Civil unions are acceptable only at the federal level. I do not believe individual states should pass laws that institute the concept of civil unions, but I think it would be reasonable for the federal government to do so with a constitutional amendment--as long as that amendment also specifically states that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman.
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This is the traditional and historical understanding of what marriage represents, both religiously and in a civic sense. There should be no pressure or expectation to change this time-honored institution, and no explanation beyond that should be necessary.
So in other words, you are ok changing the Constitution with an amendment that will discriminate against a whole segment of society.
Traditionally, the marriage vows also state "foresaking all others until death you do part". It's not gay people who want to change the definition of marriage. It's the straight people who keep cheating on each other and divorcing.
My positions are:
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This is the traditional and historical understanding of what marriage represents, both religiously and in a civic sense. There should be no pressure or expectation to change this time-honored institution, and no explanation beyond that should be necessary.
Keep in mind that even the concept of marriage as the union of two people who love each other is relatively new.
And, contrary to letxa's comment, marriage has clearly evolved in terms of expectation and levels of equality between partners even in straight unions.
If what you want is to intentionally offend people that have a more traditional view of marriage then, well, I don't support that endeavor and you shouldn't be surprised that others don't, either.
I don't want to intentionally offend anyone. I want what my parents have. They have been married for over 40 years, and my mother has said to me, "I want to dance at your WEDDING, not your 'civil union'."
I want to know how my wedding would affect straight weddings/couples.
I don't want to intentionally offend anyone. I want what my parents have. They have been married for over 40 years, and my mother has said to me, "I want to dance at your WEDDING, not your 'civil union'."
I want to know how my wedding would affect straight weddings/couples.
I have no problem with you having a wedding to celebrate your civil union.
Why would my hypothetical marriage to my girlfriend be offensive to anyone else's marriage? I truly don't understand. Why would it even have anything to do with anyone else's marriage?
I'm in favor of a federal constitutional amendment that provides for civil unions that have the exact same legal status as marriage. If what you want is equal rights then that'll do the job and I support it. If what you want is to intentionally offend people that have a more traditional view of marriage then, well, I don't support that endeavor and you shouldn't be surprised that others don't, either.
The reason I don't support these efforts at the state level is because if you get into a situation where different states have different rules regarding the matter than you have a headache such as one I read about somewhere where some state (RI? VT? Don't remember) couldn't grant a divorce to a gay couple because the state where they wanted the divorce didn't recognize the marriage in the first place. To avoid that kind of incompatibility, any legal changes should be at the federal level.
I have no problem with you having a wedding to celebrate your civil union.
However, I do.
My relationship is just as loving, as special, and as important as any straight coupling, and it deserves to have THE SAME recognition as theirs does.
When I have a wedding, it will be to celebrate my marriage.
Well, like I said, please understand that just as you attach importance to the word "marriage," so do others that disagree with you. So while we may not agree, you should at least understand that it's not hard to understand that people can have just as much interest in blocking the attempts to redefine marriage as you have interest in redefining it.
As I said before, the definition of marriage was redefined when straight couples started cheating on each other and divorcing each other.
If people understood the importance of the word, they should have no problem sharing that word with people who want to experience that joy as well.
It doesn't effect anyone else's marriage. But just as you want the word "marriage" to mean something to you--and apparently you think it's important enough to argue about--please understand that there are many others that want the word "marriage" to mean something a bit more conservative and traditional. It's just how we use the word and it can be argued that it literally shouldn't matter to anyone. But just as it is is clear that it does matter to you, please understand that it matters just as much to others that disagree with you.
I don't even understand that comment. Just because many people don't live up to their vows doesn't mean the definition of marriage is open to any interpretation for those that do live up to their vows. You seem to be arguing that because some straight couples fail in their marriage that the whole word and concept doesn't mean anything anymore. Obviously you don't believe that or you wouldn't be expending so much energy to try to get that word to be applied to you.
