My sexual orientation and my positions on gay rights

[Wayne]

Hi everybody! Here's a thread to discuss our sexual orientation and our position on gay rights!   

In your first post, you have to say whether you consider yourself gay, straight, bisexual, or some other specific term describing your sexual orientation. You can't just say "other" though - be creative!

And tell us how you feel about gay rights, gay marriage, etc, and why! 

[Wayne]

OK I'll go first. My name is wdj and I'm a gay man!   

I'm for gay rights.

[Brown Eyes]

Hi wdj,

I'm a lesbian and I'm in favor of equal rights for the GLBT community across the board.

[CellarDweller]

Hiya WDJ!

I'm a gay man, and I'm for gay rights.

I'm a law abiding, and productive member of society, paying taxes just like everyone else.  I deserve the same rights everyone else has.

Civil Unions?  Thanks but no thanks.  Just another way of saying "Seperate, but equal".    I want marriage.

[Wayne]

Fun! 

[Kelda]

I'm a straight lady and I'm also for gay rights!

[Clyde-B]

Hi!

I'm a gay man and I'm for gay rights and gay marriage.  Separate-but-equal civil unions don't cut it with me either.  It would create double forms, double bookkeeping, double expense - for what purpose?  It would also run the risk that the included rights are not the same because they would be covered by separate legislation.   

[Ellemeno]

Do we have to have had sex recently to participate in this? 

In the misty past, I have had sex with individuals of both genders.  I want gay rights.

[Wayne]

  Go girl! And congrats on 10k posts!!   

[serious crayons]

I'm a straight woman, and I'm for gay rights.

[Fran]

Straight female

I support gay rights (including gay marriage).

[Wayne]

   Yay! It's Gay Rights Day here at the Twist Family Bible Study!   

[letxa2000]

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.

[Wayne]

Unnh?! 

[CellarDweller]

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.

So in other words, you are ok changing the Constitution with an amendment that will discriminate against a whole segment of society.

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.

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.

[optom3]

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.

Well said sir.

I am a straight woman and I believe all humans should be treated equal, and granted the same rights and protections.

The International bill of human rights, states,  "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights"

That being the case any marriage should automatically be ratified.That is of course unless people are suggesting gays ar not human beings.

Why are we always having to fight for something, votes for women, equal pay for women,equal rights for gays. It exasperates me.

The sentence above seems crystal clear to me, EQUAL IN DIGNITY AND RIGHTS,  there printed it larger ,so anyone against gay rights can see it. If not then may I suggest you consult a good Optometrist,I happen to know one, and if she finds nothing wrong with your eyesight, then maybe a neurological exam is in order.

It maters not whether people like it, the right is implicit.

Mass murderers on death row can marry,children as young as 14 in some places can marry,paedophiles can marry,the insane can marry,mentally retarded can marry, for goodness sake in some places they even have marriage ceremonies for pets !!!!!!

It is time to stop all this ludicrous posturing and just accept it.

Right feel better now,I will just hop down off my soap box.

As you can see I'm pretty much on the fence with this one, just swaying with the breeze,oops no, that was the dog just farting !!!

[Clyde-B]

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.

Similar arguments and reasoning would have  denied women the right to vote, and kept slavery.

And "no explanation beyond that should be necessary."  Is not going to carry much weight as a valid argument on this forum.  It's too close to "Because I said so."

 

[serious crayons]

Not to mention that the "traditional and historical understanding of what marriage represents" has varied widely in any number of ways over the centuries. Keep in mind that even the concept of marriage as the union of two people who love each other is relatively new.

[Brown Eyes]

Keep in mind that even the concept of marriage as the union of two people who love each other is relatively new.

Yes, this is certainly true.  And, deep into the past, marriage existed as a kind of institution the most modern women (or men for that matter) would never be able to bear.  There have been some very grim, historical realities regarding marriage.   And it seems that questioning and refining the concept of marriage, even for straight people, has been very beneficial.

And, contrary to letxa's comment, marriage has clearly evolved in terms of expectation and levels of equality between partners even in straight unions.

[letxa2000]

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.

[letxa2000]

And, contrary to letxa's comment, marriage has clearly evolved in terms of expectation and levels of equality between partners even in straight unions.

Actually that doesn't contradict anything I said, at least in a material way within the context of the discussion of gay rights.

[CellarDweller]

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.

[Brown Eyes]

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.

This is a great point Chuck.

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? 

[CellarDweller]

I don't expect churches to be forced to hold weddings.

First of all, we have gay churches that would be more than happy to accomodate us.  We don't have to force other churches to perform the ceremonies.

Secondly, plent of straight people get married in courthouses and other secular areas where religion is not used in the ceremony.

There's no reason that gay people can't have marriage.

[letxa2000]

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.

[Brown Eyes]

I have no problem with you having a wedding to celebrate your civil union.

Is this really a matter of semantics or word-choice?  What do you really feel is the difference between a "wedding" and a "civil union"?

[letxa2000]

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? 

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.

[Clyde-B]

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.

What would they find offensive?

[CellarDweller]

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.

[letxa2000]

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.

[CellarDweller]

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.

[CellarDweller]

[letxa2000]

As I said before, the definition of marriage was redefined when straight couples started cheating on each other and divorcing each other.

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.

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.

The conclusion you reach is not supported by the argument you make.

[serious crayons]

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.

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?

[CellarDweller]

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.

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?   I do believe that marriage means something special, and I'm entitled to have it as well as anyone else on this planet.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'm a gay man and I believe in equal civil rights for all citizens.

