Marriage Equality Amateur Skeptics 55
Special guest Michael Clifton
Announcements:
Friday, 03/23 DMNS - Tornado Alley with Sean Casey (8pm IMAX)
Friday - Sunday, 3/23-3/25 - AnomalyCon, Ian will be there all weekend. There will be ghost tours of Auraria Campus again this year
Sunday, 03/25 - Mile High Skeptics - Myths of Nutrition and Fitness
Monday, 03/26 - Cafe Sci 2 - Ozone: The Good, the Bad, and the Not-So-Ugly
Wednesday, 03/28 - DMNS - 60 Minutes in Space
Saturday 03/31 - IIG Colorado Monthly Meeting
Sunday, 04/01 - Mile High Skeptics - Myths of Nutrition and Fitness Part II
Monday, 04/02 - Mile High Skeptics - Pseudoscience Fair with James Randi
Wednesday, 04/04, Colorado Springs - Pikes Peak Skeptics Society - Bill Nye the Science Guy
Thursday - Saturday, 04/05-04/07 - Mile High Skeptics - Road Trip to Roswell (Trinity for Easter)
Sunday, 04/08 - HOC - Monthly Meeting
Thursday, 04/12 - DMNS - Yuri’s Night
Saturday, 05/05 - Skepitcamp Colorado
Marriage Equality:
Marriage Rights and Benefits - Bryan
ProCon.org - Ian
Marriage will ONLY remain the bedrock of a society if it is between a man and a woman - Bryan
Same Sex Marriage Archie Comic selling for $50 on Ebay - Shawn
12 reasons gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry - Bryan
Always a Man and Woman? Not True. - Bryan
Community Ministers Unlimited in Colorado Springs:
ALL weddings means ALL weddings with them!
Michael’s voter registration drive: Votingand Action
Download Podcast
Subscribe to the Podcast RSS 
Comments
#1 Giving Everybody Civil Unions
I want to write in in support of the idea of civil unions for everybody. If I understand correctly, the main argument in opposition to this was that we shouldn't just give up the word "marriage" and let the other side have it.
I don't think that's what this is about. All I'm advocating is that the *government* keep out of the business of providing a definition for the word "marriage". That doesn't mean that you have to give up the word and just let them have it.
There is no central body that oversees the use of the English language. You can colloquially call it a marriage, where the government only uses the term "Civil Union". Anti gay activists might disagree with your definition, but they have no power to stop you from using it.
The thing is that when it comes down to an argument over what is the definition of marriage, that's completely an argument over semantics. And that's ridiculous.
I just want that whole ridiculous semantic aspect of this argument swept off the table, because it's nothing more than a distraction. And let's face it, this is one of their more substantive arguments. Even though it boils down to nonsense, they do have a point that in legal contracts, definitions matter.
They're grasping by the skin of their nails at these weak sauce arguments. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to do something like this that would pry away one of those fingers, leaving them hanging by their weaker, less substantial arguments?
Wouldn't that further expose how tenuous their position is?
#2 Civil Unions for Everyone
As I stated in the podcast, my personal view is that in an intellectual-only kind of way, you are absolutely right that the government should never have been nor should be now involved in marriage but should stick to what it does have jurisdiction over, namely civil unions. I buy it, and when I finally get my time machine out of hock and back on the road, I'll be going back to the founding of the country and changing that right off.
But until then, you are falling for a decoy argument that distracts from the true equality issues before us. I'm sorry to disbelieve your good intentions but I don't think that you would give up the current protections and rights of your marriage for a crappy spliced together civil union that means different things in different places. It would make you a second class citizen to do so, and I can't imagine anyone willing to do that. Sure, in your ideal world it wouldn't be 2nd classness, but it is here, and as I've stated before, taking you off the front lines of the true fight for marriage equality to the forlorn and empty battleground is a victory for the enemy only.
I think you are absolutely right that definitions matter, especially in legal contracts, but disagree that they are unchanging and un-malleable. When the entire point of the definition of marriage as "a union between two people that confers certain rights and privileges" is left alone and the only thing that changes is which two people are considered applicable, then I would disagree that anyone needs to really work up a mental sweat to change it.
So again, I agree with you on lots of points in a perfect world or idealized situation, but I will state again that I think it is a carefully laid trap of deception and misdirection that they want you to take. Just my opinion.
