An anti-equality marriage amendment made it out of the PA Senate Judiciary committee Tuesday. It reads
“No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth.”
Obama’s whole campaign, but especially his “A More Perfect Union” speech, would seem to mandate a strong response to this effort to stamp “DISCRIMINATE” on the constitution of the state he is currently campaigning in.
Both Clinton and Obama say they support civil unions. But the “functional equivalent” phrase in the proposed PA amendment would rule out civil unions for Pennsylvanians. For people like Clinton & Obama who oppose SSM but support CUs, this amendment would seem to present quite a problem. Support it out of love of special privileges for heterosexuals, and you prevent any attempt at fair treatment for LGBTs. Oppose it because you think the door needs to be left open to CUs, and marriage equality might slip through. A tough dilemma indeed for two people who haven’t found a rational basis for their progressive form of bigotry.
“progressive form of bigotry” works for me. Excellent post.
But the “functional equivalent” phrase in the proposed PA amendment would rule out civil unions for Pennsylvanians.
<
p>There are lots of ways to make civil unions that are substantially different and do not give all of the rights of marriage, that are, in other words, not functionally equivalent. The trick is to come up with a way that makes sense, that still gives same-sex couples full equal protections, but not equal rights.
<
p>Clinton and Obama are indeed searching for a rational basis to support their positions, why not help them out?
source.
<
p>as i have in other diaries, i ask that you to back up your assertions with links to reputable sources.
Is the key word here. If something is substantially different, can it be said to be functionally equivalent? I think if they meant “functionally similar” they would have said “functionally similar” and “equivalent” means nothing less than equal. Indeed, a source says so:
<
p>so, if there is a substantial difference, it ain’t prohibited by this law. All it takes is one substantial difference.
<
p>I should charge for this.
“substantial” in a dictionary, think about what that would mean in a legal sense, and then apply your new understanding to the proposed law. In so doing, you might discover, with some effort, no doubt, the error in your logic.
<
p>And while you may think you should charge for this, I would suggest you not quit your day job.
“functionally equivalent” is the phrase in the proposed amendment. I am suggesting that civil unions with just one meaningful difference that made then NOT functionally equivalent, that made them different, not equal, would be allowed after this law is passed. It most certainly does not prohibit civil unions that are NOT functionally equal.
is your word. And I am suggesting to you that your “meaningful” or “substantial” difference would have to be of such monumental effect as to render the union as NOT “functionally equivalent” to a marriage. That is an impossibly high bar, but if you can come up with something that makes a civil union not look like the “functional equivalent” of a marriage, we’d love to hear it.
“Equivalent” isn’t the same as “similar”, it isn’t even the same as “virtually identical”. Equal is not vague, it is very precise. The CU’s would have to be declared to be “equal” to be prohibited, like New Hampshire’s are declared to be, and I think New Jersey’s, because they specifically give “all the rights [and incidents? i forget how they’re defined] of marriage”. The point of those is to be equivalent, and they are what PA is trying to stop. They make no sense, they should be called marriages if they are the same as marriage.
<
p>Yes, the difference I have in mind is of monumental effect, but is not any of the “1001 rights and benefits” that same-sex couples claim to desire, and it would allow for fully equal protections and benefits. Y’all know what it is. We have to make a promise to BMG that if we go further in this discussion, we do it in the spirit of respectful and civil dialog, and open minds. Without permission from BMG to continue this discussion, under those groundrules, I will not go further.
So what “substantial” difference would be enough to render a civil union functionally nonequivalent to a marriage?
<
p>What, exactly, are you talking about? Let’s debate this on the specifics, not the theoretically possible.
hopefully this won’t be get me in trouble. I do want to keep talking about casinos and racetracks and pastors and stuff.
<
p>the difference should be conception rights. a marriage should have the right, guaranteed in principle, conceptually and in practice, to sexually reproduce itself using its genes. A civil union should not have that right, it should be for couples that are prohibited from conceiving of children together, like siblings, children, uncles and neices, and people of the same sex. As you know, lightiris, I can go on and on making sure I get every point covered and can’t be convinced I’m wrong, just as you won’t be.
<
p>Let’s try not to go on that old trip and stay on the subject at hand: would such a difference be enough to make civil unions acceptable in PA? Does it make them not “functionally equivalent” if they do not guarantee the couple the right to conceive children together? Yes, especially if we also explicitly protect as a right of marriage the right to conceive children together with the couple’s own genes.