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.

 

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, just as their ancestors got over "a more traditional view" of the role of women in society (like, they shouldn't be able to vote) or that it is acceptable for some human beings to be mere chattel. It may not be easy and it may hurt a bit, but I have confidence that they can do 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. We're halfway there already in the requirement of obtaining a marriage license. And it should be obtaining the license on oath or affirmation that creates the legal union, not the words and signature of a pastor, priest, rabbi, or whoever concludes "marriages" in other, non-Judeo-Christian religions. 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.

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.

You may find it strange, but I actually agree with you here. A state-by-state standard is unacceptable. There needs to be a national standard. What is needed is a court challenge that goes to the Supreme Court of the United States, which will have to rule, under the "full faith and credit clause," that a contract, even a marriage contract, entered into in one state, must be legally binding in other states.

[CellarDweller]

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.

Civil Unions don't give us the protections that marriage does.

I read an article (God I wish I could remember where) that was focused on a state that allows civil unions.  Perhaps my state of NJ.

Gay couples were registering for civil unions, and then those couples were going to their employers, showing their paperwork that they had registered.  It was done for the purposes of adding a partner as a beneficiary to health benefits.  The company replied with:

"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."

I'm fortunate that the company I work for allows same-sex partners to be listed as a beneficary on health coverage whether or not you've entered into a "civil union".

[letxa2000]

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.

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 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?

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?

[letxa2000]

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?

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.

[Brown Eyes]

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).

Clearly, with gay rights issues, including marriage, everything would be far simpler if it came down to a general, nationwide law.

[letxa2000]

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.

No, this is a different issue.

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.

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."

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...

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'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 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.

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.

Or perhaps the "marriage" of a gay couple should have no standing in law instead?

[letxa2000]

"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."

Then the law of the state was inadequately clear about civil unions being entirely legally equal to a marriage or that company needs to be sued.  Changes this big aren't going to happen overnight and I don't doubt there will be some lawsuits involved.  But this isn't proof that you need "marriage."  It just means that the law about civil unions must be absolutely clear that they are legally identical to marriage and that must be afforded the exact same legitimacy.

[letxa2000]

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).

Not the same, though, because it doesn't matter to Vermont if Wyoming lets women vote.  Voting is an entirely local issue and what happens in Wyoming stays in Wyoming.  However, marriage licenses from one state are supposed to be honored by all states, hence the inherent problem of anything like civil unions being implemented on a state by state basis.

[Brown Eyes]

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.

[Clyde-B]

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."

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.

[southendmd]

To me, the term should be "civil marriage".  Marriage is a legal contract, with a license granted by the state or locality.  One can choose a religious celebrant or a justice of the peace.  No religious tradition is forced to perform my marriage, nor should it be.  

In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Constitution (written by John Adams) required equal treatment under the law.  

Rather than grant same-sex marriage to the original plaintiffs, the Court ordered the legislature to come up with a solution in 180 days.  

The legislature has since failed to come up with even the small number of votes necessary to start the process to amend the Constitution.  Why?  Because individual citizens have described their real-life situations to the legislators.  

Several thousand same-sex marriages later, the sky hasn't fallen.

Former Governor Romney tried to invoke a "traditional" 1913 law, designed in the days of miscegenation, to disallow marriages from out-of-state couples that would not be allowed in their home states.  Now that law has been removed from the books.  

Tradition changes, and for good reason.  

[Brown Eyes]

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.

[Jeff Wrangler]

No, this is a different issue.

No, comparison to school desegration is not a different issue. We're talking equality here. In many places in this country legal segregation was what society wanted and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to give it up.

The California Supreme Court is not the law of the land, it's the law of California.

Sure enough, but not my point.

The issue still has to be settled at a national evel.

As before, I agree.

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."

That's precisely why you need to read the California Supreme Court decision. It explains why a civil union is a 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?

And you seem to want society to maintain centuries of tradition just because you want it to. It's that sort of attitude that kept slavery alive in this country till past the middle of the nineteenth century, and give women no legal existence apart from their husbands until well into the nineteenth century. And these are not invalid comparisions if you are going to argue from "tradition" and "what society wants" or agrees or disagrees with. "Society" and the law eventually "dropped" the centuries-long tradition of slavery just because the abolitionists wanted it to and worked long and hard for many years to prevail because ultimately they were in the right.

No, I didn't say I wanted to tell them their churches would no longer have "the legal ability to perform marriages." I said the churches should no longer have the ability to perform legal marriages. The placement of the word legal in that sentence makes a difference, and I was very precise in what I wrote. I said nothing about forbidding religious or church marriages. By all means, let church "marriages" continue. I just said that it should no longer be the words of the clergy person and the clergy person's signature on a document that creates a legal union that needs a court action to be dissolved. It should be obtaining a license by oath or affirmation that creates the union that requires a court to dissolve it.

[Jeff Wrangler]

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.

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 don't expect to live to see one equal legal institution for everyone in this nation, but that's all right. Lots of people didn't live to see the end of slavery or the legalization of equal political rights for women, either, but eventually both came because they were right.

[letxa2000]

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.

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.

Tradition for tradition's sake doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to me.

And change for change's sake doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to me either.

[letxa2000]

The question would be:  "Why are there two different names for the exact same rights?"  What is the point - other than discrimination?

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 separate-but-equal legislation and it would be on very shaky ground.

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.

[letxa2000]

Tradition changes, and for good reason. 

