![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Thank you ![[info]](https://stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
jamaesi for posting about your opportunity to meet Bill Clinton and hear him speak!
While I don't know the context in which the discussion happened or what exactly was said, apparently at Waynesburg University Bill Clinton spoke about not giving different rules for different people and asked why GLBT people should have different rules than straight people. Now, I would hope that this would perhaps be prodding to encourage same-sex marriage and equal rights, but I suspect given Hilary's stance that she supports civil unions and not same-sex marriage (you know, different rules, separate and unequal) that this was more a condemnation of same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage is not about giving GLBT people different rules or special dispensation. If anything it's quite the contrary: it's seeking to make the same rule apply to all. Straight people can freely marry the person they love. They don't have to worry about whether their state has laws against it or the federal government has laws against it or whether even if it's permitted that some group of people will successfully lobby to have their ability to marry taken away. GLBT people, on the other hand, have to deal with all of this. And beyond the legal right to do it or not, the ability to get married is the gatekeeper to an assortment of basic needs for any couple: the need to be part of medical and/or financial decisions when one's partner is in poor health, just being able to be with one's partner in the hospital, being able to have children and start a family together, having all tax options available, et cetera. Civil unions don't accomplish this, even in the case of New Hampshire that gives on a state level the "full" benefits and responsibilities of marriage. That's nice, but the federal government doesn't recognize that for their purposes.
I've even heard or read the argument that GLBT people have the same legal right to marriage as anyone else, just so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. That's ludicrous. Gays and lesbians, and even some bisexual people, can't marry the people they love in that case. Straight people can. That doesn't seem at all equal to me. If we take that logic and extend it to same-sex marriage, then there would be nothing stopping a straight person from entering into same-sex marriage, either, so how would same-sex marriage be unequal?
Same-sex marriage and other GLBT rights are not about giving GLBT people different rules. The current laws exclude GLBT people so it's currently a state of different rules for different people. This needs to be rectified. Clinton won't do that. McCain won't do that. I'm not even confident that Obama will do that. Regardless of which candidates will or won't, we need to keep pushing for it and letting them know that we won't tolerate separate and unequal any longer.
jamaesi for posting about your opportunity to meet Bill Clinton and hear him speak!While I don't know the context in which the discussion happened or what exactly was said, apparently at Waynesburg University Bill Clinton spoke about not giving different rules for different people and asked why GLBT people should have different rules than straight people. Now, I would hope that this would perhaps be prodding to encourage same-sex marriage and equal rights, but I suspect given Hilary's stance that she supports civil unions and not same-sex marriage (you know, different rules, separate and unequal) that this was more a condemnation of same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage is not about giving GLBT people different rules or special dispensation. If anything it's quite the contrary: it's seeking to make the same rule apply to all. Straight people can freely marry the person they love. They don't have to worry about whether their state has laws against it or the federal government has laws against it or whether even if it's permitted that some group of people will successfully lobby to have their ability to marry taken away. GLBT people, on the other hand, have to deal with all of this. And beyond the legal right to do it or not, the ability to get married is the gatekeeper to an assortment of basic needs for any couple: the need to be part of medical and/or financial decisions when one's partner is in poor health, just being able to be with one's partner in the hospital, being able to have children and start a family together, having all tax options available, et cetera. Civil unions don't accomplish this, even in the case of New Hampshire that gives on a state level the "full" benefits and responsibilities of marriage. That's nice, but the federal government doesn't recognize that for their purposes.
I've even heard or read the argument that GLBT people have the same legal right to marriage as anyone else, just so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. That's ludicrous. Gays and lesbians, and even some bisexual people, can't marry the people they love in that case. Straight people can. That doesn't seem at all equal to me. If we take that logic and extend it to same-sex marriage, then there would be nothing stopping a straight person from entering into same-sex marriage, either, so how would same-sex marriage be unequal?
Same-sex marriage and other GLBT rights are not about giving GLBT people different rules. The current laws exclude GLBT people so it's currently a state of different rules for different people. This needs to be rectified. Clinton won't do that. McCain won't do that. I'm not even confident that Obama will do that. Regardless of which candidates will or won't, we need to keep pushing for it and letting them know that we won't tolerate separate and unequal any longer.
