Suggestions for Action
What do you think is the most effective way to turn this idea into real policy?
Add your suggestions here for how you think we should run an advocacy campaign to
advance the idea – including the overall strategy, messaging, targets, and tactics.
Approach this from the standpoint that people reading this forum already agree
with you on the importance of the issue, and are asking "What can we do to help
make this a reality?"
You can also comment on and rank the suggestions submitted by others.
Write a Suggestion
If you would like to leave a suggestion please sign in, or create an account
Endorsements for this Idea
Nonprofits and bloggers can formally endorse an idea they support. 13 current endorsements:
- Backstage w/ Supak
- Even The Desert Has Hummingbirds
- Happening Here
- Green Dads
- Worldwidw Sawdust
- DreamActivist
- Sustainable Food
- Queer by Choice
- WebUrbanist - Urban Life, Culture and Art
- 12 hour pills
- Pennsylvania NOW, Inc.
- Feministing.com
- Liminal States
I believe an amendment should be added to the Constitution and voted into law stating, in effect re-iterating and underscoring the Constitution's own tenets of equality. An amendment that would criminalize any organization or individual who impedes or attempts to repress the civil rights of another, be it in pursuit of a marriage certificate or indeed any of the other guaranteed freedoms belonging to each and every citizen of this country.
Suggested by René Pedraza on 01/18/2009 @ 07:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Everyone deserves equal rights. This has always been an ongoing struggle for our country. If the government would stop injecting their own personal beliefs and ideals into governing, there would be equality. I could care less how any president, including President Obama, feels about this issue. Their feelings are irrelevant. Actions matter. Stop the bigotry. Give every legal, consenting adult the right to marry who they choose. Protect the rights of the minority from being steamrolled by the bigotry of the majority.
Suggested by C C on 01/18/2009 @ 07:28AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There seems to be a good deal of consensus that the term "Marriage" is the problem. "Marriage" is a religious term. Let the Churches keep it. Civil unions then would come to mean something other than "Marriage" which would make "not equal" to "Marriage". I think that the Idea Micheal Hunt had is the Best! let all unions be done with a "Wedding License". Everyone can get "Wed". They can be "Wedded Couples".
Suggested by William Manners on 01/17/2009 @ 11:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
My idea is four pronged. It's about organizing from the ground up to gain a strong united voice, focus legally on separation of church and state, press Obama to repeal DOMA, and respect ourselves and each other.
1. Form one new national coalition, or clearinghouse of gay groups. This would include political, social, health related, service oriented, professional networking groups, internet social networking sites, clubs, bars etc... It has to be developed with but not as one of the present leadership groups because there is too much infighting. It needs to be bigger then one group. Fund raise nationally. Use the internet. Please no really expensive t-shirts!
2. Plug in all legal gay lobbying groups, and the ACLU and lawyers associations, etc. to focus on defining churches "substantial" contributions to political work and transparency with church income. Thereby plugging the legal hole that folks like the LDS use to remain tax exempt. They will have less incentive to spending their dollars to stop equal rights. Separation of church and state is at the heart of our legal dilemma.
3. Continue to hold Obama's feet to the fire about repealing DOMA, the defense of marriage act. And Don't ask don't tell.
4. Lets all get on the same page. To fight the word Marriage for everyone does the very thing that the right wingnuts are afraid of, the end of the meaning of marriage. They will hold on to marriage with their dying breath. But they can be encouraged to share.
I believe that the gay community should embrace the dignity and social recognition that the word "marriage" gives. Marriage is an important social, and personal expression of a couples intentions. It signals to the community that you are forming a family and will be one among others. It brings the community hope for the future, usually has a celebration of love and family, and an it is an opportunity to express community support and willingness to be a part of the couples lives. And even though there are the elements of legal rights included in marriage, it is not nor should it be reduced to a business proposition between two people, sanctioned or legalized by government. Even a secular marriage is not just a piece of paper that gives you health benefits and tax cuts. So, have respect for our relationships, our communities, and each other.
Sometimes I think my peeps need to be kicked in the butt so that we never settle for separate but equal. Blessings and Peace.
Suggested by A D on 01/17/2009 @ 08:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I’m a straight, white male. Despite those hindrances (said with tongue in cheek) I am not too far gone to recognize attacks on civil or human rights or assaults on civil liberties. We’re asked to support "civil unions" while opposing gay marriage?
Ugh! Such xenophobia.
Those who “graciously” support civil unions but oppose same-sex marriage are perhaps forgetting that the Supreme Court (before its move to the extreme right) ruled that “separate but equal” is not equal. Shall we ignore the Court and instead be guided by homophobic polling data? As a hetro, I can get married in a church, in a court house, or under a spreading chestnut tree. At the conclusion of the ceremony I will have a MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE! What some people are proposing is for gay folks to receive a CIVIL UNION CERTIFICATE. Their rationale is, “well golly, they can have all the rights that I as a married heterosexual person enjoy…expect for the right to get married”. That, folks, is equality with an asterisk. Justice does not allow us to compromise the rights of others. Bias, however, knows no such bounds. Folks, don’t get caught up in the diatribe of someone else’s definition of scripture. The Declaration of Independence speaks to “unalienable rights”. No mention is made of the discriminatory “Defense of Marriage Act”. Bias, intolerance, and discrimination are the products of humankind. They contain not a modicum of spirituality…however one chooses to define or dismiss that word. If the rights of others are compromised today, how long before the rest of us watch our rights being placed on the chopping block? This is a civil rights issue, a human rights issue, and a civil liberties issue. Let’s make sure all of us wind up on the correct side of justice. “…When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out”.
