Forums > Social Discussion > US Gay marriage questions

Posted: 23rd Nov 2004
Perhaps society as that woman knows it is changing a bit, and she is scared of that change?

I think what all the negativity about same sex marriage comes down to is fear of change and fear of what is different to what you know.

Because you are afraid of change does not make it right for you to deny an American the same rights and civil liberties you enjoy.

When the Germans rioted against the Jews, I'm sure they were just protecting what they knew, and protecting themselves from what they feared, but that certainly does not justify their actions.

I'm not a scholar on German history, but I recall that Hitler's regime suggested that the Jewish people were a threat to German society. See the similarities? No, we are not as extreme as the Germans were, though the potential is there. Denying rights is the first step. An "Us vs. Them" mentality makes it easy to deny equal rights.

I am not good at counter arguments, but her argument, while logical, well thought out, and well written, is still flawed.

Of course, perhaps I am totally off base here....these are the conclusions I drew from the woman's reply...others will see it differently.

It's not a matter of picking on someone for their beliefs as much as it is not tolerating bigotry. I think too...part of the problem is that people fail to try and understand where the other side is coming from.

Some people oppose gay marriage because of their beliefs, and they are set firm in those beliefs...yet there are others who support gay marriage because of their beliefs, and they are set firm in their own.

How can you compromise? I don't know, to be honest.

PErhaps by recognizing the difference between a civic marriage and a religious one. The state could care less if you get married in a church, and doesn't really care what faith you hold to. It is the civic marriage gays and lesbians are after, not the religious one.

It will take compromise from both sides of the argument, though the "conservative" side sees no need since they have such a moral majority.

It was the same way with regards to inter-racial marriages, and it took the courts to tell people that by not allowing to loving people to marry, society was discriminating against them. The courts did their job then, and I don't think anyone would now question that, however if the courts did the same today, they get labeled activist judges.

I'm rambling, and hungry...so I think I'll go now.

Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Posted: 23rd Nov 2004
I dont buy those arguments, they simply arent based on actual historical information they are simply 'old wives tales'.

I wish I had more time to enter this debate, but I dont. I have an exam in an hour, and after that I'm heading off for a couple of months of sun sea fire and trance

again however, the only salient point raised by the quilter is one of access to funds for raising children..again marriage is reduced to access to money. Wot a joke it is that the only valid points all these sanctity of marriage ppl can raise have to do with retaining the financial benefit of marriage for heteros.

catchya all.

Josh

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Posted: 23rd Nov 2004
With regard to the post Spiritie posted for us,

Gay and lesbian people do have children, they have them in many ways, bt donor eggs and sperm, and by adoption, and by having the children from either partners earlier realtionship.

Therefor, using the writers own reasoning, Why should not these people and their children enjoy the legal protection and rights of hetrosexual couples?

You see, that whole agrument brought it back to the procreation thing again. Which is just irrelevant.
And nobody tell me that an adopted child is not the parents real child. I was adopted and my Mum and Dad would be very unhappy to hear that, as would I.

And don't people realise that a religious marriage only does not bind two people together in a legal sense. And a civil marriage, which does bind people together in the eyes of the law, has nothing to do with religion.
It all depends on wether you sign the registras big book or not.

Eat when you're hungry
Sleep where it's dry
No one is ever what they seem
Gabriel King - The Wild Road

Posted: 23rd Nov 2004
I agree.

Women's lib didn't devalue marriage. People devalued marriage. The freedom of divorce just opened up the possibility for people to take advantage of it. It's fair that not everyone is going to be happy with one other person for the rest of their lives. And it's normal that it takes society a while to find ways to deal with these changes. (Like child support is a way of dealing with it.) We might find the our original ideas of how to deal with these things don't work, and have to make up new ones, or we might find that we have to re-examine why we have marriage in the first place. (Not so likely) We might just need to fine tune the whole divorce and support thing.