I'm in favor of a federal constitutional amendment that provides for civil unions that have the exact same legal status as marriage. If what you want is equal rights then that'll do the job and I support it. If what you want is to intentionally offend people that have a more traditional view of marriage then, well, I don't support that endeavor and you shouldn't be surprised that others don't, either.
The reason I don't support these efforts at the state level is because if you get into a situation where different states have different rules regarding the matter than you have a headache such as one I read about somewhere where some state (RI? VT? Don't remember) couldn't grant a divorce to a gay couple because the state where they wanted the divorce didn't recognize the marriage in the first place. To avoid that kind of incompatibility, any legal changes should be at the federal level.
No, that won't do the job, because it has been decided in this country, in another context and at the national level, that separate is inherently unequal. If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read the decision of the California Supreme Court that legalized gay marriage. It's quoted somewhere here on Bettermost, but unfortunately I'm not skillful at searching and creating links. A "civil union" is most definitely a second class institution.
Just as, in the '50s, it was very important to some people -- a majority, in certain areas -- to maintain a tradition school system in which black and white students were educated separately. But ultimately, that non-inclusive and intolerant segment of society was not allowed to set the standard.
Why should they be allowed to do so now? In other words, if there are two groups who both value the institution of "marriage," then why should the preferences of the conservative, traditional group necessarily prevail?
You are talking of traditional marriage. Traditional marriage vows are "for better or for worse, foresaking all others, until death we do part". Yet straight couples are cheating on each other and getting divorced, and remarried to other people. So it's ok for them to redefine marriage to suit their needs, but it's not ok to allow gay people to marry?
No, that won't do the job, because it has been decided in this country, in another context and at the national level, that separate is inherently unequal.
If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read the decision of the California Supreme Court that legalized gay marriage. It's quoted somewhere here on Bettermost, but unfortunately I'm not skillful at searching and creating links. A "civil union" is most definitely a second class institution.
I don't wish to offend people either, but those who have "a more traditional view of marriage" need to get over it or deal with it...
I've gone on at some length elsewhere here on Bettermost that what I believe is that government needs to get out of the "marriage" business altogether, and clergy or religious authorities of any faith need to be deprived of the power of concluding legal "marriages." "Marriage" should be left up to religious belief. Only the government should have the power to conclude the civil contract of legally binding two people together.
So if you hold "a more traditional view" of marriage, that it can exist only between a man and a woman, fine, go ahead and believe it, and let it be your religious authority figure who conducts your "marriage." That ceremony should just have no standing in law.
"Our handbook and bylaws state that we offer benefits to a spouse, which is someone you are legally married to. Since you have a "civil union" and not a marriage, we will not allow you to list your partner as a beneficary on your health coverage."
Jeff, it's interesting that you brought up the issue of women's suffrage and the state-by-state issue has become part of this overall discussion. For the majority of the suffrage movement, it was a state-by-state campaign with some states granting women the right to vote well earlier than others. Wyoming being the first! Yeehaw! (As with many western states). But, it wasn't until the early years of the 20th century when the emphasis and pressure within the suffrage movement were focused on the federal amendment that the women's suffrage struggle came to a successful conclusion for all women in the country, regardless of race, etc. (even though Susan B. Anthony had written the wording of the amendment in the late 19th century).
The California Supreme Court is not the law of the land, it's the law of California. The issue still has to be settled at a national evel. But if there are two names for the exact same rights I fail to see how that will be held to be "second class institution."
No, this is a different issue.
The California Supreme Court is not the law of the land, it's the law of California.
The issue still has to be settled at a national evel.
But if there are two names for the exact same rights I fail to see how that will be held to be "second class institution."
Or perhaps those that have "a more progressive view of marriage" need to get over it or deal with the fact that society doesn't agree with them.
So now not only are you expecting those with traditional views of marriage to recognize marriages of gay couples, you want to tell them that their church will no longer have the legal ability to perform marriages? You seem to expect society to just drop centuries of tradition because you want it to. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Or perhaps the "marriage" of a gay couple should have no standing in law instead?