Are you saying that you believe that conceiving genetically-related children is a right of heterosexual marriage that has not been protected and so must now be explicitly protected?
<
p>What about hetero couples who are infertile, or choose not to conceive? What about married couples who adopt? Elderly couples who marry late in life? What about two lesbians who conceive a child using family genetic material from both persons (say the egg from one woman and the sperm of a brother or cousin of the other) – would you prohibit adoption by the non-birth (though genetically related) parent to establish co-parenting, because it would establish functional (perhaps fundamental) rights equivalence to hetero marriage?
<
p>Thanks.
that one viable way you could make civil unions functionally nonequivalent to a marriage would be to make it illegal for same-sex couples to adopt or conceive children?
<
p>If you are, then I believe you might make a good candidate to start the Reproduction Police. Someone’s going to have monitor the couples, after all, and make sure they don’t procreate. I know! Let’s sterilize them before they take their civil union vows! And to make sure they don’t try any funny stuff, let’s just perform hysterectomies and orchiectomies (just to make sure that surrogate stuff is nipped, so to speak, in the bud) right up front. Otherwise, I don’t see how the taxpayer can possibly keep track unless we have militia-style Enforcement Units in each neighborhood. Hey! How ’bout this? We call the enforcers Mengeles? Seems like he’s an excellent role model for this kind of thing.
<
p>And as for the notion we “protect as a right of marriage the right to conceive children together with the couple’s own genes,” what does that mean for single people who currently have the right to conceive or reproduce any time they wish? In order to ensure that this “right” is exclusively available to married couples, what are we to do here?
<
p>And you’re right. This dialogue is not worth pursuing at all.
as in, “censor that! no one must know!”
I think Laurel nailed it. I understand the politics of it and the line these two have to dance all around, but there should be no trickery involved. I’m not interested in “full equal protections”; I am interested in equal rights, which I believe as a citizen of this country, and a taxpaying one at that, I am entitled to. The PA amendment is another attempt to maintain a class of citizens who are expected to contribute in full but which should only expect to receive a portion of the benefits. It’s wrong, and one day we will have a presidential candidate with the balls/ovaries to stand up and say that.
of course, Jarstar, everyone must have equal rights, that is true. That doesn’t imply that all couples are eligible for marriage. And clearly you aren’t interested in same-sex couples getting equal protections.
your train of thought here: what or which “full equal protections” versus “equal rights” do you submit could be extended to same-sex couple that would not trigger the “functional equivalent” threshold? Is there a threshold triggering number – say 200 out of 1001 rights? Do you have a hierarchy of “rights” that would value some “rights” more dearly than others – the higher value rights would trigger the threshold, the lower value rights would not?
<
p>I am not trying to be clever here, I simply don’t understand your meaning.
<
p>And sorry if I am particularly dense tonight, but what do you understand as the difference between a “right” and a “protection.”
<
p>Thanks for your thoughts.
Protections help the relationship be secure and strong and long lasting, and also help the people in it be secure and safe, whereas rights are activities that the relationship is allowed to do. Yes, protections could be said to protect rights, but that is rather redundant if a right needs to be protected by a protection. Rights are their own protection, just by being claimed as a right. And there could be said to be a right to each protection, like, there is a right to know that your spouse cannot abandon you, there is a right to inherit the house, but again i think that’s redundant, those are just considered protections, I would think.
<
p>The key idea I am suggesting is to define CU’s as “marriage minus one”, rather than defining each right or protection one at a time. I agree that if the difference was completely trivial, like not allowing joint auto insurance policies, it would not be a good faith difference and a court would probably conclude that the spirit of the law was violated. But if the difference were a universal, essential right of marriage, and something that really made a profound difference in what the couple is allowed to do compared to every married couple, then it would work. The right to mix genes together and conceive a child that is from each partner’s genes, is a perfect choice, because it is the essential and universal right of every marriage and a right that same-sex couples should not have anyhow.
<
p>Here’s a recent article published in SFGate you should read before replying, and remember, this thread is about whether that PA law would stop all CU’s.