Kimberly.
#3 Re: Civil Unions for Everyone
Well, if you're talking in terms of real world action, I don't think anybody out there has a plan for actually putting something like this through. And if such a plan was formulated, it wouldn't have any chance of success anyway.
But then, it doesn't look like gay marriage is going to be implemented throughout the United States any time soon either. We can only make progress towards that goal.
And to be clear, I'm not talking about some lesser form of union with fewer rights here. I just want them to take a big bottle of white-out over wherever the law says "marriage" and change the term to "civil union". I'm sure if the public supported such a move they'd find a way to make it happen. It would be the exact same thing, we'd just change the wording.
But like I said, there's absolutely no plans on the table to do this. So it's not like this is something that's going to come up in any debate on the issue. If that's your fear about this being a "decoy argument" and a distraction, I think your fears are unfounded.
I just think it's worthwhile putting the idea out there for now, as a seed that may take root one day. Plus, I think the idea nicely illustrates the ridiculousness of the argument when it breaks down into a debate over semantics. Anything we can do to expose these kinds of silly arguments for what they are is a worthwhile part of the discussion in my view.
#4 Back in the late 1980s a
Back in the late 1980s a friend of mine had a law practice helping gay couples draw up living trusts, wills and other legal documents. This was during the AIDS epidemic and many of these men would end up in the hospital, but their families would not permit their partner access to them. The medical staff would also not permit a partner to visit or be with the AIDS patient.
She said it was very depressing because there was so much sadness, but it was something that had to be done when they were not allowed to get married.
#5 RE: Back in the late 1980s
I think it great that people have found some alternatives to make sure access is permitted. I think it is sad and depressing that it was needed in the first place.
Thanks for sharing. This get to the point as to why Marriage Equality is so needed. It's not just about two people expressing how they feel for each other, Their are legal reason as to why this is needed as well.
#6 Ambershire
People really seem to like that Ambershire tune, AstroStu uses it on his podcast as well. When I started using it, I thought it was just a cool background for left wing type nonsense - but I guess it works fairly well to highlight the absurdity of right wing nonsense as well!
#7 RE: Ambershire
I thought it worked well myself. I know lot of people have used it. I think it can help highlight any nonsense.
#8 Marriage Offer
Oh Kimberly, if only you had made that offer of a loveless, sexless marriage to you BEFORE I settled for my current wife.
I mean, she's fine and everything... but what's with all the intimate feelings we have for each other? That's not how marriage is supposed to be!
Marriage is meant to be a loveless hell full of spite and recrimination! I have to live with the fact that I'm a complete failure for marrying somebody that I actually love and respect.
#9 marriage offer
I don't see why pluralizing your marriage to add Kimberly in there is an issue. go for it, buddy. of course my misspent youth reading the works of Robert A. Heinlein may have colored my view on this somewhat
#10 marriage offer
Well, polygamy is illegal so I'm kind of stuck there... but I wouldn't mind having a mistress!
What do you say Kimberly? Will you be my loveless, sexless mistress?
#11 RE: Marriage Offer
This sound like a good deal for Kimberly. Mistress often get paid well. As you (Dumbass) are in an other country this shouldn't take a lot of her time. Maybe I could broker the contract.
This should net 50k a year or better. I will only take 10%.
#12 Re: Marriage Offer
Dammit! If I wasn't flat broke I would totally sign up for that!
#13 Sexless Mistress Offer
Well, at least this time no one has resorted to smacking people with fish....
I am quite flattered that you would consider a sexless, loveless relationship with me, but I shall endeavor to be the altruist and leave you to wallow in your marriage with your lovely wife. I'll leave the door cracked open just a tiny bit in case my dumbass (in the bad way) countrymen decide to elect a Santorum or someone even stupider and I need a quick escape and extradition to Canada! Instant citizenship might be helpful in such a Handmaiden's Tale situation like that.
Offers from richer listeners who accept the same conditions that Dumbass proposed will, of course, be considered. j/k!
Kimberly (still a feminist - no, really!).
#14 Download Link
Hey, just thought I should let you know that your download link isn't working. I downloaded through your XML, but you might want to look into that.
#15 RE: Download
I didn't have time do the show note yet. I did fix the download.
#16 Download link
Looks like that's going to be a Bryan fix; HTML is not my strong suit