On the other hand, tradition doesn't always change.  And when it changes it's not always for good reason.

[brokeplex]

gay man, strongly in favor of same sex marriage which I believe will be a reality in most of the 50 states and DC in the near future. civil unions are a stop gap measure in the right direction, but when I marry Dusty, I am going to MARRY DUSTY. which is going to happen right after this election is over. he finally said, "looks like a plan".  

[brokeplex]

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 think that you have it reversed from what is politically doable. the states will take the lead in both civil unions and marriage. there is no federal consensus to accept a constitutional amendment in this matter, and remember TX, there are extraordinary constitutional hurdles to go thru in order to a constitutional amendment to pass and become a part of the working constitution.

[brokeplex]

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 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.

[letxa2000]

Exactly, Clyde and Amanda. In the end, lexta's arguments, like all the arguments against gay marriage, simply come down to one word: Prejudice.

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.

[letxa2000]

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.

Difficulties have already been had.

[Clyde-B]

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.

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.

It would be a case of equal but equal.

You have yet to establish a need for two separate sets of legislation.  (A real need as opposed to just wanting it that way.)
 

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.

Why is there a negative attitude toward gays?  And who has this attitude?  You?

[Ellemeno]

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.

Now whose argument isn't sound?  You are saying that equal rights for ALL citizens is the same as not voting for ONE candidate?

[letxa2000]

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.

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.

Sometimes the best way to respect a tradition by expanding it to be more inclusive.

And sometimes the best way to respect tradition is to leave it alone.

You have yet to establish a need for two separate sets of legislation.  (A real need as opposed to just wanting it that way.)

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.

Why is there a negative attitude toward gays?  And who has this attitude?  You?

I don't, actually.  I don't understand the preferences of gays but I have no ill-will towards them nor do I care what they do in their bedrooms and I wouldn't hold that against them in my dealings with them.  A decade and a half ago I had friends that were gay and it didn't bother me in the least.  However, I am offended by an insistence that I be forced to bend society's traditional definition of something as basic as marriage to accommodate their preferences.  I'm willing to give you the legal rights.  But if you push me to call it "marriage," no. 

[letxa2000]

Now whose argument isn't sound?  You are saying that equal rights for ALL citizens is the same as not voting for ONE candidate?

You lost me.  I'm simply confused as to how you conclude that I'm prejudiced.

[Brown Eyes]

Again, it's the height of arrogance to think that you'll automatically get what you want just because you want it really bad. 

Well, the groups that want to keep the word and concept of marriage all to themselves seem to be practicing just this idea.  They want to keep marriage between a man and a woman "just because they want it [to stay that way] really bad."  I still don't see why this should be the case.

It's not arrogance to hope and work towards the goal of being recognized as equal within society.  Which, at its core is what the gay marriage issue is about. It's about the idea that gay and lesbian couples are just as important to society and within society as straight couples.

[pnwDUDE]

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.

Thanks to the Clinton administration, a bill was passed in congress (85-14, with a majority of the democrates voting for) defining marriage as between a man and a women. A majority of the people through their representatives have spoken. Done.

Do I believe in gay rights? I believe everyone should have the same rights. It's called equality. In most states, when an obviously gay man is walking down the street, is approached by a thug who smacks him in the face while calling him a "fag", that crime is deemed 'bias motivated' and is charged as a felony or has more serious consequences than a random assault on a person for no reason. If my grandpa is walking down the street, the same thug approaches and smacks him in the face, calls him an old geezer, it's simple assault. In this example, the penalty is stiffer (in prison sentence, etc) if the victim is gay than if he is my 90 year old grandfather. That, my friends, is not gay rights. That is special rights for the gay man, and I, as a gay man, don't think that is fair or a guarantee of equal rights.

In this country, marriage means something different than it does in most other countries. It is a tradition, and like I stated, has been sanctioned by the federal government in 1996, spearheaded by Pres. Clinton (same administration who gave us 'don't ask, don't tell'). I have been in a domestic partnership with the same man for 20 years. He is entitled to my pension if I die before he does. The city passed this legislation which entitles same-sex domestic partners this benefit. He is covered by my insurance as a same-sex partner. At this point, the only thing we don't have is the federal tax exemption based on married verses single. For me, that isn't a big deal. I don't care about saying "I'm married". Someone asks, I tell them I'm not married but I have a domestic partner.

Same-sex couples who seek recognition under the veil of 'marriage' is a very small minority. At this point, a very large majority (especially in Congress) wanna keep 'marriage' as between a man and woman. This country is based on majority. Having said this, I believe we don't have equal rights, and while some local jurisdictions (or states) see to it that we are treated as close to equal as our male/female counterparts, there does need to be bill passed in the senate that allows us the same protection/rights as hetro's. I don't demand marriage. For me it's not about recognition. It's about rights. There is a defining line between the demand to be legitimized and the demand for equal treatment.

Brad

[letxa2000]

Now we're on to something...

It's not arrogance to hope and work towards the goal of being recognized as equal within society.

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.

[Ellemeno]

You lost me.  I'm simply confused as to how you conclude that I'm prejudiced.

You said:

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 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.

[Ellemeno]

You've got a lively little thread going here, Wayne.

[David In Indy]

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.

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. 

[Berit]

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 also want to dance at your wedding  if you just invite me I'll be there.....

I am a straight woman who think's that equality includes the right to marry, regardless of gender. My marriage wows won't be less worth if same sexed couples also have the right to marry.

Society changes, has always done so and will always do so. Thank God for that.

So just post the invitation, I'll be there...... .....with gift, nice speech, champagne and the lot

Berit

[CellarDweller]

[Shakesthecoffecan]

Good lord, this thread has grown like wildfire.

I am a gay man, I am in favor of equal rights for all people. Women and gays should not be descriminated against in any way. I am in favor of gay marriage, full marriage, I do not accept domestic partnership.

[Shakesthecoffecan]

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.

Perhaps you need to get over your superiority complex. Hiding behind "tradition". Your tradition and beliefs hold me to be a lesser person than you, and that is unacceptable. Ticking people off?  Perhaps it is time those people walked a mile in our shoes.

[Brokeback_Dev]

I am a straight woman married to a man.  I dont believe in divorce.  I would not have taken my wedding vows if I wasnt planning on staying with my husband "till death do you part"

I would like to see equal rights for everyone.  I believe in GBLT Rights all the way.  

If two woman want to be married or two men or a transgendered marriage, then so be it.  I dont think that transgenders should be discriminated against.  As it stands now from what I know, they can get married but must identify themselves on all legal documents as "transgendered".

I cant believe on this whole forum not one person has come out as being transgender.  It would give me great honor to get to know you if you are here.  Please PM me.  

[Wayne]

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.

For me the question is why do you oppose it?

[Wayne]

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.

We permit churches to conduct marriages if it darnedly well pleases us to let them do it.   

[Wayne]

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.

The height of arrogance is to try to sway an entire dicussion of principles by chiding hard-working people for trivial supposed misdeeds that you make up yourself, which is what you are doing.   

[Wayne]

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.

Calling you homophobic because you say people shouldn't be allowed to marry who they love if they are gay is similar to calling you racist if you said Obama can't run for president because of his race.

[Wayne]

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.

[Marge_Innavera]

Hi, I'm a straight woman, married to a man, no children (never wanted any, either of us).

I've had gay friends, mostly male gay friends, since college and supporting gay rights was something I guess I took for granted until a few years ago when I got rather radicalized about human rights in general.  That was about the time I saw Brokeback.

About marriage -- feel very strongly that without marriage equality true equal rights for sexual minorities just isn't possible.  The identity of GLBT people as a group considered "the Other" by so much of society is based on not only sexual attraction but intimacy in general, the foundation of a life with a permanent partner - not religious beliefs, not tribal or ethnic identity, no race.  And if GLBT citizens don't have the legal right to marry (whether any individual chooses to or not), then their very identity will always be a lesser one in human society.

Civil unions and the prattle of our current crop of political candidates about "leaving it up to the states" is just a revival of two of the staples of Jim Crow and the White Citizens Councils.  It might happen that civil unions might be a necessary intermediate step but that can't be the final goal.

This is an interesting thread!  Glad you started it.

[Marge_Innavera]

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?

Society has been 'forced to adapt' to all kinds of social changes.  A common pattern is that the very idea is ridiculed at first, and that established organized religious groups are adamantly opposed, conveniently forgetting this part of their history later.


Here's a few excerpts from the California Supremes' legal view on the "tradition" argument:

"Although the understanding of marriage as limited to a union of a man and a woman is undeniably the predominant one, if we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions.

"It is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage, (2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment. As the United States Supreme Court observed in its decision in Lawrence v. Texas, supra, 539 U.S. 558, 579, the expansive and protective provisions of our constitutions, such as the due process clause, were drafted with the knowledge that "times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."


And the basis of their objection to the civil  union ghetto:

"because of the long and celebrated history of the term "marriage" and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.

"Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship. "

The last I looked, the full decision is at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

[letxa2000]

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.

Now I see your argument but I disagree.  There is an infinitely long list of things I would not accept as "marriage," not just same-sex.  So it's not that I'm prejudiced against gays, it's just that I have a traditional definition of marriage.  Big difference.

[Marge_Innavera]

One other comment about California:

The legal system is not a patchwork of state legal structures.  Not only are all of them subject to the Federal Constitution, but they all have similar principles of legal practice including precedents.  The statements of the Supremes I quoted above aren't like posts in a blog; they are a matter of legal record and precedents can be quite powerful.

Moreover, the US Constitution is based on every citizen having equal standing under the law, and as marriage is a legal contract it covers that.  And since we are a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy, states are required to give full faith and credit to legal contracts executed in other states.

[letxa2000]

What do you mean by "we"? Who is "we"? Who is "society"? The last time I checked I was a member of society too.

Yes, you are.

By the way I'm a proud gay man.

Good for you.  Doesn't bother me.

And we're being "arrogant" simply because we're asking to be recognized and treated equally? That's rich. 

No, I'm already saying I'm happy to extend you the same rights with civil unions.  But it is arrogant to assume that society will change its definition of marriage for you.  Rights is one thing.  Redefining words for your convenience and so you feel better about yourselves is something different.

[Marge_Innavera]

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?

[letxa2000]

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?

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.

[Marge_Innavera]

No, I'm already saying I'm happy to extend you the same rights with civil unions. 

Equal treatment under the law isn't something that anyone graciously decides to "extend."  It's one of the foundations of the US Constitution.

[letxa2000]

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?

Because of the thread talking about the myth if the Clinton surplus that linked to an article I wrote.  I actually only came to this forum to discuss that which is my real interest in being here, but wdj decided rather than discuss the matter of the Clinton surplus that he/she wanted to take the thread off-topic and discuss my position on gay marriage (as if it had anything to do with the Clinton surplus).  Apparently because we disagree on gay marriage that automatically means I'm wrong about everything.  Anyway, my main interest is the myth of the Clinton surplus so I think that's where I'll continue. 