Letxa, I'm still trying to understand why you think a heterosexual union should be called something different from a gay union. Truly, I want to understand why you think there should be a difference. Tradition for tradition's sake doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to me.
The question would be: "Why are there two different names for the exact same rights?" What is the point - other than discrimination?
It would be a case of separate-but-equal legislation and it would be on very shaky ground.
To me, at least part of the issue with the difference in terminology has to do with general societal/ cultural equality as well as legal equality. Maybe that's the heart of the matter. It goes beyond the technicalities, the contracts, the insurance policies and other legal equality. To call a gay or lesbian union a "marriage" really does signify to the rest of society that it's as good, as valuable and as significant as a straight union.
Letxa, I'm still trying to understand why you think a heterosexual union should be called something different from a gay union. Truly, I want to understand why you think there should be a difference.
Tradition for tradition's sake doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to me.
The question would be: "Why are there two different names for the exact same rights?" What is the point - other than discrimination?
It would be a case of separate-but-equal legislation and it would be on very shaky ground.
Tradition changes, and for good reason.
My positions are:
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This is the traditional and historical understanding of what marriage represents, both religiously and in a civic sense. There should be no pressure or expectation to change this time-honored institution, and no explanation beyond that should be necessary.
Civil unions are acceptable only at the federal level. I do not believe individual states should pass laws that institute the concept of civil unions, but I think it would be reasonable for the federal government to do so with a constitutional amendment--as long as that amendment also specifically states that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman.
I'm in favor of a federal constitutional amendment that provides for civil unions that have the exact same legal status as marriage. If what you want is equal rights then that'll do the job and I support it. If what you want is to intentionally offend people that have a more traditional view of marriage then, well, I don't support that endeavor and you shouldn't be surprised that others don't, either.
The reason I don't support these efforts at the state level is because if you get into a situation where different states have different rules regarding the matter than you have a headache such as one I read about somewhere where some state (RI? VT? Don't remember) couldn't grant a divorce to a gay couple because the state where they wanted the divorce didn't recognize the marriage in the first place. To avoid that kind of incompatibility, any legal changes should be at the federal level.
Exactly, Clyde and Amanda. In the end, lexta's arguments, like all the arguments against gay marriage, simply come down to one word: Prejudice.
I disagree with you here, the "full faith and credit" clause takes care of recognizing interstate contracts, and marriage is just such a contract. no difficulties will be found in some states having same sex marriage or civil unions, and others not having them.
Tradition, and respect for tradition, and a little but of "give" on the part of the gay community when the conservative community is "giving" quite a lot by accepting the option of civil unions.
It would be a case of equal but equal.
Having said that, if you think that by calling yourselves "married" that you will be free of discrimination, that's obviously silly. If anything I think that it would simply heighten discrimination and negative attitudes against gays.
How do you figure that I have prejudices? Believe it or not, the fact that I don't agree with gay marriage doesn't mean I have prejudices against gays. That is similar to calling me racist just because I won't vote for Obama, and I won't have it.
Traditions are constantly being modified. "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1951. Should we yank it back out? Anti-Miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967 opening up interracial marriage. Should we go back to allowing marriage only to couples of the same race? Traditions and the concept of marriage are not static. Your contention that they are is in error.
Sometimes the best way to respect a tradition by expanding it to be more inclusive.
You have yet to establish a need for two separate sets of legislation. (A real need as opposed to just wanting it that way.)
Why is there a negative attitude toward gays? And who has this attitude? You?
Now whose argument isn't sound? You are saying that equal rights for ALL citizens is the same as not voting for ONE candidate?
Again, it's the height of arrogance to think that you'll automatically get what you want just because you want it really bad.
My positions are:
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This is the traditional and historical understanding of what marriage represents, both religiously and in a civic sense. There should be no pressure or expectation to change this time-honored institution, and no explanation beyond that should be necessary.