<
p>
There is no civil law in the United States that makes marriage a requirement for procreation, or that outlaws procreation that happens outside of marriage. Unless/until you can cite such a law, you are operating in the realm of fantasy. This blog and this diary operate in the realm of reality. John Howard was banned from BMG for his refusal to cease pressing the line of fantasy you are espousing here. I think John Howard is back.
The point is that CU’s would not be allowed to conceive together. Unless you can find a marriage that isn’t allowed to conceive together, then we can take it for granted that all marriages are indeed allowed to conceive together. Please don’t waste time and blogspace diverting attention away from the point I’m making here: CU’s that are defined as just like marriage but not having a right to conceive children together would NOT be functionally equivalent to marriage. Can you agree with that?
you have made up a completely unenforceable distinction to create a “functional difference” between civil unions and marriage as a way to justify a “separate and unequal” threshold for the Pennsylvania amendment. Nice.
the same way our state cloning laws are enforceable. There are large fines and penalties for attempting to create a human person using cloning or other asexual means, and all we need to do is extend it to using genetically modified gametes that are not of a man and a woman.
I think Obama and Clinton are hoping they can both slide under the radar on this issue. I suspect they will share a moment of unity in their silence. Clinton, who touts her connections and support from the gay community, is as morally exposed on this issue as Obama. I would be surprised if they didn’t both disappoint on this issue, regardless of how well the Massachusetts experiment is proceeding (no mass exodus of hetero marrieds, no destruction of the Catholic Church, no men marrying farm animals, etc).
<
p>If someone wants to offer both Dems “cover”, some Democrat in the PA legislature should excise that “functional equivalent” phrase in question and both candidates can go back to their politically expedient but utterly nonsense and morally indefensible positions of “separate but equal”, imho.
that both candidates do the right thing. Perhaps if a member of their respective staffs did some research on marriage, they would learn that civil marriage has a far longer history than church marriage – and that it was the church that hijacked it and not the other way around, somewhere around the 10th century. I think it would go a long way to understanding what marriage has been historically, but also why it is important for the state not to discriminate against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. This is a secular governmental instrument that conveys certain rights, benefits and entitlements, and if they think waiting it’s better to wait for a culture to change, then they’re purposely ignoring the history of this country. Let the history lessons commence!
<
p>After all, gang – isn’t this whole campaign about hope? Yee haw! Thanks, Laurel for the dandy good post!
Great post, I’m with you 100% on this one.
<
p>Lets ‘hope’ that these candidates don’t succumb to the semantic posturing that has plagued this issue for too long. (and this thread for that matter)
First, I don’t think a presidential candidate should comment on a proposed state law, just like I didn’t think it appropriate to ask presidential candidates what they thought of flying the Confederate flag on the SC Capitol.
<
p>You won’t find a stronger supporter of marriage equality than myself on the merits. I also believe that this proposed amendment and similar ones in other states violate the equal protection requirement of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
<
p>However, the day either candidate comes out in favor of same-sex marriage is the day we can write that campaign’s obituary. It’s one thing to have opposed DOMA or to oppose a marriage amendment to either federal or state constitutions, but I’m convinced that coming out affirmatively for same-sex marriage is politically fatal. Even John Kerry, who several times said he believed marriage is between a man and a woman, could not convince people that he wasn’t secretly in favor of full marriage equality. Some people’s idea of logic said that since MA had equal marriage and Kerry was from MA, therefore Kerry supports same-sex marriage.
<
p>Remember folks, MA is still unique in this regard with the rest of New England making progress. Elsewhere in the country, however, this is a deal-breaker even among Democrats.
They absolutely do need to answer on state-level happenings because they both, but Clinton in particular, have been taking the “state’s rights” position regarding marriage. That is, they say that it is up to each state to decide who can marry there. That sounds all well and good, until you recognize that the implication of the approach is that they are a-ok with states actively discriminating against a class of citizens – gays. People need to think about the very serious implications of their political heroes’ stances.
<
p>I find this stance shocking and discordant from any Dem, but especially supposedly socially enlightened ones like Obama and Clinton. Somehow I don’t think either would condone states reinstating anti-miscagination laws, or preventing infertile heterosexual couples from marrying, etc. And neither wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned because that would mean that women in some states would lose choice. So if they don’t want the states rights approach for those issues, why is it ok to take that approach on LGBT civil rights? You say it is all about political expediency. Perhaps. But then they must be held accountable for the fallout from their expediency. They are a party to something very, very destructive.