But probably, people will just have to wise up emotionally and act with responsiblity and integrity, and make decisions they can hold to. I think young-uns should slow down and realise again that marriage is a commitment and not a hollywood dongle. Divorce is not a get out clause, it's a last resort.

Maybe I'm just naive idealist....

Oh no wait - COOL! I'm a naive idealist!

"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Posted: 23rd Nov 2004
It seems like the woman in spritie's post is arguing that:

1) Sexual liberation caused problems (specifically abortions and child upkeep) for many women as there was less of a commitment to a union between partners

2) Gay people don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals because they don't produce children.

3) Promiscuous sexuality breaks down the social structures that build up society.

Well, 1) to 2) doesn't follow at all. It's not the same issues. She says it is, but talks about different things. What bearing does women having abortions and unfaithful men have on homosexual rights? I don't see a connection.

And homosexuals aren't asking for the "benefits of the legal union meant to promote and support child bearing and raising", they're asking for benefits to do with access and recognition of married status. (OK, generalisation, but that's how it seems)

Finally, the worry about promiscuous sexuality - in what way does allowing homosexuals to marry promote promiscuous sexuality? Surely it promotes exactly the opposite, i.e. giving a mechanism for two people to promise their committment to each other and renounce promiscuity?

It's a nicely written case, but it doesn't actually make much sense.

And I'm not sure that marriage has been devalued (mcp), but I agree that if it has, it has not been because of increased freedoms (women's lib).

monkeys ate my brain

Posted: 24th Nov 2004
Why does it seem that the people who make the arguments against homosexual marriages seem to hold the most cynical views on the institution of matrimony itself? Where DJ Dan bases his argument on the financial benefits deserved by those who procreate, the woman who wrote the piece that Spritie posted appears to think that the entire point of marriage is to finally be able to have sex and babies.



I find it odd that in all the points made about why marriage is important to the individuals concerned and society at large, money, children and promiscuity feature large; love not at all.





"Why should he marry at all when he can readily find a sexual partner without marriage?"



Oh, I don't know. Possibly because he is in love with the person and wants to spend the rest of his life with them? This woman puts across a very low opinion of men. Perhaps she needs to meet some who have not made life decisions on the basis of unfulfilled sexual desire.



As for the crux of her argument against gay people being allowed to marry, it makes no sense.



"...promiscuous sexuality, either heterosexuality or homosexuality, breaks down the social structures that stabilize the systems that connect the generations and keep people working together to build up their society."



If you believe this then you are arguing FOR gay marriages, but frankly I can see no evidence for her claim that extra marital sex means that society is doomed.





"...whatever threatens the male-female marriage-based family also threatens the stability and well-being of the society."



Firstly, how does people getting married, threaten marriage-based families?

Secondly, at what point does the sex of either partner become relevant. When they want children? Everyone can have children one way or another, through the wonders of adoption, surrogacy, IVF etc.



Womens lib. was not a Bad Thing. The option of divorce in a failed marriage is not a Bad Thing. The freedom to have sex outside marriage without being shamed by society is not a Bad Thing. And, quite frankly, if hers is the type of society that is so restrictive and prescriptive then I am neither suprised nor worried when it breaks down.

Posted: 24th Nov 2004

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Posted: 25th Nov 2004
the us is strange
mike.c

Rules and responsibities:
These are the ties that bind us.
We do what we do,because of who we are.
If we did otherwise,we would not be ourselves.
I will do what i have to do
And i will do what i must..

Posted: 26th Nov 2004

Written by: Molly

---

... quite frankly, if hers is the type of society that is so restrictive and prescriptive then I am neither suprised nor worried when it breaks down.

---

Damned straight!



er,... I mean, good point there Molly. (appologies to all the non-straight readers for using a heterosexually biased expression... )

-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Posted: 27th Nov 2004

Written by: loki.c1687

---

the us is strange
mike.c

---

But so's Britain, isn't it?

