It's called "equal access to marriage."

For the past few months we progressives have been taking the conservative and media bait.  We've been characterizing our desire for equal access to marriage as "gay marriage."  The reality we shouldn't be talking about a specific type of marriage we are talking about equal access to marriage for any American.  

On the whole we are not strictly looking for gay-marriage to be legal.  We are looking for a greater global principal: the principal of equal access to marriage.

The language we use in referring to our issue is very important.  The phrase gay-marriage threatens the theology of Christians of all types and limits the focus to one group of people.  In fact, progressives favor that anyone who is capable be allowed to marry.  Don't we also want couples be allowed to marry if one or more of them are mentally challenged?  In fact, don't we believe that ANYone should be allowed to marry so long as their marriage does not threaten the health of their offspring (as is the case with intra-family marriage)?

The language of equal access to marriage reminds everyone that allowing same-sex marriage is a struggle for civil rights for all citizens.  We are not arguing in favor of privilege for gay couples but in fact doing away with privleges for specific types of couples.  We believe that everyone should be allowed the same access to share a life of love and trust of their choosing.

Equal access to marriage threatens no one.  However, barring access to a privilege so threatens the freedoms of our citizens that it is expressly forbidden by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Conservatives WANT the focus to turn on "gay marriage;"  an issue that threatens their Christian constituency.  However, no Christian can logically argue against equality and maintain their edict as per their faith.

Equality is the bedrock principal of American life.  Every time progressives have stood for equality in America, Americans have supported the stance.  It's time we frame the discussion in terms of what it REALLY is: equal access to marriage.  

•  How About

  Freedom to Marry and Freedom of Choice (abortion)

  Who doesn't like freedom?

  by ssg012 on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:52:35 AM PDT

  •  seems like

    a whole lot of people here think "freedom isn't free" which makes freedom relative

    by housesella on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:07:28 PM PDT

•  There is no frame that will work here

  We cannot reason our way to winning this.

  It took decades of civil rights activism to even begin to defuse blatant racism. And we're about to roll back affirmative action.

  Gays are too potent an issue. To easily manipulated. These people in the red states who hate/dislike/are grossed out by gays are not going to be "reframed" on the issue.

  We need an entirely new strategy.

  by grushka on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:05:44 PM PDT

  •  "No way that will work"

    they said that about inter-racial marriage too.  They said that about civil rights for minorities too.  

    So fucking what if it takes time?  Find me something legitimate and worthwhile that didn't take effort and time.

    As progressives we are either in favor of equality or we're not.  I'm not afraid of religious oppression.  What if MLK and northern civil rights sympathizers had said "blacks are too potent an issue."

    It's that kind of cowardice masquerading as "pragmatism" that rolls back progress.  Cowardice masquerading as "pragmatism" is EXACTLY what fuels the conservative cause.  It's lame.

    by gossamer on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:32:16 PM PDT

•  I disagree

  The term "marriage" carries a lot of religious connotation.  If phrased correctly you can keep the legal protections for ALL under the state and leave the faithful to be as bigoted or not as they want to be.

  by voltayre on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:08:01 PM PDT

  •  yeah

    yeah, we should probably start advocating for "inter-racial unions" too.

    no way in hell

    by gossamer on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:28:00 PM PDT

  •  I'm not gay, but frightened

    for this community! Marriage can have all the "religious connotation" in the world but the word "marriage" is not the one people are voting against.  If this were true two devil worshipers couldn't go to the courthouse and get "married". I do not think changing the word will help.  

    by housesella on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 01:13:03 PM PDT

    •  Very true.

      "Marriage" isn't the issue.  For conservatives, the issue is "gay" plain and simple.

      For us, the issue shouldn't be about anything but equality.

      In the sixties they didn't call it "black rights" they called it CIVIL rights.

      When we limit the segment for whom we are fighting, we marginalize the fight and direct attention away from the real issue.

      This is about equality, accessibility, and marriage.

      Furthermore, it's is marraige that is defined as the union upon which all the other issues rest:

      • custody
        
      • adoption
        
      • property transfer
        
      • healthcare decisions
        
      • visitation

      These things are mostly limited to "married" couples.  

      by gossamer on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:01:43 PM PDT