Do you think there’s a case for “states rights” to take the ‘sting’ off of the idea for traditionalists? Set aside that the idea of other peoples’ marriages shouldn’t really sting anybody but for average folks who don’t really have a problem with it but are a tad socially conservative, there’s a case to be made that it could be adopted in liberal states first, moderates second, etc, let people get used to the idea and realize it doesn’t actually affect their straight marriages rather than gamble it all on a big federal push that’s likely to fail.
<
p>I mean, look at the “anti”s here in MA.. there was a bit of a backlash against gay marriage when it was first being instituted but I don’t see or envision any kind of campaign to roll it back now that it’s here. People get used to it and then it’s no big deal. In PA, for instance, I think if it was instituted in NY for 2 years, PA would be much more amenable to the idea.
<
p>Just saying.. I certainly hear where you’re coming from as far as “states rights” being garbage when it comes to fundamental individual rights but at the same time there’s some role for considering “shortest path to the goal”, too, right?
<
p>As far as PA’s law goes, while both should come out against it, seems like the battleground constituency in that state is conservative, working class dems so we have a bit of a prisoners’ dilemma. First one to come out for it will likely be punished in that demographic more than they are rewarded from demos that they already have.
yes, i do think that there is probably merit to what you’re saying. instituting equality in one state in a region gives “slower” neighbor states more time to educate themselves, get used to it, etc. it is a spacial incremental approach.
<
p>the temporal incremental approach is of course also happening in several states. that is, institute civil unions, let the electorate get used to them and then uncomfortable with the problems they cause people who have them, then move to upgrade them to civil marriages. my state, WA, is taking the most extreme incremental approach: starting with domestic partnerships that almost amounted to nothing, then expanding them each year. CA used this approach to good effect. it seems to be working in WA which is severely divided between social liberals and conservatives (the dem gov won by only about 120 vote margin in 2006!).
<
p>so yes, there can be an up side to federalism. but don’t forget that while a few states have been creating CUs, DPs and marriage, 26 states (pdf) have passed anti-equality constitutional amendments. it will be very difficult to undo most of those. in fact, like the anti-sodomy laws, i predict (in my infinite wisdom 😉 that many will stay on the books out of spite even if the supreme court strikes them down.
<
p>but i say again, constitutions should be used to insure rights, never to take them away. it is unconscionable to hide behind the states rights argument when you know that it gives cover to anti-equality activists doing perhaps irreparable damage to state constitutions – and to people’s lives.
26 states have passed anti-equality constitutional amendments. it will be very difficult to undo most of those.
<
p>And unnecessary, because those amendments don’t prohibit civil unions that are not equivalent to marriage. They could enact civil unions in those states before the summer is over, without repealing those amendments. At what point will you realize that you’re just holding up progress?
get your head out of your ass and join us in the real world? if you had bothered to look at the file i linked to, you would see that the anti-equality amendments in 18 states prohibit CUs. the only people holding up progress are people who despise the American ideals of equality before the law and personal freedoms.
They all have some working in them similar to “functionally equivalent”. Well, i haven’t looked at each one, but every one I’ve seen has that sort of wording in it, and a “marriage minus conception rights” definition would not be banned.
<
p>Do you agree that not having conception rights using the couples own genes is different from having conception rights? Do you agree that not having that right would make CU’s functionally not equivalent to marriage? This is the only acceptable way for this to end up, Laurel, because same-sex conception is a really wasteful and unethical thing to insist on. It’s crazy to insist on that right when you could trade it for nationwide equal protections virtually immediately.
just how would that come about, exactly? are you going to waive your magic wand, john howard?
Lest he procreate with another dude.
Here’s how I see it happening: First, you agree that it’s a good idea and worth pursuing, then you say so, in a new diary, here and on Pam’s House Blend and some other blogs. Then others, including the editors here and Pam there, are influenced by you to take a fresh look at the proposal, and, seeing that it indeed is the best way to get equal protections to same-sex couples nationwide right now, they too announce that they have changed their positions, and no longer demand same-sex marriage. That would send shockwaves around the blogosphere and make national news, and reach the Clinton and Obama campaigns, who are looking for a good reason to justify their CU positions. They are all in the Senate, including McCain, and could just agree that there’s no point in delaying, and pass the Compromise.