I willingly agreed to be drawn into this other debate which I really shouldn't have done, but I did in the interest of keeping the other thread on-topic--now the other thread has mostly died and all my time is being sucked into this thread.  The topic of gay marriage is obviously of very high interest to folks here but of very little interest to me--I listed a position on gay marriage on my website simply in the interests of disclosure of my positions, not because I'm really all that interested in the topic.  If you go through my website you'll find I attack various positions and myths but nowhere do I make a case against gay marriage--I simply state my position as a matter of disclosure.  The point being that while I have a position on the matter, it is of not high importance or interest to me.

I think I've said all there is for me to say on this topic and all we can do now is go in circles.  So I'll accept that we won't agree on this matter and I'll withdrawal to the thread that was touching on matters that are not a matter of opinion or points of view, but a matter of fact... that there was never a surplus under Clinton.

[letxa2000]

Equal treatment under the law isn't something that anyone graciously decides to "extend."  It's one of the foundations of the US Constitution.

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.

[optom3]

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.

Indeed if things had not changed over the years as fertility rates increased and neonatal deaths decreased we Christians could still be practicing polygamy.So I can see no valid argument t, for not changing things, when they have changed so radically over the centuries.We are a multi cultural world now,which encompasses lots of different faiths and different definitions of the institution of marriage.To isolate gay marriage, and exclude the possibility of it, is to be prejudiced.

So all those who are against it, for the sake of change or conservatism, need to go off protesting about all the other types of marriage that exist, some illegally.They need to be walking with banners advocating the reinstating of polygamy, because that only stopped within the Christian faith because of change.
I still say as a married woman with 3 kids that all citizens should be allowed equal rights.We will never get there without a fight.I do not see gays as moaning or whining.I see them fighting for their rights, in the same way the suffragettes did for votes, and the feminists for equal pay.
It would be interesting to see a straw poll of those who are against gay marriage,  to see what else they are against.

I hope one day someone in decades hence discovers this thread, or reads about all the fuss and just laughs, as gay marriages have become the norm.In the same way we women here, cannot imagine not being allowed to vote.

[Jeff Wrangler]

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.

What makes you so certain--or at least think--that we want or need this "to feel good about ourselves." That comment is the height of arrogance and condescension. This is not about anybody feeling good about themselves. This is about equal protection and equal rights under the law.

[Jeff Wrangler]

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 the one who is personalizing here, not me. I didn't accuse you of being prejudiced. I said that the arguments against gay marriage, in the end, are founded on prejudice. And being prejudiced against gay marriage doesn't necessarily mean you are prejudiced against gay people, either. But the argument against gay marriage in the end comes down to "We don't want change because we don't want change." It is premised on heterosexist fear of loss of a priviledged position in society. And continued denial of the right of gays to marry is a continued denial of equal protection under the law.

[Jeff Wrangler]

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.

Of course people once felt the same way about the abolition of slavery and the recognition of equal civil rights for women and racial minorities--that it was a significantly radical change for society.

But society changed, and society survived.

[Jeff Wrangler]

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.

This also isn't about becoming socially acceptable to Joe and Jane Six-pack. As long as Joe and Jane leave me alone, they can think what they damn well please, and I don't give a fart for their opinion of me. This is about being equal in the eyes of the law, which we aren't, and which civil unions aren't.

Once we get the legal recognition, society will follow in time. It may take a long time, even a very long time, but it will happen when society discovers that life will still go on as usual.

And how dare you assume that anyone here has an inferiority complex. Again we get the height of heterosexist arrogance.

[Kelda]

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.

Then I think you've joined the wrong forum then love.. nobody else here with your viewpoint! You do know this is a forum centred around a gay love story don't you!? 

[Kelda]

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. 

I just spoke with my mouth full there and screamed an obscenity when I dropped something on my toe earlier.. Sorry for offending you.. oh but then - you aint in my life, sitting in my living room or my friend..... so i can;t have offended you....

So gay marriage affects you how exactly?

[Kelda]

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.

Why? What has it got to do with you? How does this affect your life or your marriage? I fail to undestand why it requires blocking?

[Kelda]

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.

So what if the female has an affair and leaves the man and wants a divorce but the guy is a traditionalist? Or vice versa? What then?

That person doesn't want the 'shame' but unfortunately they've got it.

[Kelda]

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. 

Whose society are we looking at here? I think there may be quite a few societies that do agree.

[Kelda]

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. 

I'm straight.. am I part of the gay society?

[HerrKaiser]

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.

[Kelda]

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.

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. )

[Kelda]

And this is the last comment I will make on the topic.

Please continue - I think its an interesting debate... and it seems you have someone else here to fight your corner in Herr. I still fail to understand, so would be interested in you providing more conclusive reasons for your POV.

[HerrKaiser]

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. )

Perhaps others who would tend to agree with lextra may not find such a one-sided environment to be a place of interest.  

Nonetheless, your suggestions that someone who agrees with lextra does not support gay rights is flawed logic since it is abundantly true that full support of gay rights and support of civil unions (as opposed to the legal term of marriage) can live in the same realm, lest you agree that Bill Clinton, Barack obama, Hillary Clinton, for examples, do not support gay rights.

[HerrKaiser]

states are required to give full faith and credit to legal contracts executed in other states.