Eat when you're hungry
Sleep where it's dry
No one is ever what they seem
Gabriel King - The Wild Road

Posted: 27th Nov 2004
You should see Ireland.

Love is the law.

Posted: 29th Nov 2004
I Believe Gay Couples Should Have The Same Rights As Normal Couples Do... Why Is It That People Can Be So Predjudice Agaisnt What They Don't Understand.. My Best Friend Is Gay And Is Getting Married Next Year And He's Going To The States To Get Married.. I Think Everywhere Should Allow Gay Couples To Marry... Not Just Certain Places In The States

oOo Look At The Pretty Fire.. oOo Touch The Pretty Fire oO.. OWW THE PRETTY FIRE BURNT ME!

Posted: 30th Nov 2004
I'd like to point out that The Economist has endorsed gay marriage on economic grounds, as promoting social cohesion, and therefore economic stability. The Economist is not known for its liberal views.

The United States is a secular nation; please read the First Amendment to our Constitution if you don't think so. It is people who attempt to make it a Christian nation (by any definition, but especially in the Bushie sense) who are unAmerican.

Since most gay couples both work outside the home, they are more likely to pay a marriage penalty on their federal taxes if they marry. (Yes, two-income couples mostly LOSE money by filing jointly.) The exceptions -- gay couples only one of whom works outside the home -- are mostly raising children. And the children they adopt tend to be handicapped, or otherwise difficult to place.

Given these facts, I feel that no reasonable (and patriotic if American) person could object to same-sex marriage. Note that DJ Dantana is in no sense a counterexample to this.

And I know some very nice Christians with views to the left of MINE -- and thur ain't much room left of me, let me tell you. I suggest that we call the nasty ones 'Christianists' -- just as Osama bin Laden and his ilk are referred to as 'Islamists'. All decent Moslems oppose them; IMO all decent Christians oppose the Christianists.

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 30th Nov 2004
BTW, NYC -- I see why you love her. Does she have a brother? :-)

And it's perfectly all right with me if you tease me about being a closet hetero. Anybody who's met me will just laugh, and people on here won't care.

Please realize: it's wishful thinking. You're cute, smart, sweet, and an extremely talented spinner-of-many-things. We don't really think you're gay, we just wish you were (pace Molly). Same reason people make up all those ridiculous rumors about Tom Cruise.

Yes, being put in the same category as Tom Cruise is a compliment. Just take it and roll with it, dude! (Careful how you roll, of course...there's hommuh sekshuls heah!)

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 30th Nov 2004
This just in -- the Supreme Court of the United States has refused to hear a case against Massachusetts' same-sex marriage law. They gave no reason, but they never do.

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 30th Nov 2004

Written by: vanize

---

Written by: Molly

---

... quite frankly, if hers is the type of society that is so restrictive and prescriptive then I am neither surprised nor worried when it breaks down.

---

Damned straight!

er,... I mean, good point there Molly. (apologies to all the non-straight readers for using a heterosexually biased expression... )

---

That's OK, we'll make allowances for those of you who are, shall we say, homosexually challenged. Actually I've been known to use that phrase myself, but in a slightly different context, and usually in the plural... :-) I've heard gay people correct themselves from "straight ahead" to "gaily forward," but they're kidding.

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 30th Nov 2004

Written by: Xopher (aka Mr. Clean)

---

I've heard gay people correct themselves from "straight ahead" to "gaily forward," but they're kidding.

---

I like it!

The optimist claims that we are living in the best of all possible worlds.
The pessimist fears this is true.

Always make time to play in the snow.

Posted: 30th Nov 2004
Please forgive me if this is too much information, but this needs to be put into words in an open forum.



My life radically changed last year. Exactally how is not important, just that it had. In that time a man who I'd known for many years helped me through the rough times. He's a man I loved deeply. And due to circumstances, I couldn't go out to be with him right away. But we planned for it. We knew the problems involved, but we were both willing to do it.



In April of last year he passed away. He never told me that his diabetes was as bad as it was. He never told me about the mild heart attacks he had in the past. And he never really told me that his diet wasn't steady because he wasn't "hungry" all the time. Protecting me to the end, that's how he always had been. He went quietly, in his sleep. I was the last to talk to him before he passed on.



He had a heart attack that came out of nowhere, and he never felt anything happen from all I've been told. I tried for days to find him, doing everything I could from here. I finally heard from his boss, because in her words I sounded "very concerned". Thankfully, she gave my phone number to his family, so we could grieve together. If she hadn't done that, there would have been no closure for me. Legally speaking, I would have been left in the cold.



You have no idea how much I've been beating myself up over the situation. If I were there, I could have done something. I could have called the family, and not let that job go to the coroner's office. I could have taken him to a hospital to save his life, even if I couldn't sign anything to give permission to treat. I should have been there, but I wasn't. And even if I were there, I don't know anything that I could have done within the legal system as someone who is legally only his "flat mate".



Even in the aftermath I couldn't claim his body, I couldn't act on his behalf and I couldn't legally clean up his affairs such as the apartment. But I could have given the dignity of a human face for his family, and not let them deal with well meaning strangers who see this kind of thing all the time. There's something to be said about maintaining dignity in someone's death as well as in life.



To anyone who disagrees with gay marrage, or even rights for people who love each other, think about this. I want you to imagine yourself helpless as one of your loved one writhes in agony. As they're being wheeled into the hospital, you're stopped at the door and told "You can't go in there, your job is done and we can't tell you what's going on. You can go home now." I want you to think about watching someone you love die, and you can't do a thing about it. You can not legally give the doctors the right to treat. I want you to try to comprehend the gut-wrenching feelings, and the crushing sadness that comes from watching, unable to lift a finger. Then I want you to imagine them dying, and you can't do anything to help your loved one when they're gone. Now I want you to imagine trying to piece together what happened from third party informaiton, because you can't legally be told by authorities what did happen.



Now you can start to understand my world.



He and I had talked about marrage when it was first talked about. He was more connected with the issues of the day. We both agreed that we would take things one small disaster at a time in our lives when I could get out there with him. It won't happen now. I miss him, and I still love him, but I'm still sad. I hate feeling helpless.



So don't get on your high horses about the sanctity of marrage. Don't tell me that it's all about money. Don't tell me that you're doing it "for the children". It's about life, all aspects of life. It's about quality of life, and making it better for two people. And it's about sharing you life with someone else, and that includes sharing the end of life.



I'm sorry, this just always gets me upset and I don't like to talk about it too much.

I'm weird. Just work through that and we'll all be fine.

"If you are a dog and your owner suggests that you wear a sweater suggest that he wear a tail." - Fran Lebowitz

Posted: 1st Dec 2004
Thanks for going to the effort to tell us that Socks.

Take care and lots of love
Clare x

Getting to the other side

Posted: 1st Dec 2004
X 10,000,000 for socks.



reminds me of the story I relayed a bit of earlier in this thread - which was a very emotional thing to watch from a distance.

-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Posted: 1st Dec 2004
I second vanize on the hugs.

Thank you for sharing that, Socks.

Stories like this will help reach people who are against gay marriage because it's "against the Bible" or because of some vague theory about "harming the institution." Those, I still believe, are the majority of opposition at the grass-roots level.

It won't help against the leaders of the anti-freedom-to-marry movement. They really hate us and want us to suffer as much as possible. There are a few people like that at the grass-roots level; believe me, I've met some. But persuading them is not possible anyway; they don't need to be persuaded, they need to be stopped, by any (legal) means necessary.

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 2nd Dec 2004
I've been watching this thread for a while, and now that some of the more serious vitriol has gone out of the discussion, I'd like to present the following to all, but especially to Americans. I've been thinking today, cranking things around in my head, processing why I am so incredibly upset that states have been passing bans on gay marriage. It is not only highly offensive in that it effectively renders me a second-class citizen, but that it is by its very nature un-American in letter and spirit. For my specific reasons why, read on.

Some of this is going to come off as history lecture right here at the begining, but it's very important.
---------------------
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There's a reason that line sounds so trite and worn to our ears. It is frequently trotted out by politicians who believe that they can bend it to suit their purposes or add patriotic weight to their propagandist machinations. It also happens to be the most basic notion of what "The United States of America" is all about. The important thing that I want you to notice here is that we are not given these rights by our government--we are "created" with them, they are our natural entitlements as human beings. They are as much a part of us as our hands or noses. Weaving together the foremost political thought of their day, our founding fathers sought to create a government that would protect these rights. They used a concept called social contract to preserve as much of our individual rights as possible while preserving us as a nation. To greatly simplify the concept of social contract, it means that everyone gives up a little of our liberty in order to ensure the safety and well-being of all. We give up a little of our freedom to do as we please by submitting to the laws of our government so that nobody hurts anyone else or otherwise infringes on their rights. This is the foremost and fundamental principle of our identity as a nation--it is our makeup, our substance, our constitution.

But why? Why did they create our country this way? What was their driving impetus? Why these seven articles of Constitution and first ten Ammendments so quickly after? These early Americans were very diverse, of different nationalities, cultures, religions, languages, etc. The one thing they had in common was that they were not far-removed from persecution and oppression, and in fact were quite familiar with it. Their ancestors were religious misfits, criminals, and other undesireables and the colonists themselves were unjustly subject to taxation by King George III without representation in his government. In creating this country, they made a safe space for all to be as they are so long as they do not tread upon the rights of others--a "land of opporunity" where all are free to follow their bliss, be it religious, financial, or social.

To summarize, this country's most basic principle: You're free to live and do as you like so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or the abridging of freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." --The First Amendment to the Constitution

Because they were no strangers to persecution for being minority belief-holders, the very first thing set out in the Bill of Rights is the protection of people's right to believe whatever they will with respect to the largest questions in life--Where do we come from? Why are we here? How should we live? Our right to act in accordance with those beliefs has always been fundamental to our existence as a nation, again allowing for not infringing on the rights of others. This is not limited to things that traditionally fall under the category of "establishment of religion" like Christianity, Islam, Paganism or Hinduism--this means philosophies like Confucianism, Objectivism, Secular Humanism and things in between like Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Satanism, etc. Add this onto our most basic prinicple from above and it is quite plain that people are also allowed to believe and act on those beliefs as they like, so long as they don't trample the rights of others.

Since there is no viable way to legislate morality among so many diverse sets of beliefs, the government must instead protect the rights of individuals within the society up to the point at which they interfere with the rights of others. Without the moral institutions of religion to protect the rights of individuals in a society, the government instead creates law. This is the basis for separation of church and state.

One set of laws that exists within our land is that which governs the institution of marriage.

Before I go any further, I need to ask the very basic question: What is the purpose of marriage? If I ask a theologian, he may tell me that marriage is a sacrament, a sacred commitment before God between a man and woman. If I ask the Secular Humanist, he may tell me that it is a social construct for child-raising. If I ask the anthropologically-minded atheist, he may tell me that it is property institution, a remnant of tribal warfare, a drive toward genetic domination, a tool for political alliance or machination, and is ultimately not really for anything. I could ask a dozen more and get a dozen more different answers. As far as the government is concerned, none of these answers is particularly reconcilable to the others, as all of these answers are products of the belief systems of their adherents. The government is not in the business of legislating morality--something which is clearly of "church" not "state."

So where does that leave the law? The government gets nothing specific out of marriage save a convenient method of tracking citizens, tracking their property, and denoting their relation and commitment to one another. In return, it gives tax breaks, protects inheritance rights of spouses, and recognizes the relationship of two individuals.

