Subscribe to ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected News Feed Subscribe to ETC: Everyday Thoughts CollectedComments

Browse > Home / Civil Rights, Culture War, Current Affairs, Gay, Homosexuality, Politics, Public Policy, Worldview, marriage / The Universe Just Tilted - Elton John and I agree … kinda’

The Universe Just Tilted - Elton John and I agree … kinda’

November 13, 2008 by Randy  
Filed under Civil Rights, Culture War, Current Affairs, Gay, Homosexuality, Politics, Public Policy, Worldview, marriage

Comments

I keep saying that marriage is not a civil right but a socially/legally defined benefit. While I am not sold on civil unions (but considering) … Sir Elton John kind of makes the same arguments I made saying you shouldn’t redefine marriage. His statements also lend to the idea that the better argument might be made in discussing civil benefits.

NEW YORK — Elton John, accompanied by his longtime partner, David Furnish, had some choice words about California’s Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage that passed on Nov. 4.

In December 2005, John and Furnish tied the knot in a civil partnership ceremony in Windsor, England. But, clarified the singer, “We’re not married. Let’s get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.”

John and Furnish, and their two cocker spaniels, Marilyn and Arthur, were in town for Tuesday’s annual benefit for the Elton John AIDS Foundation.

“I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,” John says. “The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off.

“You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

[From Elton John: Where Prop 8 went wrong - USATODAY.com]

    Related posts (automatically generated)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Viewing 11 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I completely agree with him. It's no surprise that the states and countries with civil unions go completely under the radar - the word "marriage" creates too much divisiveness.

    Even if civil unions are technically equal to marriage and become "de facto same-sex marriages," legally there will still be a distinction, and I think that will be enough to make everybody happy. Or, at least happy enough not to stage angry protests and spend millions of dollars nullifying people's relationships.
    • ^
    • v
    I almost hit the floor in disbelief when you actually sent a comment that I could approve. Thanks!

    But... "nullifying" people's relationships. Do you mean nullifying the state recognition of those relationships? Because I don't know of a single instance of the state nullifying any "relationship." Same sex attracted couples can still call their relationships whatever they want, live together, enter into private contracts, love each other. I don't see the state trying to stop two people of the same gender from having a relationship.
    • ^
    • v
    Oops, sorry for not hitting "reply" before. My comment is below
    • ^
    • v
    Randy,

    The word "nullify" means to render legally void, which is exactly what you said: the removal of state recognition. This happens every day in courts across the country when married couples get an annulment or divorce. It doesn't mean that two people can't be in a relationship - just that as far as the government is concerned, they are NOT in a relationship, thereby leaving them with no legal protection.

    When married couples voluntarily give up their legal status (ie, divorce/annulment), it's always AFTER one or both parties have decided not to be in that relationship anymore. But when voters take it upon themselves to invalidate the legal status of couples who do NOT want to end their relationship, those couples tend to get a little... frustrated, to say the least. It doesn't mean that those 10,000+ gay couples aren't in love anymore or aren't "allowed" to be together, but that's a no-brainer consolation after a huge slap in the face. I wonder how Prop 8 supporters would feel if complete strangers with nothing to lose decided to put THEIR personal life to a vote, revoke the 1,000 federal benefits and privileges of THEIR marriage, make THEIR relationships illegal, and say that THEY are not allowed to marry the person they love, even though it's really nobody else's business? Is anyone surprised that gay activists are so angry now?

    This is why I think civil unions are the way to go if we want to avoid all this mutual animosity and ugliness. By removing all religious implications, it's a purely legal arrangement that does not impose anyone's personal beliefs onto anyone else. From a personal liberty standpoint, I can't think of one good argument against it. In fact, almost every poll I've seen shows that people are more willing to accept civil unions than they are gay marriage, even if the rights/privileges are equal, and I believe we can achieve this goal legislatively rather than judicially. Gay couples get the legal benefits they want, Christians get to keep their term, and maybe we'll all realize how ridiculous this debate has become and get on with our lives.

    Two questions for you: why are you hesitant to support civil unions, and why do you use the phrase "same-sex attracted" couples instead of "homosexual" or "gay" couples? Not trying to cause trouble (I'm done with that) - just curious.

    Thanks for posting my comments!
    • ^
    • v
    About your two questions that was just one (right?): I am not sure I don't use all three descriptions in some fashion some of the time. I lean toward same sex attracted couples because gay activists yell at me for saying "homosexual" couple and some farther to the right of me people yell if I say "gay" couple. The farther right people have other motives but I do tend to shy away from saying "gay" simply because I don't align with the whole gay/straight framework anyway.

    Are you going to yell at me for same sex attracted now? ::: grin :::

    I have a question for you: You say you are "not trying to cause trouble (I'm done with that)..." my question is why the change of heart?
    • ^
    • v
    No, it was one sentence with two questions separated by a comma (the first was "why are you hesitant to support civil unions?"). And no, I don't care which term you use, as long as that's the term you REALLY want to use. If you would rather say "gay" or "homosexual" you shouldn't let the fear of getting yelled at stop you.

    And I've had a change of heart because frankly I'm fed up with how childish and ridiculous BOTH sides of this debate have been acting, something I'm guilty of too, so I'm doing my small part to bridge the gap. I've been around to lots of Christian blogs that are quite hateful and bitter toward gay activists, so although you and I may disagree, at least you do it agreeably.
    • ^
    • v
    I am hesitant to support any legal move that would bind same sex couples together. Also, the arguments in the past, from those on this side was that it was marriage by another name and undercuts the benefit of heterosexual marriage for a society. Today, I am conflicted because homosexual couples are tax payers and paying into a system. That isn't sufficient reason in and of itself because I am a single man and not getting any of those benefits yet I am paying for them. At the same time, some of my money is being used for a LOT of things I don't agree with.

    So my conflict is this ... and I am not really looking for people to explain my own internal meditations to me. Give me your opinion but please refrain from telling me what I think :).

    Can I be "for" something I don't think is a good idea for society as a whole and would oppose my own conscience on solidifying homosexual relationships? Is this an acceptable common ground compromise for a greater good of preserving marriage for the culture at large (outside of public policy)? There is a whole heck of a lot more to it than that but I thing that is a good encapsulation.

    As for how I refer to same sex attracted couples ... I am not "fear"ful of people yelling at me. I get yelled at every day. :) But I do consider what people say and compare/contrast that with what I am willing to say.

    I am glad for your change of heart. I have no doubt we will probably tick each other off again but hopefully this will represent a "turn of the corner" for our dialog.
    • ^
    • v
    "I am hesitant to support any legal move that would bind same sex couples together."

    "Can I be "for" something I don't think is a good idea for society as a whole and would oppose my own conscience on solidifying homosexual relationships?"

    I've always figured that there are always going to be gay couples, and that they are choosing to bind themselves together. The unions or reciprocal benefits just help them unbind themselves less painfully if they decide to end their relationship, rather than being societal sanctions like marriage.
    • ^
    • v
    I love the idea of reciprocal benefits because that is something I as a single man could take advantage of too.

    however, it seems that there is three "types" if you will of legally recognized unions: Marriage, Civil Unions and Reciprocal Benefits. I have yet to meet a person, who identifies as gay, who actually liked the Reciprocal benefits route.
    • ^
    • v
    My single woman status just might have something to do with my liking them as well...

    I think the gay community might not be that into them because they don't have the symbolic value that civil unions or marriages do.
    • ^
    • v
    That's exactly the reason some have shared with me in the past.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus