This diary was originally meant to be a comment left in AndyS In Colorado's diary, but then I started to ramble and it got really long... So I decided I'd rather make it a diary, instead of being guilty of writing another mile long comment hogging up the comment space in someone else's diary.
I am hopeful that my ramblings do not offend anyone in the LGTB community, but I realize that because I am not a member of the LGTB community I may be misunderstanding of some things, or my intent may be misunderstood. So I'd just like to take this opportunity to apologize in advance if I've offended anyone and assure you that giving offense was not my intent. If I have misunderstood anything, please set me right in the comments section. I am human and thus have been known to be wrong on occasion. I take no offense at being told I am wrong, because it's usually a pretty common occurrence for we humans to find ourselves in.
So anyway, here goes...
I don't really get the argument in favor of federal civil unions. I think if we're going to fight for equal rights, we should go all the way and fight for equal marriage. It's the only thing that make sense to me.
I know the arguments on both sides, for and against federal civil unions... but I just don't get why anyone would want them. I know that federal civil unions would be a huge step forward for the LGTB community... but even if federal civil unions were to become law, it would be legalized bigotry.
I understand why heterosexual people in favor of federal civil unions for LGTB's are in favor of it... We feel bad because it isn't right that LGTB's aren't allowed the same rights as we are... Yet we have the dilemma of the people that don't want LGTB's to have the same rights as heterosexuals and so some think a compromise is better than nothing. Though we might not agree with the arguments against LGTB's being able to marry - e.i. "churches shouldn't be forced to go against their religion and marry people they don't want to" - but who are we to force religions to do things they don't want to do, right? After all, if LGTB's are legally afforded the same rights as marriage with federal civil unions, what's the big deal if we split the difference, right?
The thing is, the people arguing against everyone being allowed to marry are using strawman arguments. Legally, religion has nothing to do with whether or not you're married.
You can get married in a church by a preacher, or you can get married in a courtroom by a judge... You can even get married outside in the middle of a blizzard by a biker covered in tattoos swearing like a sailor, like my husband and I did. As long as you follow the laws, pay the fees, and file the right paperwork... The law says you're married.
I am not religious, but I can understand the argument that churches shouldn't have to marry any couple they don't want to marry. That argument I understand, but here's what I DON'T understand... lots of people don't get married in church and there are churches that don't care what the combination of gender is of the couple being married.
My husband and I were not married in a church, yet ours is still a marriage and NOT a "federal civil union."
So why are my husband married and not federally civil unioned? We weren't married in a church, our wedding had nothing to do with religion... So why do we get a marriage license and not a federal civil union license?
I assure you, we have a marriage license... Says it "Marriage License" right on it. We got our marriage license from the county court house. They don't even have the option of a "federal civil union" license. I know this, because I asked for a license that didn't have the word marriage on it because I didn't like the fact that my husband and I could be married and we have friends that can't be married... and I was told that a marriage license was all you could get, because marriage was all there was.
So that's what I don't get... If federal civil unions isn't in anyway discriminating against the LGTB community, but only out of consideration of the rights of religious organizations that don't want to be forced to marry people they don't want to... Then WHY is it that my husband and I got a marriage license and not a federal civil union license?
To me, the answer is easy... We were a woman and a man and therefor in the bigot's minds, we could be allowed to use the word marriage.
Federal Civil Unions IS discrimination. It IS segregation. It IS setting one segment of society legally apart from another section.
Federal Civil Unions is just a way to put a law on the books that says that the LGTB community isn't good enough to use a goddamned WORD... because that's really what this entire argument is about... It's a about a fucking word. Just a word.
The "I'm not really a bigot" type bigots don't seem to care if the LGTB has federal civil unions, or if those federal civil unions legally afforded all the same things that marriage does... but if they did decide to give the LGTB community those rights, then they have to take something away, even if it's just the word marriage... So in my mind, that makes them a bigot no matter what they may think, because that's just the way bigots do things.
So the LGTB community can have some of the same rights, but they can't use the same words, because the bigots still have to feel they're better than the LGTB community in someway... Even if it's only the right to use a word.
It just makes me sick and in my opinion, anyone advocating for federal civil unions should stop and really think about what it is they're advocating for... because I think what they're advocating for is a law to be put on the books that says LGTB's aren't good enough to use the same WORD as the rest of us... It's just a way to legalize some people's misguided religious beliefs and give legal backing to homophobic's belief's that the LGTB community isn't as good as they are.
Even if a federal civil union were passed, my husband and I still wouldn't be given the choice of being married or being federally civil unioned... We're a man and a woman and therefor, we'd be still be married and our friends from the LGTB community would STILL be set apart from us legally...
And if that isn't discrimination, I don't know what is.
I see no reason why we can't all use the same words if it all really means the same thing, other than a law was passed that mandates discrimination against our friends.
I think if any law is put on our books, it should be a law stating that everyone is the same and we all have the same rights... All the way down to being able to legally use the same words. We're all human and we should all be treated equally. In my mind, anything else is less than equal and that just doesn't make any sense to me.
It's just wrong.