I already can hear the outcries--"But what about the children?" And I answer, "Well, what about them?" MARRIAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN. Procreation is NOT a function of marriage. People have always had children outside of wedlock. It's the reason we have the word "bastard." Some people who are married choose not to have or are unable to have children. That doesn't invalidate their marriage any more than having a child with someone makes you married to them! Since there are NO childbearing requisites for marriage, the gender of the partners in question is a non-issue (not to mention that female couples are a few clinic visits removed from concieving without substantial male involvement).

Beyond this, marrying the person of your choice--whether for money or convenience or love, in a cathedral or outdoors or in Elvis's Drive-thru Chapel of Love in Las Vegas--does NOT infringe upon the rights of others!

**To answer some specific arguments before they are brought up, I submit to you the following.**

1) The often-forgotten Ninth Ammendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just because the right to marry who I choose is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution does not mean that I do not already have that right or that the government is not responsible for protecting it.

2) From Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

If one citizen is afforded the privilege of having his marriage to the individual of his mutual choosing recognized by the government, and all of the legal incidents thereof are bestowed upon them both, then this must apply to all citizens of the United States. Else you're privileging one sector of society--also a violation of "created equal."

3) The false argument: "Well then I guess you're okay with incest, huh? If we can marry whoever we want, we should be able to marry our own family, right?"

Wrong. Even assuming that we're talking about adults, administratively, this monkey-wrenches the legal system of taxation and inheritance. Similar reasons apply to polygamy/polygany/marriage to non-human objects of affection. Also (in an admittedly personal arena which has no bearing on the legal context), the chances of the products of such incestual unions being physically or mentally handicapped are substantial, and I would not want to condemn an individual to such an existence.

4) "We should leave the recognition of marriages of various stripes up to individual states."

Wrong. From Article 4, Section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Marriage falls under this clause and this is why if Jack and Jill get married in Vegas, they're still married when they get back home in North Carolina.

--------------------
On a personal level, I don't care if it's called a civil union or a marriage so long as the rights protected by and privileges entailed in the laws are the same. I think that having "seperate but equal" institutions could be setting a bad precedent, or building on an old bad precedent, but I'll let the case-law scholars hash that one out. What I can't stand is to hear one more frantic squeal about "family values" that hides behind it nothing more than irrational fear of the unknown and serves simply as a code word for religious conservatives everywhere to rise up in protest and defense. My family values are just as valid as yours, buster--and are pretty damn close to yours, when you get down to it--and deserve the exact same protection and recognition under the law. I hear people make noise about the rampant promiscuity of the GLBT community and in nearly the same breath deny us any possibility of having a recognized committed relationship. I watch the same individuals wax hysterical over gay marriage defiling the sanctity of the institution lose the fervor in their voices when Brittney Spears has a 48-hour sham of a marriage. I watch half of all heterosexual unions ending in divorce and see people spend their energies keeping me from marrying Joe instead of saving the children who are victims of those broken relationships. Where's the f*cking love, people? Where's our priority? From the election results, it seems to be at making 10% of Americans into second-class citizens. How in the heck does that make us a stronger more unified nation in the face of the international and internal threats we face? C'mon, people. Pardon me while I move to Oregon with Joe and fight for my equal rights as a human being AND an American.

More later...

Of Equality--as if it harmed me, giving others the same chances and
rights as myself--as if it were not indispensible to my own rights
that others posess the same. --Walt Whitman

"To my delight, I discovered that poi are amazing movement exploration tools. They are guides. They are teachers. They are like Yoda, only smaller and on strings." --Nick Woolsey, also known as Meenik

Posted: 2nd Dec 2004


Thank you, towery! I think that's the best essay I've read recently that supports gay marriage!!

Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Posted: 2nd Dec 2004
Good essay, I agree. But I have to disagree with towery on one point: Unless we get the actual name, there will IN FACT be discrimination. A lot of the laws and rules say "marriage" or "spouse" etc. Having a different name just gives a bigot an excuse: "Sorry, only spouses and blood relatives are allowed in, and you're not married, you just had a civil union. We'll tell you after he's dead -- if we feel like it."