Civil unions are acceptable only at the federal level. I do not believe individual states should pass laws that institute the concept of civil unions, but I think it would be reasonable for the federal government to do so with a constitutional amendment--as long as that amendment also specifically states that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman.
It's not arrogance to hope and work towards the goal of being recognized as equal within society.
You lost me. I'm simply confused as to how you conclude that I'm prejudiced.
How do you figure that I have prejudices? Believe it or not, the fact that I don't agree with gay marriage doesn't mean I have prejudices against gays. That is similar to calling me racist just because I won't vote for Obama, and I won't have it.
I take offense at what I consider to be extreme arrogance of those in the gay community that presume to tell society that we must change our traditional definition and understanding of a traditional institution such as marriage just because they've decided to become vocal. From an issue of rights in our country I understand the arguments and it's why I'm willing to go with the idea of civil unions which would extend all the same rights as are granted to married couples. But just as I can acknowledge the arguments that gays want the same rights as married couples and I might need to bend my own beliefs to accept that my government will recognize these relationships when I might not agree that it should, gays should understand that that is a big concession in and of itself for a lot of people and that, perhaps, gays need to acknowledge a traditional definition of marriage.
This mostly needs to be a matter of give and take by both sides. Again, it's the height of arrogance to think that you'll automatically get what you want just because you want it really bad. I think traditional conservatives can give a little by agreeing to the concept of civil unions and gays can give a little by agreeing to let conservatives "keep" their definition of marriage.
And change for change's sake doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to me either.
I don't want to intentionally offend anyone. I want what my parents have. They have been married for over 40 years, and my mother has said to me, "I want to dance at your WEDDING, not your 'civil union'."
I want to know how my wedding would affect straight weddings/couples.
Get over the inferiority complex you apparently have. If your concern is really about rights, take the civil unions and have your rights. But if this is about you feeling like society recognizes you as just as important or whatever, you're not going to achieve that by bitching and moaning all the way to the Supreme Court trying to change the definition of marriage which might make you feel good but will make others feel pretty ticked off. That's really not going to increase your stature in society.
Why should gays prevail? If red has been red forever and now someone wants to call it green, why should everyone else be forced to adapt to that?You keep saying you have to defend some hypothetical person who might oppose it at our expense.
To me, the term should be "civil marriage". Marriage is a legal contract, with a license granted by the state or locality.I say that's the only kind there is. Marriage belongs to civil society.
it's the height of arrogance to think that you'll automatically get what you want just because you want it really bad.Who says we think we'll automatically get it? We never have gotten anything automatically.
How do you figure that I have prejudices? Believe it or not, the fact that I don't agree with gay marriage doesn't mean I have prejudices against gays. That is similar to calling me racist just because I won't vote for Obama, and I won't have it.Believe it or not, yes it does mean you have prejudices against gays.
I'm willing to give you the legal rights. But if you push me to call it "marriage," no.The very notion that you claim the position to give me rights shows what kind of values you hold, and they are deeply offensive.
This is a false comparison. Those were separate but un[/n]equal. I can agree with civil unions which would be legally identical in every respect to marriages.
Why should gays prevail? If red has been red forever and now someone wants to call it green, why should everyone else be forced to adapt to that?
I wouldn't call anyone a racist based on knowing they wouldn't vote for one particular candidate, Obama. I wouldn't call somebody prejudiced based on knowing they didn't want one particular gay couple to get married. I WOULD see prejudice if I then found out it wasn't just that one gay couple, but ALL gay couples they didn't want to allow to get married.
What do you mean by "we"? Who is "we"? Who is "society"? The last time I checked I was a member of society too.
By the way I'm a proud gay man. ;)
And we're being "arrogant" simply because we're asking to be recognized and treated equally? That's rich. :(
You keep saying you have to defend some hypothetical person who might oppose it at our expense.
For me the question is why do you oppose it?
No, I'm already saying I'm happy to extend you the same rights with civil unions.
Lexta, I just checked your profile and it says you registered only yesterday. How did you find this forum, and how did you get interested in it?