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.

[HerrKaiser]

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.

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.

[Kelda]

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*

[Wayne]

garbage

Very nice.   

Letxa you still haven't addressed the first issue in the title of this thread: What is your sexual orientation?

[Wayne]

Apparently because we disagree on gay marriage that automatically means I'm wrong about everything.

[optom3]

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.

[optom3]

 I give in.

For the 1st time ever on a thread here.Those who are against gay marriage, can stay with their opinion.They have not done anything to change mine.I never for a minute suggested that anyone who was anti gay marriage was anti every faith marriage.

I merely tried to point out that if your argument against gay marriage is because it does not fit with the one man/one woman model.Then you must by defintion be against all the other types of marriage that exist within different faith groups. Many of whom live here quite happily as US citizens, as they do not fit the model either.

Me personally, I still think as I did at the start of the thread, that all couples should be granted the same rights.

One thing I have learned is, I am truly shocked by how much anger and seeming prejudice has been expressed here. I also wish I was so perfect that I could set myself up as the moral arbiter of all such things.

I am a mere human though, so by definition flawed,maybe that's why I think gay marriage is fine. I am obviously not meant to be here amongst such super humans.

I am off to beat a hasty retreat to mere mortal land.

[Wayne]

optom, don't feel bad - we're definitely in the majority here!      (if not out there    )

It's interesting to hear opposing views though. Well, at least somewhat interesting.   

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!!!     

[optom3]

optom, don't feel bad - we're definitely in the majority here!      (if not out there    )

It's interesting to hear opposing views though. Well, at least somewhat interesting.   

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!!!     

Thanks,  Oh no , I said I wasn't comming back on this thread. Blame my evil doppleganger.

[HerrKaiser]

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*

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.

[CellarDweller]

http://www.glad.org/rights/OP7-marriagevcu.PDF

[Kelda]

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?

[Clyde-B]

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?

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.

[David In Indy]

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.

[Jeff Wrangler]

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.

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. 

[CellarDweller]

Because there is no reason to oppose gay marriage except homophobia and prejudice.

There. I've said it. 

Preach on, Jeff!  I've never heard a compelling argument as to why there should NOT be gay marriage.

Saying "no" because "It's tradition, this is the way it is" makes no sense to me.

[HerrKaiser]

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.

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.

[HerrKaiser]

But what people are saying here is that ia nto equal in legal rights..

I don't know what "people" are saying, but listen to the candidates. Obama, mccain, and current adiministion outlines civil unions as equal.

[CellarDweller]

Civil Unions Vs. Marriage: Equality Knows No Exceptions


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/414159/civil_unions_vs_marriage_equality_knows.html

[CellarDweller]

Civil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal


http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

[HerrKaiser]

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. 

Well there you've said it...but many would wonder why such energy on an issue that is the same piece of pie but you want your neighbor's instead of the one you have.

[ifyoucantfixit]

      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

[David In Indy]

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.

I never said people are restaurants! What are you talking about?

[opinionista]

      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

Hey Janice, well said!

[Marge_Innavera]

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.

You might want to re-read my post.  It did not refer to marriage being in the Constitution -- the Constitution does not guarantee the right of marriage to heterosexual couples either. I was referring to equal rights under the law.

You seem to be rather snarked over threads expiring and being "sucked into" a discussion on marriage equality.  Threads on message boards never continue to infinity, and if you consider same-sex marriage an irrelevant topic I suggest you look around the forum a little more.  Its identity developed long before you started posting here.

[Marge_Innavera]

Perhaps others who would tend to agree with lextra may not find such a one-sided environment to be a place of interest.  

Participation in this and other Internet message boards are voluntary, and neither hosts nor participants have any obligation to shoehorn their opinions into a one-size-fits-all mold.  People who are opposed to equal rights for gays are likely to be in a minority here; so be it.  They can either be the loyal opposition or find another venue but demanding that the venue change to manufacture a faux "balance" won't fly.

[Marge_Innavera]

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.

Precedents indicate it does apply to marriage contracts. Otherwise, interracial marriages would likey not be recognized in some areas.  For that matter, interfaith marriages might not either.

[Marge_Innavera]

Not sure how this comment lends itself to the gay marriage debate.

It goes to the argument that there is some uniform, unchanging standard for what marriage is, when in fact it's changed continually over time and in Western countries has changed in the past half-century. 

[Marge_Innavera]

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.

If we buy into the fantasy of civil unions being the same as marriage, sooner or later there will be various kinds of lawsuits involving the legal protections of marriage and the question will come up as to why two identical institutions, varying only with the gender mix of the couple, are given two different names.  That's when the fantasy falls apart.

Not that it's kept a former President and both of our magnificent Dem candidates from using it as a dodge. That's why regardless of who's elected in November, we advocates of marriage equality will have to keep holding their feet to the fire.

[Marge_Innavera]

I never said people are restaurants! What are you talking about?

Apparently, there's a certain difficulty with analogies.

I don't think that analogy makes sense at all. People are not restaurants, and no one is excluded from restaurants.

The claim that "no one is excluded from restaurants" is either disingenuous or the poster has zilch interest in history, even fairly recent history.  Plenty of people were excluded from restaurants, which were labeled "White Only" instead of "Marriage", and guess what? we heard exactly the same arguments about tradition and the same intransigent opposition from powerful religious institutions.  To the same end, there's the same aggressive promotion of the notion that the whole issue could be avoided by a separate-but-equal approach -- which our Democratic candidate considers plenty good enough for gays, although he obviously would find it inconvenient if applied to himself.

