Minnesotans for Marriage Chuck Darrell Gets Called Out
Craig Westover posted a plug for a radio interview he and Mark Yost were doing with U of MN Law Professor, Dale Carpenter.
Craig isn't the only Minnesota conservative blogger who opposes the Bachmann amendment. Peg Kaplan is also. Peg responds to some of the usual suspects on Craig's blog:
Ask yourself whether couples stay together because of their legal status or because they have made a formal (usually religious) pledge to one another? There is nothing stopping gay couples from being "married" right now, in every sense except the strictly legal, and that they can do by mutual contract, for the most part. Ask yourself why that is not enough.
J. Ewing | 01.09.06 - 1:02 pm | #
Gravatar It is not enough for a few reasons.
First - gay partnerships cannot enjoy some of the benefits that married couples do. They cannot leave property to one another at death without tax consequences. They do not have Social Security protections that married couples have. They cannot file tax returns together.
Yes - they can contractually obtain some of the same benefits - but they need to expend extra time and money to get them when heterosexual couples can get these benefits immediately through a marriage license and saying "I do."
Finally, as long as the government does not allow gay couples the right to get established, legal relationships, in essence, society tells them that their partnerships are either not "good" or "worthwhile" or something on that order.
I understand that many believe that this is exactly the case! Still, some of my generation believe that our gay neighbors are similar to the rest of us in most respects, except regarding their same-sex attractions - and thus should be afforded the same rights and responsibilities as "normal" folk. And, it's my observation that more and more people younger than I am don't care at all about an individual's sexual orientation.
One day, a "married" gay couple will seem no more strange to most of us than a married interracial couple - or disparately yoked religious couple.
At least, I hope so.
Chuck Darrell from Minnesotans for Marriage stops by to promote his Strib oped:
Read my column in today's Star Tribune regarding Brokeback, civil unions and Dale Carpenter.
I heard a portion of Saturday's show. The hosts have it right, the bill language makes no provision for civil unions or changing the definition of marriage via legislation. Civil unions are just marriage by another name.
Lastly, there is nothing "vague" about the language. Calling the language "vague" is just spin.
63% of Minnesotans want to vote on the marriage amendment. They want to avoid what is happening in Iowa where Lamda Legal is trying to score a quick win in the courts while the Iowa marriage amendment is bottled up in the committee.
Director of Communications
Minnesota for Marriage
Charles H Darrell