Rev. Martin Niemoller
Suggested by Rich Austin on 01/17/2009 @ 02:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
My suggestion is contained in my open letter to our new President Elect Dear Mr. President Elect Obama, What does this historic inauguration mean to me? Well, I write as one who was inspired throughout your campaign by your call for a new way of doing things in Washington politics, in government and governing, your call for transparency, for a renewed, higher and nobler sense of unity and purpose, a call for hope, change and justice, for a vision of government where all citizens in our country could truly feel they had an equal place at the table. I write because I worked for this vision and for your call that we all unite together behind a common purpose, interest and rebirth of the belief that we are all indeed our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. I participated in your campaign as I did no other in my entire life. I made calls from my home to help get out the vote, calls not only to voters in my home state but in others as well. I traveled to NH to canvass door to door and to just stand with Obama for President signs because I felt if only symbolically NH was a state I definitely wanted in your column. And I gave money when it truly hurt for me to do so. I think I can safely say that I no longer fall into the category of the middle class. I’m lucky if I break over $27,000.00 a year. I write for other less satisfying reasons, reasons that don’t make me feel so hopeful about the inauguration. I write because I feel your invitation to Pastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation and your own personal stance on gay marriage and civil rights pulls the chair out from underneath me and excludes me from having a place at the table you promised I would have. I write about these less hopeful feelings as you are about to be inaugurated as my new President because you have consistently said you wanted every voice to be heard. I still believe you are trying your best to fulfill this promise. I fully understood and continue to understand that I might not always agree with you on all ‘issues’. You were honest enough to make this clear throughout your campaign and repeatedly called us to a new and higher level of discourse where we could and should all be able to disagree on ‘issues’ without being disagreeable. And, I couldn’t agree with you more. If we were only discussing ‘issues’ here I wouldn’t be writing this to you. I know we will all have different opinions as to how to best handle and solve the current economic crisis and recession, poverty, foreign policy, wall street, the housing and mortgage fiasco, military policy, etc., etc. I would humbly submit, however, that gay marriage and gay civil rights and liberties are not ‘issues’ in the same way all the other ‘issues’ listed above are. Gay marriage and civil rights are not ‘issues’ to gain consensus on or to simply agree to disagree about without being disagreeable. Like it or not, and unfortunately so in my opinion, the term marriage is used and inseparably linked in Federal and State law to describe a union event where two people united in love have this union recognized and validated and in so doing receive or have bestowed on them innumerable protected and guaranteed civil rights and liberties. These are the civil rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution as inalienable to and for all. In denying me as a gay man the right to marry the person I love as equally as some others can is to deny me these same Constitutional rights and liberties. Many argue that this can and must be done based upon their definitions, some religious and some not, of what constitutes a valid concept and definition of marriage as if marriage is static and has always for all time meant the same thing. Even a cursory view of history reveals this is simply not the case. I believe Mr. President Elect that your stance on gay marriage and gay civil rights is, while maybe your not intending it to be, nearsighted at best, disingenuous and conveniently ignores the facts of your own heritage. Had certain marriage laws and definitions not changed, had certain laws remained ‘on the books’ that in fact did not recognize marriage between blacks and whites as falling within what constituted a valid definition of marriage, your own parents could never have married and you would not be with us today let alone poised to become the next President of our country. I would submit that it is well past the time to replace the word, reference to and linking of the term and concept of marriage in all Federal and State law and the conferring of the many civil rights and liberties it currently does, with a non religious or church associated term or concept such as union, civil union or whatever term seems most appropriate. After this civil ‘unionizing’ and only after it and its conferring of all civil rights and liberties, churches and people of whatever stripe or color can define to their hearts content this union as marriage or however they want to in accordance with their faith beliefs, their differing theologies and Scriptural interpretations for their various congregations and adherents. I submit it’s unconstitutional to allow any church or person to force their religious beliefs on me and take away, as many currently continue to seek to do, my Constitutionally guaranteed right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on as equal a footing with them. It’s an abuse of the separation of Church and State to let the current modus operandi continue. It’s an abuse and a crossing of the line of the separation of Church and State to let churches enjoy the privilege of a tax exempt status and then use these very same tax monies, my monies, to get directly involved in politics. And finally, getting back to Pastor Rick Warren’s invitation to give the inaugural invocation, I urge you to read some of his public statements and opinions of gays, of me. They are a matter of record. His statements are not in the spirit of the charitable discourse you have called for throughout your campaign. They are not just disagreements with me while not being disagreeable. They are because I have read them and watched some of his interviews, hateful, hurtful, unkind, judgmental condemnations of my God given personal dignity. I understand your wanting to build consensus, to give everyone a place at the table, have everyone’s voice and personhood count. Your choice of him sends