are in the media living on compounds in AZ, UT, and TX getting raided by child enforcement because they want their bride to be 14 and to have 400 children.

Here is a serious question for you, and yes, I'm interested in the answer. How many gay couples do you know and how many multi-partner families do you know?

We don't have the money or people on K st fighting for our cause. We are not organized like the gay movement. So what we hope is the gays win. People assume that I don't want the gays to win but they are so wrong. Their win will get us in.

The "churches" have set up a well fortified position. They have had years to build up their defenses and are dug in really well. So how do you attack a dug in defensive position? Well you would start by sending in the bombers to soften the position of the edges (the sisters from SF). When the edges, those places that are a defense but meant to just slow down an attack are out of the way you would bring out the tanks, the heavy weights who can attack things without much damage to start punching holes in walls, the lobby arms from K Street. They get some laws changed, get some court rulings etc.

Now they have had their successes. Now you need to attack the troops inside, the ones sitting in church. The individuals. So now comes the foot soldier. This would be the couple that has shared their life together for many years or the ones just starting out, but the ones who live in main stream life that just get up in the morning and go to work.

Everybody knows about Bob and Tom or Jane and Sally but nobody cares about them. They, except for their partner, are just like everybody else in the office. Finally everybody has had their defenses broken down and they see and start to except Bob, Tom, Jane, and Sally. People start to say why not, they are just like us, so the battle is won.

But where does that leave us? We are like the troops in Iraq that are not their to fight the main battles but we are the troops that are there to rebuild the hospitals etc. Us going in first because of our size doesn't make any sense because we can't destroy or defend. We will just go in following the main soldiers in the war (gays) and do our part and be part of the victory, and get what we want in the end.

Not everybody can be Patton, but the guy who does the payroll and orders supplies is just as much a part of the war as the guy carrying the gun.

Using the term marriage, is that a battle that needs to be won to win the war? Or is it the war?

Look, I'm all for all kinds of people doing, pretty much, what ever they want. But at least lets call this what it is. As Catnlion points out there are really no legal barriers that prevent homosexuals from having any kind of relationship they choose. It is about and only about the word.
It's a propaganda tool being used by this particualr lobby seeking acceptance of a particular lifestyle.
I don't have any objection to this sort of effort but let's not pretend it's about marriage per se.
On the other side let's not pretend it's about the sanctity of marriage. Many opponents of same-sex marriage have been married more than thier fair share of times. How does this make an opposite-sex marriage more sacred.
Marriages are as easily dissolved as sugar in hot tea. Let's stop the pretense and stop using heart-tugging slogans and debate the issue.

rated

@Man Talk 's "Rated for bravery"

While we're talking about words, what is so "brave" about repeating the majority view on the need to deny basic rights to a minority?

Do you think that the liberals, progressives, and gay people on OS are going to kick his ass?

Or take away his rights to marry, or divorce, or divorce and marry again and then later get divorced or re-married whatever?

There is nothing "brave" about this post or the insistent ignornace and bigotry behind it.