Equal treatment under the law isn't something that anyone graciously decides to "extend." It's one of the foundations of the US Constitution.
Because I do not think it's unreasonable that marriage be the union of a man and a woman. I'm traditional. I also see no need for society to change the definition of a word so that some subset of the society can feel better about themselves. Feel good politically correct garbage is just that.
How do you figure that I have prejudices? Believe it or not, the fact that I don't agree with gay marriage doesn't mean I have prejudices against gays. That is similar to calling me racist just because I won't vote for Obama, and I won't have it.
You're equating relatively minor modifications to marriage law to monumental changes in the overall concept of what marriage is. I'm getting the very distinct impression that you just don't understand how significantly radical what you're asking for is in the eyes and hearts of many people.
Then forget it. Achieving "gay marriage" won't mean you are recognized as equal. There will still be homophobes (or whatever they're called) that will look down on you. And added to that you'll even probably generate more resentment from people that would have been willing to accept civil unions but take offense at gay marriage.
Get over the inferiority complex you apparently have. If your concern is really about rights, take the civil unions and have your rights. But if this is about you feeling like society recognizes you as just as important or whatever, you're not going to achieve that by bitching and moaning all the way to the Supreme Court trying to change the definition of marriage which might make you feel good but will make others feel pretty ticked off. That's really not going to increase your stature in society.
My positions are:
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This is the traditional and historical understanding of what marriage represents, both religiously and in a civic sense. There should be no pressure or expectation to change this time-honored institution, and no explanation beyond that should be necessary.
Civil unions are acceptable only at the federal level. I do not believe individual states should pass laws that institute the concept of civil unions, but I think it would be reasonable for the federal government to do so with a constitutional amendment--as long as that amendment also specifically states that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman.
I'm in favor of a federal constitutional amendment that provides for civil unions that have the exact same legal status as marriage. If what you want is equal rights then that'll do the job and I support it. If what you want is to intentionally offend people that have a more traditional view of marriage then, well, I don't support that endeavor and you shouldn't be surprised that others don't, either.
Well, like I said, please understand that just as you attach importance to the word "marriage," so do others that disagree with you. So while we may not agree, you should at least understand that it's not hard to understand that people can have just as much interest in blocking the attempts to redefine marriage as you have interest in redefining it.
Again, no-one is redefining marriage. They're violating their vows and it's a shame. But that doesn't mean the definition of marriage is automatically changed. 2 + 2 = 4 even if lots of people can't add and get 5.
Or perhaps those that have "a more progressive view of marriage" need to get over it or deal with the fact that society doesn't agree with them.
I take offense at what I consider to be extreme arrogance of those in the gay community that presume to tell society that we must change our traditional definition and understanding of a traditional institution such as marriage just because they've decided to become vocal.
Then I think you've joined the wrong forum then love.. nobody else here with your viewpoint!
Well I have the same viewpoint.
And it seems somewhat narrow and disingenuous to suggest that any "forum" should be completely linear and single-minded in its thinking.
And this is the last comment I will make on the topic.
Okay Herr, I concur.. ONE other person has lexta's viewpoint.. anyone else?!
Nobody has the same viewpoint here completely but I'd bet my house that most people here support gay rights here.
(And I like my house. And I rarely bet. )
states are required to give full faith and credit to legal contracts executed in other states.
I simply cannot understand why people have such a problem with gay marriage.If we talk globally for a minute, there are plenty of faiths which allow the man to have more than one wife.In fact in early Christianity there are plenty of examples of polygamy, to allow for the birth of more children.I believe, even here in the USA that holds true,illegally, for certain splinter groups of one faith. So what therefore defines a "typical marriage"The answer is there is no such thing. A male member of the Islamic faith could quite legitimately argue his right to take up to 4 wives.We may not all agree with it.However it is permitted within the tenets of his faith.
garbageVery nice. ;)
Apparently because we disagree on gay marriage that automatically means I'm wrong about everything.
Not sure how this comment lends itself to the gay marriage debate.