The analogy was a very apt one.

[Jeff Wrangler]

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.

Here we go again. The same old beside-the-point tripe trying to pass as argument. As if gay people being married somehow prevents straight people from having the traditional marriage they want.

But will we ever get an explanation of how this is so? No, of course not. All we ever get from the Opposition is assertions. And as someone, I think maybe it was Louise, has already said on this thread, just to assert something is true does not make it true.

[Jeff Wrangler]

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.

Yes, but if, say, you have a car, and it's insured in say, Pennsylvania, and you have an accident in Ohio, your insurance is not invalid because you crossed state lines--unless, of course, your contract stipulated that to be the case.

So this insurance policy analogy is an invalid comparison to marriage.

[southendmd]

"Tradition" -- that's the way it's always been.  That's no argument at all.

"Tradition" says the definition of a "voter" is a white man with property.  Gee, that's changed, and things are fine.

"Tradition" says a white man could only marry a white woman.  Gee, that's changed, and things are fine.

"Tradition" will always beg to be changed. 

[brokeplex]

Difficulties have already been had.

give me details, on how "full faith and credit" would not apply if say the Cali Supremes ruling stands after Nov 4th?

[brokeplex]

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.

You may have a point that a well drawn up civil union contract can give the benefits of marriage (taxwise, benfitwise, etc)

But there is another intangible benefit - a statement of equality. In the long run this is the most important change brought by same sex marriage. The statement of equality moves the society as a whole towards an equality of treatment more than anything else can. And I am not thinking so much of myself, or even Dusty, I am thinking of the newest generations of gays, they need that statement of equality that I never was given. On this particular forum, we have been drawn here because of the effect that the movie and the short story BBM had on us, the story shows the tragedy of the effects of homophobia and denial on the lives of two men and their family's. The statement of equality that marriage brings takes us much further down the road towards the goal of the ending of the occurrence of real life stories of men and women like Ennis and Jack. For that reason alone, I am delighted to live in times when same sex marriage will become a reality in the near future.

[serious crayons]

Hey brokeplex, well put. It's nice to be on the same side of an argument with you for a change! 

[brokeplex]

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.

[Brown Eyes]

Yep, I agree too, well said brokeplex.

And, I keep coming back to the question... if civil unions and marriage are meant to be exactly the same, as letxa has suggested in numerous posts, why would there be a need for two words or two systems for identical things?  And, I think it's exactly what brokeplex says here... that the word marriage implies much more in terms of placing all relationships (straight and gay) on an equal level in terms of societal acceptance and recognition (and respect).  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.

[serious crayons]

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.

I've been there a couple of times already. A martini sounds great. Gin or vodka?

[David In Indy]

A good friend of mine posted this over at a different forum. I thought it was very powerful and well written so I'd like share it with the rest of you....


The Ballot issue in California in November is Proposition 8 and they have been running the most elegant creative and astute commericial all summer.  It actually features a straight couple, it opens showing a beautiful young bride preparing for her wedding, perfect hair, perfect makeup, flowers, long white gown...she is the picture of loveliness.  Then she takes her fathers arm and moves to exit the house to meet her groom.  In the garden the guests are gathered, the groom and Best Man wait under the gazebo.  But with every step our bride takes she meets some misfortune, her veil is snagged on a tree, someone trips her and tears her gown and as she falls to the ground her beloved groom is prevented by the best man from going to her to offer his assistance, his support and his love.  Then we get the voice over "What if someone wanted to prevent you from marrying the person you love?  Vote No on Prop 8   Equal Rights for all Americans"  It really is a canny bit of political advertising. 

Reminds me of the summation in John Grisham's  novel & film "A Time To Kill" about a black man being tried for killing the two white men who raped and attempted to murder his 12 year old daughter.  In Grisham's work the defense attorney faces the seemly insurmountable job of getting a black man a fair trial in the south  and as he sums up the defense of his client for the all white jury.  He tells the jury to close their eyes and picture her as he chronicles the heinous things the little girl suffered at the hands of these brutal men and as he gets to the end of his horrible recitation he asks them "can you see her?, can you SEE her? Now imagine she's white"

Powerful stuff    Gay Marriage is a civil rights issue.  Too many right wing fundamentalists want to forget that we have separation of Church and State in this country. The issue is not about Marriage as sanctioned by any Church.  Civil Marriage is a right in this country and it is a right that should be extended to all Americans equally.

You can't legislate equality or morality but you can legislate civil rights and the times they are a changin and I don't know what will happen in November but you can't unring the bell and Gay Marriage is coming like or it or not.

[pnwDUDE]

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

[MountainMan]

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.

[Jeff Wrangler]

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.

That's it, Amanda. Gay marriage is a threat to heterosexist privilege and dominance.

[serious crayons]

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.

[Ellemeno]

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 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. 

[Clyde-B]

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.

Most traditions in this country are inclusive and encourage expansion.  Can you imagine someone from overseas visiting the US in November and being told, "I'm sorry Thanksgiving is an American holiday, you're not American you can't participate."

Marriage is not being described as a tradition; it's being described as a closed club interested in excluding certain individuals from membership.

[HerrKaiser]

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

thanks brad for the clarity. I endorse your three points; so does Bush, so does McCain, as does obama...and based on polls, a majority of americans as well. And, these three, myself and the same majority of americans agree with you that the three points achieves the goal, without the label of marriage.

I don't know if 'marriage' will ever be a moot point, but it seems to me that your position is the most sensible and reasonable for the current timeframe.

[serious crayons]

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. 

Well, I strongly disapprove of cold weather, but that hasn't seemed to have much effect on the Minnesota climate. 

My favorite is the IMDb trolls who say they "don't agree with homosexuality." What's to agree or disagree with? And who asked you, anyway?

[Jeff Wrangler]

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.

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. This is where the "curing homosexuality" bullshit comes in. I'm afraid there is really no common ground here for any kind of acceptable compromise, because if you truly believe that being gay is a choice, and a wrong or sinful choice at that, you are never going to agree to anything that legitimizes homosexuality in any way.

Until, maybe, your child or your sibling turns out to be gay. ...

[Kelda]

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.

 

[HerrKaiser]

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.

I don't think so. This comment is not based on any credible or projectable research data that I know of. If it exists, please present it so we can take a look.

To align with that idea suggests that the majority of people in california consider homosexuality a choice based on fundamental biblical teaching. Very implausible and hard to believe such an exaggeration.

[MountainMan]

my friend just posted this on her facebook page so I thought I'd share...

 

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3WZFZGN9DA[/youtube]

[Ellemeno]

That's great, MountainMan, thank you.

[CellarDweller]

As you know, there is a huge battle about to occur in California over Prop 8 which would ban gay marriage.

Following a recent spate of television and radio ads on behalf of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, a new poll suggests a rise in support for Proposition 8, the ballot measure that would block gay men and lesbians from marrying.



If you would like to make a donation to help protect against Prop 8, you can do so here.



http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4375153

[Artiste]

Muslims certainly would vote against gay marriages in California.

Any other so-called religions?


Au revoir,
hugs!

[CellarDweller]

Muslims certainly would vote against gay marriages in California.

actually, Artiste, it's the Mormons that are giving millions in donations to the fight against Prop 8, not the Muslims.

[Artiste]

Muslims are too cheap to hand out money to non-muslims; since it's against their religion to do so, did you know?

But of course, Mormons and other so-called religions will hand out money against gays even if their sons or daughters are gays!

I call these so-called religions and not real ones!!

Asses are always blind?

A local politicians here now said in a school that all gay should be killed; so will muslims, mormons, etc. as so-called religions say that too?

Au revoir,
hugs!

[Marge_Innavera]

OK, I'll be the second person to repeat this --

Individual Muslim voters might be supporting Prop 8, but the organized resistance is coming from the usual suspects that American culture demands we respect whether their actions warrant it or not: to-wit, conservative Protestants, the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic Church.  They've poured a great deal of money into the anti-equality measure, money they could have been spending feeding the hungry, "clothing the naked" (as the Gospels say) and ministering to the imprisoned, the lonely and the grief stricken.

Here's an exchange that, according to the Gospels, might take place at some point:

"I didn't let gays marry."

But people starved.....

"But I didn't let gays marry. "

But homeless people froze to death ...

"But I didn't let gays marry."

But people died in wars .......

"But I didn't let gays marry."

But people were ill and you ignored them...


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)

[Jeff Wrangler]

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)

Never saw that before, but that's real good, Marge. Thanks for posting it!

[Artiste]

Good subject thread.

I am a gay man.

At first, I thought that gay marriages was an odd subject!

More and more thoughts about it, I became for it!

I am still scared about it... however.

Au revoir,
hugs!

[CellarDweller]

Fresno priest's stance against anti-gay-marriage proposition roils church

By Duke Helfand and Catherine Saillant, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 13, 2008


A week ago, Father Geoffrey Farrow stood before his Roman Catholic parishioners in Fresno and delivered a sermon that placed him squarely at odds with his church over gay marriage.

With Proposition 8 on the November ballot, and his own bishop urging Central Valley priests to support its definition of traditional marriage, Farrow told congregants he felt obligated to break "a numbing silence" about church prejudice against homosexuals.


"How is marriage protected by intimidating gay and lesbian people into loveless and lonely lives?" he asked parishioners of the St. Paul Newman Center. "I am morally compelled to vote no on Proposition 8."

Then Farrow -- who had revealed that he was gay during a television interview immediately before Mass -- added a coda to his sermon.

"I know these words of truth will cost me dearly," he said. "But to withhold them . . . I would become an accomplice to a moral evil that strips gay and lesbian people not only of their civil rights but of their human dignity as well."


On Thursday, Fresno Bishop John T. Steinbock removed Farrow, 50, as pastor of the St. Paul Newman Center, which primarily serves students and faculty at Cal State Fresno.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaypriest13-2008oct13,0,2646781.story

[Artiste]

Merci CellarDwellar !

That is good news that he acted with freedom !

May I praise and hug         Geoffrey Farrow                !


Au revoir,
hugs!  May freedom continue to rign in the USA and the World !

[CellarDweller]

Hello BetterMost members!

I'm quoting a post from DCF in our "Le Bar" thread where the slash fans/authors chat.

You have until midnight tonight for this!

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

The link that says "unfair" just above takes you right to the donation page!

[Artiste]

CellarDwellar:

May I say that I love what you said (which I just found and read gladly):
      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'."

             
...............

CellarDwellar: And my wish is that my your wish, that, happen to you, for you, your parents to be with you there and then being married, and for your friends and all being there at your happy time wedding !

Ay revoir,
hugs!

[Artiste]

More news wanted!

Please!

Au revoir,
hugs!