<
p>But it starts with you. I’ve done my part. What’s to lose? If it doesn’t catch on, you haven’t given up any ground, after all, we agree that without a ban on same-sex conception, same-sex couples should have equal marriage rights.
so you want me to wave the magic wand. so i guess “virtually immediately” means “i’m talking out of my ass here”.
<
p>tell you what. when you get majors (or even uber haters like brownback) in the legislature to sign onto your plan, you get back to us, ok?
It starts with you.
The Brownbacks, Bushes, etc are already on board. They already are willing to give protections to same-sex couples, they just don’t want to give marriage. They want to protect marriage and see CU’s as generally proposed as the same or as stepping stones to marriage. They need to know that marriage is protected before they can sign on to federal recognition of CU’s. They want to find a permanent solution, but your side is saying you won’t stop till you get marriage. Your side has to make a concession.
really? prove it. show us a letter or press release.
Bush, Huckabee, Romney, Guilliani, Brownback always equates “marriage and civil union” when he rejects them, so while I haven’t found a quote where he says he’s for protections, I haven’t found a quote where says he rejects protections for same-sex couples either.
<
p>Why not find out how he feels? What is the harm in making the overture?
do your homework, john. contact brownback et al. with your proposal and let us know what you hear back, if anything.
So what if there might be a few that’ll still be against it? He’s not the President, he can’t stop it. Just forget about the extremists and make the proposal for the middle 80% to agree to.
<
p>And what if I do get Brownback to say he’s not against giving same-sex couples protections? Are you saying you would move forward then? Or are you just trying to find a way to hide the fact that it is YOU keeping same-sex couples from having access to federal recognition and civil unions in other states. Of course, BMG doesn’t have to wait for you, but it’d be harder if you weren’t behind them.
you have no evidence whatsoever that even one member of Congress supports your plan. same goes for Bush. if you want me and others to buy into your scheme, you have to prove that the scheme is feasible by demonstrating that even one member of Congress (pick whoever you want) supports it. so far you’ve failed utterly. you said
did you lie when you said that? i think you did.
They’re on board for civil protections for same-sex couples that stop short of marriage. They get off the boat when you insist on marriage. Bush, Huckabee, Guilliani, McCain, and most importantly the majority of the country are on board, and Brownback is an unknown. Yes, there are some people who oppose any appearance of approval of homosexuality, but they’re generally not in Congress; they’re the ones that you like to give the microphone to, like Sally Kerns and so forth, but there aren’t that many of them, really. There are about as many of them as there are people that want to do genetic engineering and eugenics and same-sex conception, maybe ten percent at each extreme. The people in Congress and most of their constituents all want a) to preserve marriage b) to stop cloning and designer babies, and c) for same-sex couples to have protections via civil unions.
<
p>It’s true I haven’t been able to get a member of Congress, or anyone at all, actually (besides a few of my friends), to say they support this plan, but that’s because they all prefer to maintain the stalemate, like you do. They have nothing to gain from resolving the issue, or any other issue, for that matter. Unresolved issues got them elected, and they hope will get them re-elected. But same-sex couples have a lot to gain from resolving it, they can get the 1000+ benefits of marriage, they can get real protections and security for their family. That’s why it is confounding everything that you aren’t making the first move, to force the slugs into action. That’s why I am here trying to convince you, and why it doesn’t surprise me when Tony Perkins and Brian Camenker don’t return my emails. You need to be the catalyst, to get them to respond to a change in the situation. You really could accomplish this, I don’t understand why you are waiting for someone else to offer it to you, it is there for you to grab. Just stop insisting on same-sex conception rights, agree that all marriages should have conception rights but same-sex couples should not, and let’s see what happens then.
<
p>Seriously, why do you think it will be a bad thing if you did, what harm do you see coming from saying that you would take that deal? You would still be insisting on equal marriage if it is ignored or rejected, it’s only the whole package that you would be agreeing to, not one part independent of the others.
You make assertions like “they’re on board”, but you fail to back them up and even admit later that they aren’t on board.
<
p>You are a liar.
<
p>You are a deceiver.
<
p>You bear false witness.
