The M Word

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. A.J. Sutter says:

    And the reason a “deal” (vel non) between Blankenhorn and Rauch is important is …?

  2. A.W. says:

    Seconding AJ on that. So two people I never heard of made a deal. So what?

    All this is, is the NYT trying to manufacture cover for a repeal of the DOMA. Now wonder their stock has cratered. They are not a news organization but a newsletter for the Dem party.

  3. Xanthippas says:

    Maybe I’m not following something here, but what’s the difference between a “federal civil union” and a “marriage” if the civil union conveys “most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage”? Or I should say, with that distinction in mind it seems quite obvious that what Blankenhorn wants to avoid is the word “marriage.” But how would “federal civil union” be a downgrade, except in semantics? I feel like I’m missing something here.

  4. A.W. says:

    You know, I will say something else. There are people in America facing real discrimination. Like as in “I have been denied my right to an education” kind of discrimination. It gets a little grating to see the constant and endless attention on gay marriage when there are so much more serious issues to be concerned about. Right or wrong, a gay couple can by contract create virtually all of the rights in marriage without any state help at all. Don’t we have bigger game to hunt?

    I personally get sick of it.

  5. Jason Mazzone says:

    Actually, it is not possible to obtain by contract immigration rights, parenting rights, access to health care, social security benefits, veterans benefits, tax benefits, housing benefits, testimonial privileges, and thousands (!) of other goodies available to married couples under federal, state, and local law. The lists of those benefits can be found here: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/get_informed/marriage_basics/protections/lists.php

  6. A.W. says:

    Ah, well, gosh, there are handicapped people who are not even having a chance to obtain an education, but let’s worry about whether the gay man can get cheap health insurance.

    Sheesh.

    Sorry, if we were rational about our priorities, rather than merely being fashionable, there would not be half the hoopla about gay rights.

  7. Ampersand says:

    Under the proposal offered, Congress would deem marriages and civil unions between same-sex couples and recognized under state law to be federal civil unions.

    Think about that. A couple married in Massachusetts would be downgraded to a civil union for purposes of federal law.

    Yes, but under the status quo, a same-sex couple in Massachusetts isn’t recognized at all by federal law. Going from “married in state, nothing at all under federal law” to “married in state, civil union federally” is imperfect and unequal, but it’s still an upgrade, not a downgrade.

  8. Under the proposal offered, Congress would deem marriages and civil unions between same-sex couples and recognized under state law to be federal civil unions.

    Think about that. A couple married in Massachusetts would be downgraded to a civil union for purposes of federal law.

    Yes, but under the status quo, a same-sex couple in Massachusetts isn’t recognized at all by federal law. Going from “married in state, nothing at all under federal law” to “married in state, civil union federally” is imperfect and unequal, but it’s still an upgrade, not a downgrade.