No one suggests that the variety of cultures and religions across the earth have a large spectrum of mating and family structures. So what? That does not mean citizens of the U.S. or any other country should, therefore, adopt any or all of those varieties as part of their own social structure, any more than we would find slavery, child abuse, and other 'globally' accepted practices as worthy of inclusion to our set of values.
There are already citizens of those cultures living in the USA and across most of Europe. So it does matter.Those citizens have not been told,your marriage does not fit with our model so sorry we will not recognise it.Like it or not, the institution of marriage in many different forms already exists here in the USA.
All I was trying to say and maybe I did not articulate my thoughts very well, was why treat a gay marriage any differently.
It is hypocritical, IMO to recognise the polygamous marriages of some faiths, and have them entitled to the same rights as any other US citizen, yet deny gays those same rights.
How can you argue that marriage is one man one woman, period, when there are so many faiths living here, where one man, 4 women is tolerated. Or is there some dual standard here that I am unaware of.
If you are going to state that the only permissable marriage is, the one man,one woman, situation.Then you have to deny the rights of all who do not fit that model.Many of whom are already living here as U.S citizens.
It strikes me that a lot of the arguments here, are not about the only marriage that can be recognised is the man/woman one.Other types of marriage already exist,in the U.S. So it seems to be specifically an anti gay thing.
I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong and have misconstrued the situation.
optom, don't feel bad - we're definitely in the majority here! ;D (if not out there ::) )
It's interesting to hear opposing views though. Well, at least somewhat interesting. :laugh: ;)
I think things are shifting in our direction, and I take some comfort in that. Even though people say all these words about why they oppose gay marriage (or any other equal rights for anybody) I still don't understand their point.
I suppose maybe they don't understand ours either ... :-\ But, whatever!
Oh and CONGRATULATIONS on your 2,000th post!!! ;D :D ;D
So Herr, Yu're gay aren't you? Why are you oppossed to gay marriage? I'm guessing its not becasue you like to be down on yourself... so .... why?
*bewildered look*
The equal rights in an adult union is not about the name; it's about the rights within. If the equal rights are guaranteed, the case is closed, imo. What the title on the contract says is mute. It hurts no one to walk away from the insistance of specific word-use unless the agenda has been mispresented and there was a more sinister game of political one-upmanship game going on while it was supposed to be about equal rights.
But what people are saying here is that ia nto equal in legal rights..
Also - if the title is so mute why not just call it a marriage?
All societies have structure. The structures exist for the common good and general, good operational workings so that the greatest number of people can coexist and move toward fulfillment of individual and group betterment.
part of western (and non western for that matter) culture is based on millenium-old natural standards that have, yes the bad word, religious bases as well. "Marriage" is a foundational aspect of society that has a meaning--man/woman. I understand that their is often a desire to change meanings, but 'marriage' is a term that is not ready for prime time when it comes to redefinition.
The vast majority of people support civil unions which would parallel every 'right' that male/female marriage has. So what is the argument? the majority of the nation wants to maintain an age-old word/meaning, and a small minority wants to disrupt that even though the goals of equality are achieved... Sounds petty to me.
The equal rights in an adult union is not about the name; it's about the rights within. If the equal rights are guaranteed, the case is closed, imo. What the title on the contract says is mute. It hurts no one to walk away from the insistance of specific word-use unless the agenda has been mispresented and there was a more sinister game of political one-upmanship game going on while it was supposed to be about equal rights.
I don't think it sounds petty. I find it insulting.
Let's pretend we have two identical restaurants. They look exactly the same and they serve identical dishes, same menu..everything. One restaurant is called "Marriage Cafe" and the other one is called "Civil Union Cafe". The town these two restaurants are located in has told you that you are more than welcome to frequent the "Civil Union Cafe", but you may not, FOR ANY REASON, ever enter the "Marriage Cafe". And why? Because you're not good enough. You're different. They wish to keep things the "way they are" in there.