Find me one quote from any of them that indicates they do not agree with any part of the compromise. I have found quotes from lots of major social conservatives, including the president, that indicate they support giving protections that stop short of marriage. All they need is some assurance that it won’t be a stepping stone to marriage, they need something from your side.
<
p>And I want to rephrase what I said at the end of my last comment: you don’t need to unilaterally concede marriage, you don’t need to unilaterally concede conception rights, you would only be conditionally offering to trade them IF doing so would get federal recognition for civil unions and offer a way to get uniform civil unions in all fifty states.
are we just going to go around in this circle forever? you’ve admitted that you have no support outside of a few friends. Since you have proven yourself to be a LIAR, any further assertion you make about supporters in washington needs to be backed up with hard evidence. until then, why don’t you just crawl back under that homophobic rock you live under. you are embarrassing yourself.
of the Compromise, no one returns my emails. I imagine they get strange proposals all the time and they all just get ignored, because they only react to news stories. They have nothing to be gained from pushing this. You do.
<
p>But don’t call me a liar, I haven’t claimed to have gotten anyone to endorse the compromise, what I claimed was that more than enough members of Congress and the President are already on record as supporting civil unions and giving protections to same-sex couples. It’s a tragic offense to thousands of real couples that you are not willing to try to get what they are offering those couples. Don’t expect the Republicans to go any further than they have already gone, and don’t expect them to agree to federal recognition if they’re not getting anything in return to protect marriage. If you’re going to go right on demanding marriage, and all they did was concede a stepping stone to gay marriage, then it’d be a sure way to get themselves voted out.
<
p>What is your plan to get equal protections to couples in all 50 states? I suppose it is a Supreme Court decision that imposes same-sex marriage on the whole country? What evidence do you have that the court would do that, even if it is not made more conservative by the next President? And why are you willing to risk a FMA or a Scotus decision against SSM?
<
p>Again, what do you have to lose by pushing for this? Just this argument with me, I think. You’re putting your pride before the needs of thousands of couples, of millions of people. I think you’d be seen as a hero anyhow, at least by the couples that finally got equal protections. The transhumanists won’t be happy, but you’re not one of them, you are fighting for equal protections for same-sex couples, not genetic engineering rights. Don’t fight for the wrong thing.
stop being so lame, will ya? First off, don’t pretend to know what’s best for us, or what equal rights even means. You just aren’t ‘there’ enough to grasp such difficult subjects.
<
p>Secondly, literally NO ONE is talking about ‘transhumanism’ other than you. I wouldn’t even know what it was, if it weren’t for your crazy ranting.
<
p>And, no, the President doesn’t support civil unions. The only one who’s said anything about them is Dick Cheney, who’s daughter is gay, and he’s been woeful in his defense of them. To tell you the truth, I don’t give a rats ass what the Republicans think about marriage equality in D.C. If they don’t come around on the issue, we’re going to beat them to a political pulp anyway. The younger generations are getting more and more liberal and don’t see any big deal with glbt rights, nor do any of the states that have already legalized marriage equality or civil unions. A majority of Vermont’s citizens support expanding their civil unions to full marriage equality, by the way.
<
p>The Republicans are losing this country faster and faster – and their intolerance is certainly contributing to their losses. So, no, we don’t give a crap what they think on marriage equality – because they’ll either evolve on the issue, or the GOP will go the way of the dinosaurs.
He’s big into postgenderism and same-sex conception, and there are many others like him, and you have never renounced same-sex conception. Do you want that right more than equal protections? Do you think gay couples in PA and NH and even Massachusetts want the right to attempt to conceive together more than they want equal protections? Apparently you do, though you are not very upfront about it.
One possibility is that younger generations will replace the older (and will screw up everything by watching as genetic engineering soaks up all our energy, money, resources and destroys human dignity), but another possibility is that soon same-sex procreation will be prohibited and you won’t get anything in return.