the wrong message in this regard just as your former pastor Rev. Wright did but for other reasons. Rev. Wright was not invited to speak at the announcement of your intentions to run for the office of President nor was he invited to speak at any time during the entire Democratic Convention in Denver. If he was unacceptable politically what makes Pastor Warren with his incendiary and controversial remarks and hurtful speech acceptable? Surely you could have found some compassionate conservative Pastor or Preacher out there who has a better grasp of charity and what it means to be our brothers’ and sisters’ keeper and how this gets appropriately expressed but more importantly how it does not. Why is all the above so important to me? In my life time I have been physically and verbally abused, in some instances by family. I was harassed at a former work place. I was refused housing. I was not allowed to name my partner of now 24 years as the beneficiary of one of my life insurance policies. The reason given, I belonged to a “bad social profile”, read gay. I was told my partner was not family. The only way the policy would be processed was if the beneficiary read estate of Edward M. LeSage. I was in an intensive coronary care unit and a nurse tried to prevent my partner from visiting me. He wasn’t family. I was registering for some blood work at a hospital and when asked for my first contact person the clerk, in a public space, made it clear for all to hear that I could not do this because the person I named, my partner, was not family. The list goes on and trust me, I have left out the more gruesome ‘incidents’ as they are too painful and gross to set down on paper. It’s bad enough they remain so vivid and still painful in my memory. For yea or woe, in this country, marriage = civil rights and liberties. The hope of your inauguration for me is that I have been able to write the above to you because you have asked me to. I don’t recall too many public servants who ever bothered to ask let alone promise to listen, not agree necessarily, but truly listen. Are you perfect? No. No one is and I’m not looking for perfection this side of the grave. I am looking for a president who will try to be as honest, as just, as ethical, as decently human and trying to give his (in your case) very best efforts to the duties of the Presidency that will soon be yours. We do differ on some things mightily important to me Mr. President but I do believe your disagreements with me will always be respectful, honest and without malice or rancor. I wish you God speed. With my prayers and best wishes,Ed LeSage
Suggested by Ed LeSage on 01/17/2009 @ 02:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I support and have supported marriage and/or civil unions, but I am not enthused about using the term "marriage" in the law. Personally I'd like to avoid the use of the word "marriage" in the law. That term and concept of marriage is identified by most churches, and by nonreligious members of the public, as a religious "sacrament". In most of the states, including mine, it's as if we had a code of law about a "sacrament" like Baptism or Confirmation. A religious sacrement has no place in our laws.
It would make more sense if we separated the commonly understood term "marriage" as a church or religious sacrament from the rights of a committed couple, under the law.
Whatever is written should encompass all committed couples and families. I would like to see the same rights for unmarried heterosexual couples who are committed to one another and raising children. Please do not forget them.
I have lived in both a long marriage (with children) and a long unmarried heterosexual partnership. I know from first hand experience that unmarried heterosexual couples/families have the same issues that unmarried gay and lesbian couples/families have. And they seem to be forgotten in the campaign for legal rights for same sex couples.
Please draft a statute recognizing civil recognition with full legal protections for couples of any sexual orientation who wish to enter a committed relationship under the law.
Jane Edwards
Suggested by Jane Edwards on 01/17/2009 @ 01:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I suggest changing the "Marriage License" to a "Wedding License," in that all people, LGBT and Straight can legally Wed. A Marriage Certifiicte can be issued by any religious entity that Blesses such a civil union.
Suggested by Michael Hunt on 01/17/2009 @ 11:13AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think this is extremely important as a gay man myself I think everyone has a right to get married no matter what gender or race you may be. People are people we live in a world of endless possibilities and to deter one to love another is something we need not to do. The hatred in America needs to stop and I hope that Barack Obama will put an end to this once and for all. We are all one person and we all seek one thing and thats to enjoy life no matter what we do behind private doors. Love is the most important part about living without love there is no hope:) I encourage Barack to look at this issue and make the right decision and allow all americans regardless of there sexual orientation to get married.
Suggested by Lawrence Decoste on 01/17/2009 @ 09:01AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I too agree with the comments on eliminating the term "marriage" from all legal references to a committed life partnership. Marriage is a heavily loaded cultural and religious term that cannot be effectively used for legal purposes under the US Constitution.
What marriage means to any single group or individual will differ in many ways. We must allow marriage within all faith traditions but the government, under our constitution, can only address the rights, responsibilities, and privileges inherent in committed relationships. Those rights, responsibilities, and privileges are addressed appropriately as civil unions, and the idea of civil marriage does not add anything useful. It only adds emotional loading that is counterproductive.
Get the government completely out of marriage, both for straight and LGBT couples. Acknowledge marriage as a religious and traditional custom, and routinely issue civil union licenses to those who choose to marry, as long as the requirements for civil union are met, but do not ever call the LEGAL relationship marriage.
Suggested by Michael Reddell on 01/17/2009 @ 07:20AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.