That pretty much sums up how I feel and I don't find it petty at all. :(
Because there is no reason to oppose gay marriage except homophobia and prejudice.
There. I've said it. >:(
I don't think it sounds petty. I find it insulting.
Let's pretend we have two identical restaurants. They look exactly the same and they serve identical dishes, same menu..everything. One restaurant is called "Marriage Cafe" and the other one is called "Civil Union Cafe". The town these two restaurants are located in has told you that you are more than welcome to frequent the "Civil Union Cafe", but you may not, FOR ANY REASON, ever enter the "Marriage Cafe". And why? Because you're not good enough. You're different. They wish to keep things the "way they are" in there.
That pretty much sums up how I feel and I don't find it petty at all. :(
But what people are saying here is that ia nto equal in legal rights..
That's a nice hypothetical analogy, David. :)
Tell you what, I'm gonna say it, and I point no fingers at any individual, but I don't care who is offended:
Any gay person who is against gay "marriage," full "marriage" rights, exactly the same as available to heterosexuals, not some separate and allegedly equal category of "civil unions," has his own internal issues he needs to deal with and is probably internally homophobic.
Because there is no reason to oppose gay marriage except homophobia and prejudice.
There. I've said it. >:(
I don't think that analogy makes sense at all. People are not restaurants, and no one is excluded from restaurants.
If you want a non-human analogy, try this. You or anyone else has the right to make a soft drink, market it, sell it, promote and distribute it, etc etc, but you are not open to using the name coca cola. Already taken.
What I do find interesting is that every here falls back on the name issue and not the core agenda of rights. By avoiding the admission that rights is the issue and if rights are guaranteed, then the name should not matter.
If you think the word is so important to have, why then can you not believe those that want that word specified for traditional use are any less entitled to it?
Marriage was NEVER on the table for gay rights until recent times. The institution was scoffed at by most gays as being too institutional, too traditional, too straight and too restrictive. Changing attitudes, whether they be originated by aging baby boomers who want the transfer of loot easily, or younger generations who desire more traditionality, or anyone else who just wants to be like Mr. and Mrs. mainstream USA....fine. But, it seems by most that the uncompromising need to carry the word 'marriage' on a legallly equal certificate is just a finger in the eye of traditional families who have every right to be traditional if they choose to be.
Back in pre civil war south. There were people who owned slaves and held them in terms of chattel. To say that it was a tradition and should be allowed to continue because it had always been that way. Was completely unreasonable. There were people who totally disagreed. Not only the slaves themselves but the people of right mind and thought. They knew that it was completely unreasonable and barbaric to keep those "traditions" in place.
Just because something has been a tradition and always been that way, doesnt make it right. The holding of people as property, the owning of women and complete rule of every bit of their life, is still wrong.
If we go to the middle east and ask the large majority of the Muslims if they think that their time honored beliefs and traditions are right. We would certainly have the same responses that have been given here to argue against same sex marriage. It isnt right, simply because it has always been that way. It needs to be changed, It needs to become a thing of the past. We need to move into the future. Give everyone the same rights. Religious ideals are wonderful for having morals, but not the way to write all of our laws. There are so many different religions that
there is no way to make those laws fit to all the different religions.
I am still looking forward to someone giving me a rational reason that marriage to same sex couples is a threat or in any way deliterious to man woman marriage. I think I know a bit about marriage, and having a successful long term marriage. I have been married to the same man for fifty one years. I dont see any way in this world that gay or same sex marriage is going to change my marriage in any way...................janice
There is no right to marriage in the Constitution. But in order to ensure that gays have access to the same legal benefits of marriage that has been traditionally understood, without question, to exist for a married man and woman, I have no problem with instituting the concept of civil unions for gays. I don't think it's necessary to call that marriage and I don't think it's the job of government to redefine the English language for the purposes of societal engineering, nor do I think gays are denied legal rights due to the definition of a word by society.
And this is the last comment I will make on the topic.
