Rochester considers domestic partner registry

I’m a conservative and I would support this. Allowing hospital visitation for same-sex couples is the only fair and compassionate thing to do. And it removes one of the rationales for re-defining marriage.

Dear Dennis,

The problem with your position is that you’re trying to support a doctrine of separate but equal. You support an institution that is separate from marriage, but equal to marriage. And the problem with that is that separate is inherently unequal. By supporting domestic partner registries, you are implicitly saying same-sex couples are second-class citizens and therefore less worthy of marriage.

Unless I’m mistaken, your objection is “re-defining marriage.” The problem with that objection is that marriage has been re-defined already. Marriage used to be nothing more than a spiritual relationship before God. Over time, marriage was re-defined to include not only a spiritual relationship before God, but a contract with the government to encourage stable relationships which would establish stable communities which means better workers and soldiers for the State, and so on and so forth. In essence, marriage became political.

Now, you may agree or disagree with all that, but I’m sure you’ll say, “Marriage has always been defined as between one man and one woman.” But arguing that just because something has always been defined one way should always be defined that way is a faulty argument. Just imagine if we rejected automobiles because transportation had always been defined as “one horse and one buggy.”

Furthermore, if your argument is from tradition, then your own argument forces you to prohibit inter-racial marriages, since before the 1950s marriage had always been defined as a relationship between one WHITE man and one WHITE woman, or between one BLACK man and one BLACK woman.

You lack any other argument, at least so far, that would necessitate the prohibition of same-sex marriage. Legalizing same-sex marriage is not going to make children gay anymore than legalizing inter-racial marriage made me black or want to marry a black man.

So please, tell me, Dennis, what argument do you have other than “gays want to radically re-define marriage” that would persuade me to agree with your discrimination?

Love and kisses,
-PQ

The only compassionate thing to do is to allow loving same-sex couples who want to commit to each other is to let them marry and realize the full range of benefits and rights that flow from marriage for themselves and their children. Not only that, it is also a conservative thing to do.

PQ, I have no argument to persuade you. I’m for marriage being defined as the legal union between a man and a woman. The same position as that of Barack Obama’s.

It’s as simple as that. But I do believe that same-sex hospital visitation is the right and compassionate thing to do. You disagree apparently.

And by the way, PQ, don’t buy the old “separate is not equal” meme. Of course it can be. No one has ever proven otherwise.

The “separate but equal” meme DOES apply in the case of same-sex relationships due to laws creating “separate but equal” accommodations such as domestic partnerships, civil unions, reciprocal benefits and other such variations creating the effect of classifying those who are gay, lesbian or transgendered as second-class citizens with ongoing harm that is still occuring and is amply documented – contrary to what Dennis asserts. But then what does one expect from a racist who does not understand/accept the Brown v. Board of Education decision?

Domestic partnerships, civil unions, reciprocal benefits and such are not uniformly recognized as valid throughout the nation. Where these do exist, they do not allow the full range of rights and benefits to flow through to the same-sex couple and their children.

Yesterday Hawaii’s Governor Linda Lingle vetoed the civil unions bill, calling it “marriage by another name.” She is but one proof of anti-LGBT forces that resist or repeal such accommodations even though these accomodations are hardly the equivalent of marriage simply because they hate LGBT people. Plain and simple.

Dennis,

An argument from authority is a bad argument indeed. Just because that is the position of the President of the United States doesn’t mean it’s the right position. A position should stand or fall on its own merits, not the merits of those who support it.

You know very well I agree allowing same-sex hospital visitation is right and compassionate, but sadly it is not enough. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an “all-or-nothing” type of guy. I support this move towards domestic partner registry, but it’s not enough.

And certainly separate is not equal. It’s saying, “You’re not worthy to do this same thing like everyone else. You have to do something separate from them.” It’s saying, “You can’t drink at this water fountain. You have to drink at that one.” It’s saying, “You can’t use this institution, you have to use that one.” That sends a direct message that the people being told “you can’t” are unworthy to be equal with everyone else.

Your final argument is an appeal to ignorance. Just because no one has ever proven that a giant flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist doesn’t mean it does exist. Just because no one has ever proven “separate is not equal” does not mean separate is equal. It’s on you to prove that separate is equal. If it were up to the disagreer, then I could make up any old BS claim and say, “Well, I don’t have to prove it. That’s up to you to prove otherwise.”

The stigma and harm of second-class citizenship not only affects same-sex couples but also their children.

I am sure that Mayor Brede has good intentions, but my first reaction was to wonder if they could register their bicycle and doggy at the same time.

LGBT is not trying to redefine marriage, they are trying to claim their rightful piece of it.

The social conservatives are trying to redefine marriage exclusively as Holy Matrimony. They have no valid arguments in their favor, only prejudice, ignorance, and manufactured statistics.