Because it’s the worst kind of straw man. It doesn’t belong in any of these discussions: it’s just never the topic at hand. Why? Because it’s not a serious issue; it’s not an issue people care about. Furthermore, it’s an issue fueled by your homophobia. Which, apparently, you may think of getting help with…
<
p>
<
p>It would be nice if you could get over your own internal issues and accept yourself, because there’s no vast conspiracy or movement. Never, in a million years, will the Earth exist without gender… so, please, stop pretending as if we need to act on this issue now. Nor are designer babies going to be a reality for at least another full century or so – and I say this as someone who’s taken a seminar entitled “Eugenics and Genetics” and written several large papers on the subject. I also say this as someone who’s mother works in fertility… so I know what can be done, how it’s done and where the technology is likely to go. The only thing that can be done now, and for the next 50-100 years at least, is fertilizing several embryos and seeing if any of them have genetic diseases like down syndrome or hemophilia, which can be deadly. That’s it.
<
p>Honestly, as long as you’re saying things like this:
<
p>
<
p>I hope you’re banned. Again. That’s so deeply offensive, I don’t even know how to describe it. It’s far worse than if I were to go off on you, throwing an F-Bomb or something. Many gay people just want to have families, not recreate the way that babies are produced, thank you very much. Most gay couples adopt, some use surrogates… that’s how it is and that’s how it will always be. The world isn’t in any danger, you’re just being completely homophobic and irrational (the two go hand in hand; you’re just especially good at illustrating that point).
sure! all ya gotta do is stop lying. and stop conflating procreation and marriage. each can, and does, happen independently and without the other. legally. and you know it. but you can’t stand it because then the “reasoning” behind your proposal falls apart. so you lie and distort. stop giving me a reason to call you a liar, and i will.
<
p>what about me calling you a homophobe? you don’t want me to stop that?
I shouldn’t have implied they were already on board the Compromise, I didn’t think you would think that’s what I meant. What I meant, and what I said in the body of the comment in question, was that most of the people that you claim would need to be convinced already have indicated that they support civil unions and legal protections for same-sex couples. I meant that it won’t be hard to convince them, because they agree to all the aspects of the compromise already, even though they have never heard of it. Unlike you, who insists that same-sex conception should remain legal. you are the one that has to make a change in order for this to happen. They don’t.
<
p>And I know procreation and marriage happen independently, duh. The point has always been, and I know you know this by now, that same-sex couples should not have a legal right to conceive children together. They should be like siblings, like a man and a 14 year old girl – they have the ability to conceive, but they should not be legally allowed to. And therefore they should not be allowed to marry.
you are John Howard, aren’t you? John Howard last posted on June 4, 2007. You (“they”) registered later that month.
<
p>you have the same writing style as John Howard.
<
p>you have not denied being John Howard the many times CMD, Ryan and I have called you John Howard. in fact, you rather winked your admission recently.
<
p>you are, in fact, John Howard, no?
<
p>(testing to see if the person not wishing to be called a liar can tell the truth)
Lurleen, Laurel, anyone else?
and you?
that you seemed so obsessed with getting someone to agree that your “compromise plan” is as transformational as you seem to believe it is.
<
p>Problem is, your “plan” is patently unenforceable without draconian action, and so creates a distinction that has no legal merit. Your “plan” is clearly discriminatory and takes away rights that lesbians and gays currently have – the right to procreate (with or without shared genetic material) in a same sex relationship. So your “plan” is being rejected by both left and right – you choose to blame this failure of your “plan” to catch on, onto the rigidity or short-sightedness of the right and the left. Meanwhile, have you considered that the right may reject your “plan” because it is unenforceable and could require the forced sterilization or forced abortion or forced adoption of non-approved, unlawful or unsanctioned LGBT conceptions ; and the left may reject your “plan” because it is illiberal, totalitarianistic, and creates yet another form of discrimination (conception regulation) against LGBTs and our children.
<
p>I know you really really like your own “plan, but I’d strongly suggest you come up with a new one.
It wouldn’t take away anything that people do today, adoption and sperm donation would still be legal. All it would stop is something that is probably three years away from being tried, that is using genetically modified reverse-imprinted “female sperm” and “male eggs” derived from stem cells, along with all other forms of genetic engineering. It would say “Enough” right now, while every person is still the union of an actual man and woman’s actual genes.
<
p>To enforce it, we’d monitor advertisements, making sure that no doctor was offering same-sex conception services or GE services. We might need to have “stings”, where agents approach labs and ask for illegal services. We’d have to put sanctions on countries that harbor eugenic programs, and apply punishments to Americans that go abroad when they come back. It needs to be enforced, because we can’t let it start happening, we need to enforce that all people are created equal and everyone has natural conception rights.