It won't matter what the law says. The ability to sue and win will be cold comfort to the person who missed hir beloved's last moments. For that reason, I insist on marriage by the name, and nothing less.

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 2nd Dec 2004

Written by: Xopher (aka Mr. Clean)

---

It won't matter what the law says. The ability to sue and win will be cold comfort to the person who missed hir beloved's last moments. For that reason, I insist on marriage by the name, and nothing less.

---

As I understand it, "Marriage" is a religious practice though. See a priest or other religious official for permission to obtain one of those. "Civil Union" is the legal aspect of marriage, that the government can recognize without stepping on the church's toes. "Partner/Spouse" also is a legal term, I know I've seen it on various forms and documents to signify a legal partnership.

If you can get a civil union, go to the county courthouse and get one. Heck, I've known heterosexual couples who have done so because they didn't want the expensive fanfare of a full-blown church wedding, or were just plain unreligious. If you want to get a "marriage" (ceremony with all the bells and whistles) you're going to have to find a church that will perform it.

When the government performs "marriages" I'll concede your point, but I really think you're arguing apples and oranges on this one.

Do note: I am a strong supporter of civil unions. I support marriage as well, but I think it's not a legal term in the first place and thus my persuasions toward that end would have to be directed to my local religious institution, not by a political vote or initiative.

What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.

Posted: 2nd Dec 2004
There is such a thing as a civic marriage, yes? This is the one that matters, as it's what the government recognizes. That marriage license you sign is not for the church, but for the state. It is a marriage license, not a civil union license.

It's this that we want access to...I don't want to force any religion to marry me and Mand if it is against their doctrine.

Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Posted: 2nd Dec 2004
*pokes head in*

Im all for gay marriage. it doesnt hurt me, doesnt affect me, and doesnt bother me. nothing much about gay people does. sure, it sucks when you try to hit on a lesbian. sure it sucks when a gay guy asks you back to his place, but sucky things happen (no pun there).

I think people need to ask themselves why it bothers them, personally. not from a 'society will collapse, buildings will fall down and the very fabric of spacetime will rip' point of view, but a 'what will joe and bill getting married screw up in my life'. most of those answers will be 'nothing at all'.

so let joe and bill get married.

*un-pokes head in*

"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA

"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie

Posted: 2nd Dec 2004
No, I'm afraid that's not correct. You get a "Marriage License" when you go to the county. Then it must be solemnized, under rules that vary from state to state; clergy are one of the types of people who can solemnize.

I know this because I've solemnized several marriages myself; and in New Jersey, I have to sign the Marriage License. (Didn't know I was clergy? Well, now you do.)

I am completely against any religious institution, or solemnizer, being forced to perform any solemnization it, or he or she, is uncomfortable with. I, for example, won't marry people who aren't at least willing to CLAIM they love each other. And my religion does same-sex marriages with no distinction (flak in some quarters, but they're the minority). In fact we don't usually call it a wedding; it's a "handfasting." But once I and the witnesses sign the document, it's a "marriage" according to the state.

It's the STATE recognition that I'm talking about. And it's called Marriage. "Married filing jointly" on your income tax.

As long as two men or two women can walk in to the county office and get the same license as one man and one woman get, this is all moot. It will be a marriage if that's true. No special substitute certification will suffice.

Period.

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 2nd Dec 2004
My previous was directed toward Dio's comment, not the intervening ones.

And thanks, MiG. Go thou and ask people that question!

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations

Posted: 2nd Dec 2004
actually, and this is a little off topic, do the lesbian population here like/dislike/arent bothered by guys hitting on them? not the insistent creepy kind, but the 'flirt with, i'd really like to wake up next to you tomorrow kind'?

"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA

"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie