Comments | prominence: Obama & Hillary: Supporting 'Separate But Equal'

prominence

Obama & Hillary: Supporting 'Separate But Equal'

May 12, 2008 19:23

I had to write a political column for my Comm 221 class, thought I'd share it here, feel free to constructively criticize/comment.

Obama & Hillary: Supporting 'Separate But Equal'Joseph R. Lisle ( Read more... )

Comments 4

androgen07 May 13 2008, 00:27:23 UTC

It could be argued that 'marriage' implies a religious thing, whereas a 'civil union' (even for straights) is merely the government guaranteeing you and some other person (of legal consenting age) certain legal rights unique to a certain interpersonal arrangement. Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you. I think at some point the semantic differences will need to be addressed. But for the time being, I'd be content with addressing the legal differences. We can worry about the semantic equality later on.

prominence May 13 2008, 01:08:58 UTC

The issue we're seeing with civil unions is that many employers are writing discrimination into their own policies by only allowing extension of benefits to "married" couples, which excludes civil union participants in Vermont; a subtle niche of inequality is being echoed throughout states that have had civil unions for a few years now; this will continue to grow until it is unbearable.

I understand your argument and I agree with you; however, semantics is what got us into plessy v. ferguson; "oh it's fine as long as it's equal," but it didn't turn out equal - and if it is supposedly equal, why is there a need for separation in the first place?

But I do agree with you that it might be the budge we need to get us one step closer to actual marriage.

zschechfan May 13 2008, 16:34:45 UTC

It's great. I think there were to comma errors in the first paragraph, but aside from that it's great!

zschechfan May 13 2008, 16:37:42 UTC

Oh, I guess I should comment on content. My problem with governmental marriage is that it exists. The Government should not be involved with a religious institution. So, I'm not for Gay marriage if it includes the religious aspect.

But that's an ideal, and we're talking about practicality. I'm ok with whatever gets us legal status. From there, I won't really care about what the wingnuts are doing.