Perhaps others who would tend to agree with lextra may not find such a one-sided environment to be a place of interest. ;)
That is absolutely not the case. Take insurance policies, for example. They vary from state to state and are not transferable across state borders; a totally new and different contract would be required.
Not sure how this comment lends itself to the gay marriage debate.
Yes, if the two pieces of legislation are the same, then what's the reason to have two pieces of legislation?
And, please, a real reason. Not a made-up justification.
I never said people are restaurants! What are you talking about? ???
I don't think that analogy makes sense at all. People are not restaurants, and no one is excluded from restaurants.
But, it seems by most that the uncompromising need to carry the word 'marriage' on a legallly equal certificate is just a finger in the eye of traditional families who have every right to be traditional if they choose to be.
Take insurance policies, for example. They vary from state to state and are not transferable across state borders; a totally new and different contract would be required.
Difficulties have already been had.
And you have yet to establish a need to for the union of gays to be called marriage of civil unions provide the exact same rights and benefits.
Hey brokeplex, well put. It's nice to be on the same side of an argument with you for a change! ;)
treasure the moment, I'll meet you over in Jess's virtual "cooling off" bar she has set up. I think she mixed up a pitcher of martinis just for me.
There's clearly something very threatening about the word "marriage" (the word in and of itself) being extended to gay people from the traditionalist perspective, as we've seen articulated throughout this thread.
I think the idea that the "tradition" of marriage has to be preserved as it has previously been defined is kind of a euphemistic smoke screen. Heterosexists (good term!) don't want to acknowledge gay couples as legitimate, period, because that would be tantamount to approving of homosexuality, which they don't.
I think the idea that the "tradition" of marriage has to be preserved as it has previously been defined is kind of a euphemistic smoke screen. Heterosexists (good term!) don't want to acknowledge gay couples as legitimate, period, because that would be tantamount to approving of homosexuality, which they don't.
I think it all boils down to this:
Would you support repealing DOM?
I, for one, would.
Would you vote for an amendment to your state constitution that would allow same sex marriages and equal rights for same-sex married couples as hetro couples.
I, for one, would.
Would you support an act by Congress similar to DOM that would, instead, guarantee equal rights for same sex married partners as hetro married partners.
I, for one, would.
I believe one needs to get those here who appear to not agree with same-sex marriage to answer 'no' to one of the above questions. Only at that point would he or she be against 'gay' marriage. Just because he or she may see it from another angle, I don't think it is necessarily homophobia. I believe homophobia is tossed around too loosely in the context of this discussion. Very similar to how 'racist' is tossed around in other discussions.
My point is this. If I can't be called 'married' because those who make law and/or the majority in this country don't want me and Steve to be called 'married' similar to our friends Cory and Brianna, who are married, just give me equal rights. I agree with Brokeplex, that in the very near future all this discussion will be a moot point, but until then, I would sit by just fine being treated equal under the law.
Brad
I remember someone here last year or so saying something like disapproving of homosexuality is like disapproving of sunset or rain. It's a fact of nature, and humans approving of it or not is pretty moot. Of course, moot unfortunately does not necessarily mean undangerous. :(
I remember someone here last year or so saying something like disapproving of homosexuality is like disapproving of sunset or rain. It's a fact of nature, and humans approving of it or not is pretty moot.
I'm a straight male.
I'm for lgbt rights because I believe in equality. I support same-sex marriage because I believe in love.
These same people, however, generally also consider homosexuality a choice, or something you do, rather than something you intrinsically are--no doubt basing it on the Bible.
Muslims certainly would vote against gay marriages in California.
OK, I'll be the second person to repeat this --
...
Here's an exchange that, according to the Gospels, might take place at some point:
...
But enough of Matthew 25:35-46!
(can't remember where I got this -- if any BetterMost member sees it and it's their work, please let me know and I'll add an acknowledgement)
If you can help - NoOnProp8 ( http://www.noonprop8.com ) has a matching fund campaign through today (Sunday) that will DOUBLE any contribution made:
https://secure.ga4.org/01/unfair